Written by Sean Janssen, The Union Democrat
The annual Calaveras County Grand Jury report released Thursday is highly critical of county government — starting at the top with the Board of Supervisors — and finds flaws in the Assessor’s Office taxation policies and procedures that led to an estimated $1,278,000 in revenue shortfalls last year.
The report found that Assessor Leslie Davis’ office improperly waived or failed to apply tax penalties of 10 percent on those who did not file an annual property statement in 2010 and 2011, costing the county about $500,000 each year.
In addition, staffing budget reductions imposed by the Board of Supervisors in 2011 led Davis not to support the unsecured property tax roll — meaning businesses, boats and planes — and thus county schools lost about $600,000 and the county about $178,000 in uncollected revenue.
“The financial gain to the county could have more than paid to staff the position,” concluded the report from an appointed panel of 18 citizens tasked to investigate citizen complaints and review the operations of city and county government agencies and special districts.
The Grand Jury recommends that supervisors fund “all revenue generating functions” in the Assessor’s Office.
The panel had more to say on the conduct of the board.
“The Grand Jury witnessed examples of and heard testimony regarding unprofessional behavior by some Supervisors during BOS and other agency meetings,” stated the report authored by foreman Dan McPherson. “This includes shouting at other board members and the public, refusing to abide by the agenda structure in order to suppress public comments, and making sarcastic, inappropriate remarks.”
The Grand Jury interviewed witnesses who said supervisors repeatedly violated the Brown Act open meetings law, “including failure to recuse, cronyism and attempts to influence other Board members in their voting decisions outside public meetings.”
County employees have left their jobs because of “intimidation” and “being frequently pressured” by supervisors, the report stated, adding that supervisors receive minimal bi-annual ethics training, scarcely rotate their committee assignments and are not term-limited, causing “stagnation and undue influence by lengthy time in office.”
Though three of the five supervisors are in either their first or second four-year term, Supervisor Tom Tryon, who represents Angels Camp, Copperopolis and Vallecito, has sat on the board since 1984 and is seeking an eighth term this fall. Tryon is the second-longest tenured county supervisor in California, behind Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, first elected four years earlier.
Like Tryon, Antonovich is seeking re-election this year, but unlike him, he will be termed out in 2016.
Supervisor Merita Callaway, who represents the rest of the Highway 4 corridor from Douglas Flat east through Murphys and Arnold to the county line, has been in office since winning a 1993 recall of first-termer Michael McRay and was re-elected to her fifth full term in 2010.
The Grand Jury also found in an audit of 80 randomly selected personnel files at the county Human Resources Department, just 14 contained up-to-date performance evaluations and it called on the board to make annual reviews mandatory.
The panel also asked the board to reconsider its removal of an 80-bed dormitory from the jail project now under construction in light of Assembly Bill 109 impacts.
Other findings included:
• A bid process for construction of the Jenny Lind Veterans Memorial District Community Hall was “flawed … due to a lack of understanding of the process by the (district) board.”
• Written service requests to the county Public Works Department elicit an inconsistent response and “it has been several years since Public Works has conducted customer service training.”
• A report on the public’s “lost confidence” in the county’s health care system as managed by Mark Twain St. Joseph’s Hospital, first released as an interim report in April. The Mark Twain Health Care District board submitted a response to those findings earlier this month.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Friday, June 29, 2012
(Sacramento) Grand jury report blisters Twin Rivers school district
By Melody Gutierrez - The Sacramento Bee
After the Sacramento County grand jury learned earlier this year that four unregistered weapons were being housed at the Twin Rivers Unified School District Police Department, the panel decided to have a look inside the evidence room.
The four guns, which were not there during the grand jury's first inspection, appeared during the second visit, including a semiautomatic Uzi. Finding out who returned them proved frustrating, said grand jury foreman Don Prange Sr.
"We demanded to see the tapes for that period of time, because they have cameras in the hallway and evidence locker," Prange Sr. said. "It just happens that tape was missing."
The grand jury's yearlong investigation, which was released Thursday, alleged widespread corruption and myriad illegal actions in the Twin Rivers district and its police force dating back several years.
It alleges that district leaders actively destroyed the careers of individuals who reported unlawful acts, violated the rights of employees and police officers, abused their fiduciary responsibilities and misled the public with erroneous information.
The grand jury also calls on the newly elected school board to consider replacing Superintendent Frank Porter, Deputy Superintendent Ziggy Robeson, Associate Superintendent of Human Resources Patty Smart, Assistant Superintendent of Facilities Services Alan Colombo and district spokeswoman Trinette Marquis.
The names of the individuals are not used in the report, although their titles make it evident.
Porter retired earlier this month and Robeson is on paid administrative leave.
"This is vindication for all of us in the community who have been out there trying to highlight these issues and let folks know that we really want some support and to see change come to Twin Rivers," said David DeLuz, president of the Greater Sacramento Urban League.
His organization is hosting a community meeting at 10 a.m. today at 3725 Marysville Blvd. to review the report.
In a prepared statement, Twin Rivers officials declined to comment specifically on allegations raised in the report. The district said commenting could compromise ongoing police investigations.
The District Attorney's Office, Sacramento Police Department, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are investigating allegations in the grand jury report and others that are not.
"The district encourages and welcomes these inquiries as it is important for the public to know that the Twin Rivers Unified School District has rooted out all illicit and criminal conduct," according to the statement from Tom Janis, an assistant superintendent.
The school district has 90 days to respond to the report. This is the second consecutive grand jury report on Twin Rivers Unified. The school district in the city's north area largely dismissed the first, which alleged financial mismanagement, racial tension and ongoing feuds since the district was created in 2007.
The most recent grand jury report includes allegations that the district's outside legal counsel took Police Chief Christopher Breck's computer and the district's server, despite subpoenas issued during that time ordering that emails, documents and voice mails be produced.
Breck has been on paid administrative leave since November.
Acting Chief Scott LaCosse, who has been working to address issues in the department since January, said he agrees with 98 percent of what was in the report about the Police Department.
"It's a benefit to the Police Department to have had several outside reviews on what has happened down here and a public airing of facts as found by the grand jury," LaCosse said. "We need to be transparent to the extent the law permits."
Newly elected trustee John Dexter said the grand jury report can be a blueprint for moving forward. "I will do what I can to make this right," Dexter said. "We have too many great employees who after this report will be embarrassed to say they work for Twin Rivers and that shouldn't be the case."
Other allegations in the report include:
• A detective told the grand jury he believed money is missing from the police station's evidence room and narcotics may have also been stolen.
• A teacher – who is the daughter of Porter's administrative assistant – had her car towed, the grand jury said. Porter emailed Breck's administrative assistant to refund the teacher's $200 towing fee.
That teacher had allowed an unlicensed 17-year-old student to drive her car, the report alleges. The teacher and student were investigated by the Twin Rivers Police Department and the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department.
The grand jury wanted to interview the teacher but was told she now lives and teaches in another state.
• The grand jury was especially critical of Breck. An officer testified that Breck asked him on several occasions to do personal tasks, such as making repairs to Breck's home or buying him cigars.
The officer said on many occasions he was instructed to be a driver for Breck and his wife, Twin Rivers Officer Margueritte Dias-Breck, for special events.
The grand jury report said Robeson, the deputy superintendent, approved sending additional police officers to accompany Breck and his wife to community or political events. The grand jury report said Breck "wanted it to appear that he had an entourage who supported him."
• In the report, three board members, including then-President Roger Westrup, said they were unaware of nearly all matters relating to the police force. Westrup testified that the information the grand jury told him should have been brought to the board's attention by the superintendent, the report states.
Westrup said Thursday he wants to review with the grand jury how his statements were "woven into the report and correct some minor inconsistences" in what he recalls telling the panel.
• The report alleges Colombo, the assistant superintendent of facilities services, bragged about receiving a 2 percent kickback on a $20 million contract with a solar consultant. The grand jury report said Colombo told the panel he was joking about a kickback.
The grand jury alleges Go Green was paid $60,000, but no work was done.
Twin Rivers interim Superintendent Rob Ball said the district never paid Go Green anything. Joel Huppe of Go Green also disputed that his company received any money from Twin Rivers school district or that there was a 2 percent kickback in the contract.
• At least 11 officers had take-home vehicles, which were driven to their homes on a daily basis. The report said this policy generated unnecessary vehicle mileage and inflated fuel, repair and maintenance costs.
Breck told the grand jury the department spent $65,000 per vehicle per year in repairs, the report states.
• The grand jury criticizes Marquis, the district spokeswoman, for making erroneous statements to the community and media. In one instance, parents voiced concerns in 2010 when an adult school was moved to the same campus with Martin Luther King Jr. Technology Academy, a middle school. Parents asked about the potential for a sex offender to be in the adult school population.
Marquis told The Bee and other media at the time that the district confirmed there were no sex offenders in the adult school program.
The grand jury said witnesses testified that there were sex offenders placed on the middle school campus, the report said.
"I am disappointed that they would put forward an unsubstantiated allegation without providing me with an opportunity to defend myself," Marquis said in a statement to The Bee. "I was never invited to speak to the grand jury or given the opportunity to provide factual documents I received that formed the basis of my media statements in question."
After the Sacramento County grand jury learned earlier this year that four unregistered weapons were being housed at the Twin Rivers Unified School District Police Department, the panel decided to have a look inside the evidence room.
The four guns, which were not there during the grand jury's first inspection, appeared during the second visit, including a semiautomatic Uzi. Finding out who returned them proved frustrating, said grand jury foreman Don Prange Sr.
"We demanded to see the tapes for that period of time, because they have cameras in the hallway and evidence locker," Prange Sr. said. "It just happens that tape was missing."
The grand jury's yearlong investigation, which was released Thursday, alleged widespread corruption and myriad illegal actions in the Twin Rivers district and its police force dating back several years.
It alleges that district leaders actively destroyed the careers of individuals who reported unlawful acts, violated the rights of employees and police officers, abused their fiduciary responsibilities and misled the public with erroneous information.
The grand jury also calls on the newly elected school board to consider replacing Superintendent Frank Porter, Deputy Superintendent Ziggy Robeson, Associate Superintendent of Human Resources Patty Smart, Assistant Superintendent of Facilities Services Alan Colombo and district spokeswoman Trinette Marquis.
The names of the individuals are not used in the report, although their titles make it evident.
Porter retired earlier this month and Robeson is on paid administrative leave.
"This is vindication for all of us in the community who have been out there trying to highlight these issues and let folks know that we really want some support and to see change come to Twin Rivers," said David DeLuz, president of the Greater Sacramento Urban League.
His organization is hosting a community meeting at 10 a.m. today at 3725 Marysville Blvd. to review the report.
In a prepared statement, Twin Rivers officials declined to comment specifically on allegations raised in the report. The district said commenting could compromise ongoing police investigations.
The District Attorney's Office, Sacramento Police Department, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are investigating allegations in the grand jury report and others that are not.
"The district encourages and welcomes these inquiries as it is important for the public to know that the Twin Rivers Unified School District has rooted out all illicit and criminal conduct," according to the statement from Tom Janis, an assistant superintendent.
The school district has 90 days to respond to the report. This is the second consecutive grand jury report on Twin Rivers Unified. The school district in the city's north area largely dismissed the first, which alleged financial mismanagement, racial tension and ongoing feuds since the district was created in 2007.
The most recent grand jury report includes allegations that the district's outside legal counsel took Police Chief Christopher Breck's computer and the district's server, despite subpoenas issued during that time ordering that emails, documents and voice mails be produced.
Breck has been on paid administrative leave since November.
Acting Chief Scott LaCosse, who has been working to address issues in the department since January, said he agrees with 98 percent of what was in the report about the Police Department.
"It's a benefit to the Police Department to have had several outside reviews on what has happened down here and a public airing of facts as found by the grand jury," LaCosse said. "We need to be transparent to the extent the law permits."
Newly elected trustee John Dexter said the grand jury report can be a blueprint for moving forward. "I will do what I can to make this right," Dexter said. "We have too many great employees who after this report will be embarrassed to say they work for Twin Rivers and that shouldn't be the case."
Other allegations in the report include:
• A detective told the grand jury he believed money is missing from the police station's evidence room and narcotics may have also been stolen.
• A teacher – who is the daughter of Porter's administrative assistant – had her car towed, the grand jury said. Porter emailed Breck's administrative assistant to refund the teacher's $200 towing fee.
That teacher had allowed an unlicensed 17-year-old student to drive her car, the report alleges. The teacher and student were investigated by the Twin Rivers Police Department and the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department.
The grand jury wanted to interview the teacher but was told she now lives and teaches in another state.
• The grand jury was especially critical of Breck. An officer testified that Breck asked him on several occasions to do personal tasks, such as making repairs to Breck's home or buying him cigars.
The officer said on many occasions he was instructed to be a driver for Breck and his wife, Twin Rivers Officer Margueritte Dias-Breck, for special events.
The grand jury report said Robeson, the deputy superintendent, approved sending additional police officers to accompany Breck and his wife to community or political events. The grand jury report said Breck "wanted it to appear that he had an entourage who supported him."
• In the report, three board members, including then-President Roger Westrup, said they were unaware of nearly all matters relating to the police force. Westrup testified that the information the grand jury told him should have been brought to the board's attention by the superintendent, the report states.
Westrup said Thursday he wants to review with the grand jury how his statements were "woven into the report and correct some minor inconsistences" in what he recalls telling the panel.
• The report alleges Colombo, the assistant superintendent of facilities services, bragged about receiving a 2 percent kickback on a $20 million contract with a solar consultant. The grand jury report said Colombo told the panel he was joking about a kickback.
The grand jury alleges Go Green was paid $60,000, but no work was done.
Twin Rivers interim Superintendent Rob Ball said the district never paid Go Green anything. Joel Huppe of Go Green also disputed that his company received any money from Twin Rivers school district or that there was a 2 percent kickback in the contract.
• At least 11 officers had take-home vehicles, which were driven to their homes on a daily basis. The report said this policy generated unnecessary vehicle mileage and inflated fuel, repair and maintenance costs.
Breck told the grand jury the department spent $65,000 per vehicle per year in repairs, the report states.
• The grand jury criticizes Marquis, the district spokeswoman, for making erroneous statements to the community and media. In one instance, parents voiced concerns in 2010 when an adult school was moved to the same campus with Martin Luther King Jr. Technology Academy, a middle school. Parents asked about the potential for a sex offender to be in the adult school population.
Marquis told The Bee and other media at the time that the district confirmed there were no sex offenders in the adult school program.
The grand jury said witnesses testified that there were sex offenders placed on the middle school campus, the report said.
"I am disappointed that they would put forward an unsubstantiated allegation without providing me with an opportunity to defend myself," Marquis said in a statement to The Bee. "I was never invited to speak to the grand jury or given the opportunity to provide factual documents I received that formed the basis of my media statements in question."
Thursday, June 28, 2012
(Calaveras County) Grand jury: County misfires on taxes
By Buzz Eggleston
A retired Caltrans superintendent, a former inspector on nuclear submarines, and a former head of a law school were among the 18 grand jurors who authored this year’s Calaveras County Civil Grand Jury report.
It’s a document scathingly critical of county supervisors, complimentary toward many line workers, and eye-popping when it comes to management misfires.
Friday’s Calaveras Enterprise will report in detail on some of the more critical findings, including how a failure to fill a key clerical position in the county Assessor’s Office cost county schools, county government and special districts about $1 million in lost revenue.
The report also recommends term limits be applied to county supervisors “to prevent stagnation and undue influence (resulting from) lengthy time in office,” urges supervisors to develop mandatory training on the Brown Act – the state’s opening meeting law – and that they recuse themselves when it’s appropriate, end cronyism and stop trying to influence other board members “in their voting decisions outside public meetings.”
The grand jury members themselves witnessed “examples of and heard testimony regarding unprofessional behavior by some supervisors during BOS and other agency meetings,” the report said. “This includes shouting at other board members and the public, refusing to abide by the agenda structure in order to suppress public comments, and making sarcastic, inappropriate remarks.”
The report also refers to current and former county employees who complained of hostile conditions created by current and former supervisors.
The jury found apparent mismanagement in the Human Resources and Public Works departments, saying that of 80 randomly selected personnel files only 17.8 percent contained current performance appraisals, and that in the Public Works Department poor customer service had generated a complaint about failure to return phone calls, impolite and unhelpful customer service, and a failure to respond to written complaints. The jury concluded the complaint had merit and recommended mandatory training in customer service.
A complete print copy of the grand jury’s report will be in Friday’s edition of the Calaveras Enterprise and is posted online here...Grand Jury Report.
Dan McPherson of Arnold served as foreperson of this year’s grand jury. The 63-year-old grandfather of three retired from Caltrans three years ago after working for the state for nearly 40 years. During that time he was the highway supervisor in Angels Camp for seven years and later the superintendent in charge of equipment management in Stockton, Caltrans’ district headquarters.
He was a holdover from the prior year’s grand jury and had previously served for two years on the county grand jury in the mid 1990s. Most of the members of the 2011-2012 grand jury were retired, he said.
He described serving on the grand jury as “very interesting.”
“You certainly get a lot of insight into the county and how it’s run. I think a lot of people are surprised what good employees we have in the county,” he said. “The people who work for the county seem to be pretty good at what they do. Of course, if you work for the county you’re dealing with the Board of Supervisors and other elected officials, you’ve got to deal with them.”
He also said it can be a lot of work.
“It can be time consuming if you want it to be,” McPherson said. “Usually it takes just a day or two a month. One of our investigations, we were there probably two or three days a week for a month interviewing people, so it can be time consuming.”
A couple of years before he retired, McPherson eased into his second career. He runs his own business buying and then selling merchandise auctioned at storage lockers and in other auctions, a la the television show “Storage Wars.”
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/news/article_260d9212-c13d-11e1-8d73-001a4bcf887a.html
A retired Caltrans superintendent, a former inspector on nuclear submarines, and a former head of a law school were among the 18 grand jurors who authored this year’s Calaveras County Civil Grand Jury report.
It’s a document scathingly critical of county supervisors, complimentary toward many line workers, and eye-popping when it comes to management misfires.
Friday’s Calaveras Enterprise will report in detail on some of the more critical findings, including how a failure to fill a key clerical position in the county Assessor’s Office cost county schools, county government and special districts about $1 million in lost revenue.
The report also recommends term limits be applied to county supervisors “to prevent stagnation and undue influence (resulting from) lengthy time in office,” urges supervisors to develop mandatory training on the Brown Act – the state’s opening meeting law – and that they recuse themselves when it’s appropriate, end cronyism and stop trying to influence other board members “in their voting decisions outside public meetings.”
The grand jury members themselves witnessed “examples of and heard testimony regarding unprofessional behavior by some supervisors during BOS and other agency meetings,” the report said. “This includes shouting at other board members and the public, refusing to abide by the agenda structure in order to suppress public comments, and making sarcastic, inappropriate remarks.”
The report also refers to current and former county employees who complained of hostile conditions created by current and former supervisors.
The jury found apparent mismanagement in the Human Resources and Public Works departments, saying that of 80 randomly selected personnel files only 17.8 percent contained current performance appraisals, and that in the Public Works Department poor customer service had generated a complaint about failure to return phone calls, impolite and unhelpful customer service, and a failure to respond to written complaints. The jury concluded the complaint had merit and recommended mandatory training in customer service.
A complete print copy of the grand jury’s report will be in Friday’s edition of the Calaveras Enterprise and is posted online here...Grand Jury Report.
Dan McPherson of Arnold served as foreperson of this year’s grand jury. The 63-year-old grandfather of three retired from Caltrans three years ago after working for the state for nearly 40 years. During that time he was the highway supervisor in Angels Camp for seven years and later the superintendent in charge of equipment management in Stockton, Caltrans’ district headquarters.
He was a holdover from the prior year’s grand jury and had previously served for two years on the county grand jury in the mid 1990s. Most of the members of the 2011-2012 grand jury were retired, he said.
He described serving on the grand jury as “very interesting.”
“You certainly get a lot of insight into the county and how it’s run. I think a lot of people are surprised what good employees we have in the county,” he said. “The people who work for the county seem to be pretty good at what they do. Of course, if you work for the county you’re dealing with the Board of Supervisors and other elected officials, you’ve got to deal with them.”
He also said it can be a lot of work.
“It can be time consuming if you want it to be,” McPherson said. “Usually it takes just a day or two a month. One of our investigations, we were there probably two or three days a week for a month interviewing people, so it can be time consuming.”
A couple of years before he retired, McPherson eased into his second career. He runs his own business buying and then selling merchandise auctioned at storage lockers and in other auctions, a la the television show “Storage Wars.”
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/news/article_260d9212-c13d-11e1-8d73-001a4bcf887a.html
(Sacramento) Grand Jury alleges corruption in Twin Rivers Unified School District
By Melody Gutierrez
mgutierrez@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Jun. 28, 2012 - 11:45 am
Missing weapons, widespread corruption and a myriad of illegal actions are alleged in a grand jury report released today about the Twin Rivers Unified School District and its police force.
The Bee obtained advanced copies of the report from separate sources. The Grand Jury put its report online at noon.
The grand jury calls for the newly elected school board to consider replacing (retired) Superintendent Frank Porter, Deputy Superintendent Ziggy Robeson, Associate Superintendent of Human Resources Patty Smart, Assistant Superintendent of Facilities Services Alan Colombo and district spokeswoman Trinette Marquis.
The names of the individuals are not used in the report, although their titles make it evident about whom the grand jury is referring.
Porter retired earlier this month and Robeson is on paid administrative leave.
The report states that district leaders actively destroyed the careers of individuals who reported unlawful acts, violated the rights of employees and police officers, abused their fiduciary responsibilities and misled the public with erroneous information.
The school district has 90 days to respond to the report. This is the second consecutive grand jury report on Twin Rivers Unified. The school district largely dismissed the first, which alleged financial mismanagement, racial tension and ongoing feuds since the district was created in 2007.
The most recent grand jury report includes allegations the district's outside legal counsel took Police Chief Christopher Breck's computer and the district's server, despite subpoenas issued during that time ordering that emails, documents and voice mails be produced.
Other allegations include:
• A citizen asked Breck to take four guns from a home in Carmichael. Breck assigned a detective to retrieve the weapons, including a semi-automatic uzi. The weapons were not originally in the evidence room of the police department until a second inspection by the grand jury.
In an attempt to find out which officer returned the weapons, the grand jury discovered that the security tape was missing or erased and had been removed from the IT server.
A detective told the grand jury he believed money is missing from the evidence room and narcotics may have also been stolen.
• At least 11 officers had taken home vehicles, which were driven to their homes on a daily basis. The Bee has learned some were driven to homes in Vacaville and Rancho Murieta. The report said this policy has generated unnecessary vehicle mileage and inflates fuel, repair and maintenance costs.
During testimony, the chief said he allowed officers with take-home vehicles to use them for personal use, according to the report.
In addition, the department has no procedures or controls to account for the amount of fuel used or miles driven by each officer, according to the report.
• Porter and the police department mishandled a citizen complaint alleging harassment and police misconduct at a local housing complex, where four officers are alleged to have handcuffed an innocent man twice and threatened a woman who took photos.
The property manager of the housing complex who attempted to find out information about the incident was met with dismissive and crude remarks, the report states.
• The two issues that initially put the police force under scrutiny - excessive car tows and responding to calls outside their jurisdiction - were also covered in the report.
When a teacher - who is the daughter of Porter's administrative assistant - had her car towed, the grand jury found Porter told Breck's administrative assistant to refund the teacher's $200 towing fee.
That teacherhad allowed an unlicensed 17-year-old student to drive her car. The teacher and student were investigated by the Twin Rivers Police Department and the Sacramento Sheriff's Department, according to the report.
The grand jury wanted to interview the teacher, but was told she now lives and teaches in another state.
• The school district routinely violated the Police Officers Bill of Rights when putting officers on leave, according to the report. The grand jury was critical of Smart, the Twin Rivers associate superintendent of human resources, who the report said did not understand or have knowledge of the rights and protections given to officers.
• The grand jury was especially critical of Breck. An officer testified that Breck asked him on several occasions to do personal tasks, such as making repairs to Breck's home or buying him cigars.
The officer said on many occasions he was instructed to be a driver for Breck and his wife, Twin Rivers officer Margueritte Dias-Breck, for special events.
The grand jury report said Robeson, the deputy superintendent, approved sending additional police officers to accompany Breck and his wife to community or political events. The grand jury report said Breck "wanted it to appear that he had an entourage who supported him."
• In the report, three board members, including board president Roger Westrup, said they were unaware of nearly all matters relating to the police force, including that the district police armory at one time had unregistered weapons in it and money and guns had been reported missing from the evidence room.
Westrup testified that the information the grand jury told him should have been brought to the board's attention by the superintendent, according to the report.
• The grand jury report says unauthorized non-compliant modifications were made under the direction of Colombo to the parking lot at Smythe Academy prior to a young boy being struck and killed by a car in 2009.
• The report says Colombo, the assistant superintendent of facilities services, bragged about receiving a 2 percent kickback on a $20 million contract with a solar consultant. The grand jury says Go Green was paid $60,000, but no work was ever done.
When asked about Go Green at Tuesday's school board meeting, Twin Rivers' Interim Superintendent Rob Ball said the only money paid was $4,400 to Timothy M. Cary and Associates to review the Go Green contract.
Ball said the district has since decided to put out a public bidding for a solar provider.
"We didn't pay Go Green anything," Ball said Tuesday.
• The grand jury said a no-bid contract was awarded to a construction company recently for $546,000 to start work on the East Natomas Education Complex.
• The grand jury criticizes Marquis, the district spokeswoman, for making erroneous statements to the community and media on several occasions.
In one instance, parents voiced concerns in 2010 when an adult school was moved on to the same campus with Martin Luther King Jr. Technology Academy, a middle school. Parents asked about the potential for a sex offender to be in the adult school population.
Marquis told The Bee and other media outlets at the time that the district confirmed there were no sex offenders in the adult school program.
The grand jury said witnesses testified that wasn't true. There were sex offenders in the adult education program on the middle school campus, the report said.
• The grand jury turned over information to local authorities for a criminal investigation into whether officers conducted hundreds of illegal background checks on students as young as 12-years-old, according to the report.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/28/4596750/grand-jury-alleges-corruption.html#storylink=cpy
mgutierrez@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Jun. 28, 2012 - 11:45 am
Missing weapons, widespread corruption and a myriad of illegal actions are alleged in a grand jury report released today about the Twin Rivers Unified School District and its police force.
The Bee obtained advanced copies of the report from separate sources. The Grand Jury put its report online at noon.
The grand jury calls for the newly elected school board to consider replacing (retired) Superintendent Frank Porter, Deputy Superintendent Ziggy Robeson, Associate Superintendent of Human Resources Patty Smart, Assistant Superintendent of Facilities Services Alan Colombo and district spokeswoman Trinette Marquis.
The names of the individuals are not used in the report, although their titles make it evident about whom the grand jury is referring.
Porter retired earlier this month and Robeson is on paid administrative leave.
The report states that district leaders actively destroyed the careers of individuals who reported unlawful acts, violated the rights of employees and police officers, abused their fiduciary responsibilities and misled the public with erroneous information.
The school district has 90 days to respond to the report. This is the second consecutive grand jury report on Twin Rivers Unified. The school district largely dismissed the first, which alleged financial mismanagement, racial tension and ongoing feuds since the district was created in 2007.
The most recent grand jury report includes allegations the district's outside legal counsel took Police Chief Christopher Breck's computer and the district's server, despite subpoenas issued during that time ordering that emails, documents and voice mails be produced.
Other allegations include:
• A citizen asked Breck to take four guns from a home in Carmichael. Breck assigned a detective to retrieve the weapons, including a semi-automatic uzi. The weapons were not originally in the evidence room of the police department until a second inspection by the grand jury.
In an attempt to find out which officer returned the weapons, the grand jury discovered that the security tape was missing or erased and had been removed from the IT server.
A detective told the grand jury he believed money is missing from the evidence room and narcotics may have also been stolen.
• At least 11 officers had taken home vehicles, which were driven to their homes on a daily basis. The Bee has learned some were driven to homes in Vacaville and Rancho Murieta. The report said this policy has generated unnecessary vehicle mileage and inflates fuel, repair and maintenance costs.
During testimony, the chief said he allowed officers with take-home vehicles to use them for personal use, according to the report.
In addition, the department has no procedures or controls to account for the amount of fuel used or miles driven by each officer, according to the report.
• Porter and the police department mishandled a citizen complaint alleging harassment and police misconduct at a local housing complex, where four officers are alleged to have handcuffed an innocent man twice and threatened a woman who took photos.
The property manager of the housing complex who attempted to find out information about the incident was met with dismissive and crude remarks, the report states.
• The two issues that initially put the police force under scrutiny - excessive car tows and responding to calls outside their jurisdiction - were also covered in the report.
When a teacher - who is the daughter of Porter's administrative assistant - had her car towed, the grand jury found Porter told Breck's administrative assistant to refund the teacher's $200 towing fee.
That teacherhad allowed an unlicensed 17-year-old student to drive her car. The teacher and student were investigated by the Twin Rivers Police Department and the Sacramento Sheriff's Department, according to the report.
The grand jury wanted to interview the teacher, but was told she now lives and teaches in another state.
• The school district routinely violated the Police Officers Bill of Rights when putting officers on leave, according to the report. The grand jury was critical of Smart, the Twin Rivers associate superintendent of human resources, who the report said did not understand or have knowledge of the rights and protections given to officers.
• The grand jury was especially critical of Breck. An officer testified that Breck asked him on several occasions to do personal tasks, such as making repairs to Breck's home or buying him cigars.
The officer said on many occasions he was instructed to be a driver for Breck and his wife, Twin Rivers officer Margueritte Dias-Breck, for special events.
The grand jury report said Robeson, the deputy superintendent, approved sending additional police officers to accompany Breck and his wife to community or political events. The grand jury report said Breck "wanted it to appear that he had an entourage who supported him."
• In the report, three board members, including board president Roger Westrup, said they were unaware of nearly all matters relating to the police force, including that the district police armory at one time had unregistered weapons in it and money and guns had been reported missing from the evidence room.
Westrup testified that the information the grand jury told him should have been brought to the board's attention by the superintendent, according to the report.
• The grand jury report says unauthorized non-compliant modifications were made under the direction of Colombo to the parking lot at Smythe Academy prior to a young boy being struck and killed by a car in 2009.
• The report says Colombo, the assistant superintendent of facilities services, bragged about receiving a 2 percent kickback on a $20 million contract with a solar consultant. The grand jury says Go Green was paid $60,000, but no work was ever done.
When asked about Go Green at Tuesday's school board meeting, Twin Rivers' Interim Superintendent Rob Ball said the only money paid was $4,400 to Timothy M. Cary and Associates to review the Go Green contract.
Ball said the district has since decided to put out a public bidding for a solar provider.
"We didn't pay Go Green anything," Ball said Tuesday.
• The grand jury said a no-bid contract was awarded to a construction company recently for $546,000 to start work on the East Natomas Education Complex.
• The grand jury criticizes Marquis, the district spokeswoman, for making erroneous statements to the community and media on several occasions.
In one instance, parents voiced concerns in 2010 when an adult school was moved on to the same campus with Martin Luther King Jr. Technology Academy, a middle school. Parents asked about the potential for a sex offender to be in the adult school population.
Marquis told The Bee and other media outlets at the time that the district confirmed there were no sex offenders in the adult school program.
The grand jury said witnesses testified that wasn't true. There were sex offenders in the adult education program on the middle school campus, the report said.
• The grand jury turned over information to local authorities for a criminal investigation into whether officers conducted hundreds of illegal background checks on students as young as 12-years-old, according to the report.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/28/4596750/grand-jury-alleges-corruption.html#storylink=cpy
(Stanislaus Co) Modesto federal housing report is in, but grand jury report lags
By Ken Carlson - The Modesto Bee
Last week, the city of Modesto received a civil grand jury report about its management of a federal housing program, which included millions of dollars allocated to one controversial nonprofit agency.
By now, city officials have had plenty of time to digest the findings, but the public and press won't get to see the report until next week.
Benny Del Re, foreman of Stanislaus County's civil grand jury, said Wednesday that the reports on its investigations for the 2011-12 fiscal year will be released to the public Monday.
That's two days after the group officially will dissolve and well after the results of grand jury investigations were given to the city government and the county.
"You will receive them on Monday; there's no rhyme or reason," Del Re said. "The end of the fiscal year is Saturday. Anything that falls on Saturday kicks to the following Monday."
A civil grand jury is selected every year to investigate complaints about city and county agencies and the conduct of their officials and employees. The members serve from July 1 to June 30 and the panel is required by law to publish a final report by June 30.
People who follow local government expect to see grand jury reports the last week of June. But that won't happen this time, according to Del Re.
He said the panel voted to approve six reports Wednesday, and those reports were being distributed to the agencies that were the focus of those investigations.
He said the group voted to release all of the reports to the public at the same time, instead of releasing individual reports earlier, as many grand juries have done.
Cover letters included with a report sent June 13 to the county and Friday to the city say the reports were provided to the agencies "two working days prior to its release to the public."
Two city officials confirmed the grand jury delivered the report to City Hall last week. They said the cover letter cites a state Penal Code section that prohibits disclosure before release by the grand jury to the public.
The county report, which follows up on a 2010-11 grand jury review, criticizes five special districts for failing to comply with audit requirements. Despite the warning not to divulge its contents, the county put the report on its government Web site.
Sources say the city report deals with the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which funneled $36 million to the city of Modesto to rehabilitate foreclosed homes, apartments and other property for resale or rental.
The city partnered with multiple for-profit and nonprofit developers, including the Stanislaus Community Assistance Project, which received more than $8 million. A monthslong series of Bee stories last year revealed that SCAP spent lavishly to buy and remodel single-family homes and apartments, then placed staff members or their relatives in some of the dwellings.
Carmen Morad, president of the Stanislaus chapter of the California Grand Jurors' Association, said Wednesday she didn't know when grand juries are legally required to release reports to the public, but said she would research the code.
Last year's grand jury started releasing individual reports on investigations in May. Other grand juries have come out with a series of reports starting in mid-June or waited until June 30. The panels in 2009 and 2005 released results July 1.
Denis France, the foreman of the 2010-11 panel, said the state Grand Jurors' Association advised them to release individual reports after they were completed and delivered to the respective agencies.
Last week, the city of Modesto received a civil grand jury report about its management of a federal housing program, which included millions of dollars allocated to one controversial nonprofit agency.
By now, city officials have had plenty of time to digest the findings, but the public and press won't get to see the report until next week.
Benny Del Re, foreman of Stanislaus County's civil grand jury, said Wednesday that the reports on its investigations for the 2011-12 fiscal year will be released to the public Monday.
That's two days after the group officially will dissolve and well after the results of grand jury investigations were given to the city government and the county.
"You will receive them on Monday; there's no rhyme or reason," Del Re said. "The end of the fiscal year is Saturday. Anything that falls on Saturday kicks to the following Monday."
A civil grand jury is selected every year to investigate complaints about city and county agencies and the conduct of their officials and employees. The members serve from July 1 to June 30 and the panel is required by law to publish a final report by June 30.
People who follow local government expect to see grand jury reports the last week of June. But that won't happen this time, according to Del Re.
He said the panel voted to approve six reports Wednesday, and those reports were being distributed to the agencies that were the focus of those investigations.
He said the group voted to release all of the reports to the public at the same time, instead of releasing individual reports earlier, as many grand juries have done.
Cover letters included with a report sent June 13 to the county and Friday to the city say the reports were provided to the agencies "two working days prior to its release to the public."
Two city officials confirmed the grand jury delivered the report to City Hall last week. They said the cover letter cites a state Penal Code section that prohibits disclosure before release by the grand jury to the public.
The county report, which follows up on a 2010-11 grand jury review, criticizes five special districts for failing to comply with audit requirements. Despite the warning not to divulge its contents, the county put the report on its government Web site.
Sources say the city report deals with the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which funneled $36 million to the city of Modesto to rehabilitate foreclosed homes, apartments and other property for resale or rental.
The city partnered with multiple for-profit and nonprofit developers, including the Stanislaus Community Assistance Project, which received more than $8 million. A monthslong series of Bee stories last year revealed that SCAP spent lavishly to buy and remodel single-family homes and apartments, then placed staff members or their relatives in some of the dwellings.
Carmen Morad, president of the Stanislaus chapter of the California Grand Jurors' Association, said Wednesday she didn't know when grand juries are legally required to release reports to the public, but said she would research the code.
Last year's grand jury started releasing individual reports on investigations in May. Other grand juries have come out with a series of reports starting in mid-June or waited until June 30. The panels in 2009 and 2005 released results July 1.
Denis France, the foreman of the 2010-11 panel, said the state Grand Jurors' Association advised them to release individual reports after they were completed and delivered to the respective agencies.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Merced County civil grand jury releases its report
Merced Sun-Star staff
The mission of the civil grand jury is to act as the public watchdog by investigating and reporting on the affairs of agencies such as county and city governments, special districts and school districts.
The jury also addresses complaints of mistreatment, misconduct or inefficiency and makes recommendations on how to address and correct those problems.
Of the 16 complaints received by the grand jury from 2011 to 2012, six were investigated and given various degrees of recommendations, while 10 were dismissed.
As mandated by law, the grand jury inspected the county's correctional facilities, and the Merced and Dos Palos police stations. The grand jury conducted three ride-alongs with Merced police, Atwater police and Merced County Sheriff's deputies.
Jurors are interviewed by a Merced County Superior Court judge and Linda Romero Soles, court executive officer. The judge decides on the 30 finalists, and 19 jurors and four alternates are picked in open court by a random selection process.
In Merced County, if criminal indictments need to be made, a separate criminal grand jury is convened, according to the county's website.
Jurors must meet the same qualifications as a trial juror and the term of office is one year.
To review the entire grand jury report and its findings, go to www.mercedsunstar.com.
The mission of the civil grand jury is to act as the public watchdog by investigating and reporting on the affairs of agencies such as county and city governments, special districts and school districts.
The jury also addresses complaints of mistreatment, misconduct or inefficiency and makes recommendations on how to address and correct those problems.
Of the 16 complaints received by the grand jury from 2011 to 2012, six were investigated and given various degrees of recommendations, while 10 were dismissed.
As mandated by law, the grand jury inspected the county's correctional facilities, and the Merced and Dos Palos police stations. The grand jury conducted three ride-alongs with Merced police, Atwater police and Merced County Sheriff's deputies.
Jurors are interviewed by a Merced County Superior Court judge and Linda Romero Soles, court executive officer. The judge decides on the 30 finalists, and 19 jurors and four alternates are picked in open court by a random selection process.
In Merced County, if criminal indictments need to be made, a separate criminal grand jury is convened, according to the county's website.
Jurors must meet the same qualifications as a trial juror and the term of office is one year.
To review the entire grand jury report and its findings, go to www.mercedsunstar.com.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
(Nevada Co) Grand jury: Laura's Law saves money, lives, should be implemented in other California counties
By Stephanie O'Neill - Southern California Public Radio
A grand jury in Nevada County says that California counties can save money and lives by fully applying Laura’s Law. The legislation allows California counties to provide court-ordered outpatient treatment for a subset of mentally ill people who’ve landed in jail or hospitals because of their condition.
It applies only to those most likely to become dangerous to themselves or others because they’re so ill they don’t recognize that they need treatment.
So far, rural Nevada County in gold rush country is the only one in California to fully adopt the decade-old law.
The report by the Nevada County grand jury commends the county for adopting the law, saying that it has saved Nevada County more than $500,000 by helping to prevent emergency hospitalizations and jail time.
Los Angeles County is testing Laura’s Law with pilot programs, and Orange County is considering whether to adopt it.
A grand jury in Nevada County says that California counties can save money and lives by fully applying Laura’s Law. The legislation allows California counties to provide court-ordered outpatient treatment for a subset of mentally ill people who’ve landed in jail or hospitals because of their condition.
It applies only to those most likely to become dangerous to themselves or others because they’re so ill they don’t recognize that they need treatment.
So far, rural Nevada County in gold rush country is the only one in California to fully adopt the decade-old law.
The report by the Nevada County grand jury commends the county for adopting the law, saying that it has saved Nevada County more than $500,000 by helping to prevent emergency hospitalizations and jail time.
Los Angeles County is testing Laura’s Law with pilot programs, and Orange County is considering whether to adopt it.
Monday, June 25, 2012
(NAPA CO) Grand jury scrutinizes county jail operations
by PETER JENSEN - NapaValleyRegister.com
The Napa County grand jury found a mix of positive and negative impacts at the county jail from the state’s realignment initiative to house more inmates locally.
But like the county, which is taking a wait-and-see approach to determine how to manage those impacts, the grand jury agreed that many elements of realignment have yet to be fully analyzed.
The grand jury, which issued its report last week, praised the Napa County jail and juvenile hall for being well-run facilities.
Realignment and its jail alternative programs, including more effective rehabilitation and job training, could reduce the frequency of repeat offenders, the grand jury said.
On the other hand, the grand jury said realignment will increase the number of inmates in the jail who would have otherwise been sentenced to prison. That could exacerbate issues of overcrowding in the jail and overburden the probation department, which could lead to increased crime.
The push for alternatives to jail time comes after many inmates have already entered plea bargains to reduce their sentences, the grand jury said.
“Through realignment, they are now effectively seeing further sentence reduction. This could be perceived by some as a ‘get out of jail free’ card,” the report stated.
The grand jury recommends that:
• Officials provide an annual report documenting the effects of jail alternative programs to manage the inmate population.
• The county provide public forums to seek input about the design and location of the proposed new jail.
• Officials prepare to pay for the costs of realignment, should the state decide to reduce funding.
At last Monday’s Napa County Board of Supervisors budget hearing, Senior Management Analyst Liz Habkirk said the county expects to receive
$2.4 million in the next fiscal year to support realignment costs locally.
The county ended its first year of realignment with an extra $800,000. Officials have decided to wait to determine how to spend that money and create new programs, she said.
Several programs have already been implemented, such as pre-trial release, expanded electronic home detention, and efforts that will keep some people arrested on driving offenses out of jail.
The grand jury noted that Napa County was well prepared to handle realignment because its criminal justice agencies were already collaborating to implement programs for jail alternatives, prior to the California Legislature passing the Realignment Act in 2011.
The Napa County grand jury found a mix of positive and negative impacts at the county jail from the state’s realignment initiative to house more inmates locally.
But like the county, which is taking a wait-and-see approach to determine how to manage those impacts, the grand jury agreed that many elements of realignment have yet to be fully analyzed.
The grand jury, which issued its report last week, praised the Napa County jail and juvenile hall for being well-run facilities.
Realignment and its jail alternative programs, including more effective rehabilitation and job training, could reduce the frequency of repeat offenders, the grand jury said.
On the other hand, the grand jury said realignment will increase the number of inmates in the jail who would have otherwise been sentenced to prison. That could exacerbate issues of overcrowding in the jail and overburden the probation department, which could lead to increased crime.
The push for alternatives to jail time comes after many inmates have already entered plea bargains to reduce their sentences, the grand jury said.
“Through realignment, they are now effectively seeing further sentence reduction. This could be perceived by some as a ‘get out of jail free’ card,” the report stated.
The grand jury recommends that:
• Officials provide an annual report documenting the effects of jail alternative programs to manage the inmate population.
• The county provide public forums to seek input about the design and location of the proposed new jail.
• Officials prepare to pay for the costs of realignment, should the state decide to reduce funding.
At last Monday’s Napa County Board of Supervisors budget hearing, Senior Management Analyst Liz Habkirk said the county expects to receive
$2.4 million in the next fiscal year to support realignment costs locally.
The county ended its first year of realignment with an extra $800,000. Officials have decided to wait to determine how to spend that money and create new programs, she said.
Several programs have already been implemented, such as pre-trial release, expanded electronic home detention, and efforts that will keep some people arrested on driving offenses out of jail.
The grand jury noted that Napa County was well prepared to handle realignment because its criminal justice agencies were already collaborating to implement programs for jail alternatives, prior to the California Legislature passing the Realignment Act in 2011.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
(San Joaquin) Grand jury faults child services
By Jennie Rodriguez-Moore
Record Staff Writer
June 24, 2012 12:00 AM
STOCKTON - Caseloads are high, employee morale is low and San Joaquin County's children "are at risk."
A grand jury review of county Child Welfare Services was critical Friday of the way the agency is managed and the outcomes experienced by children as a result.
The 2011-12 grand jury report said emergency response social workers were assigned caseloads higher than state averages and that worker complaints were ignored.
Grand jurors also determined that administrators excluded information about low morale and their disconnect with management in state reports.
Complaints against the Human Service Agency's Child Welfare Services allege social workers in the intake and assessment unit are overloaded with referrals, increasing safety risks for children.
Although the agency doesn't deny it is overburdened, it maintains that changes have addressed employee concerns.
According to the grand jury:
» Social worker referrals exceed state guidelines, which recommend a maximum of 13.03 or an ideal 9.88 referrals monthly for each worker.
» Only 40 to 50 percent of referrals are closed within the state's 30-day requirement period.
» Repeat referrals average 39.7 percent versus the state average of 31.4 percent.
» A lack of productive, two-way communication exists between employees and management, and social workers' efforts to improve dialogue are ignored, adding to low morale.
» There is no formal, in-house debriefing program to help workers cope with traumatizing incidents.
» Some information concerning employee attitudes and communication was removed from state reports.
John Greco, the county deputy director of Children's Services, said the county has been taking steps to improve services.
He said intake and assessment workers now average 13.2 referrals, a decrease from last year's 16.3 average.
"I'm not stating I'm OK with high caseloads," Greco said. At the same time, he said the county is mandated to care for the children, even amid budgetary restraints.
"It's not really a choice for our county any more than any other county," he said. "Most of the counties are in about the same boat as we are."
Greco is asking the Board of Supervisors for additional funds to hire more social workers.
In addition, Greco said he has initiated regular meetings with employees since taking the helm in 2011. He has an open-door policy, he said.
"I'm not refuting that it's good practice to have higher worker morale," Greco said. "I don't think any manager or myself is adverse to undergoing any more training"
He also said the department will look into establishing a debriefing program.
Contact reporter Jennie Rodriguez-Moore at (209) 943-8564 or jrodriguez@recordnet.com. Visit her blog at recordnet.com/courtsblog.
Record Staff Writer
June 24, 2012 12:00 AM
STOCKTON - Caseloads are high, employee morale is low and San Joaquin County's children "are at risk."
A grand jury review of county Child Welfare Services was critical Friday of the way the agency is managed and the outcomes experienced by children as a result.
The 2011-12 grand jury report said emergency response social workers were assigned caseloads higher than state averages and that worker complaints were ignored.
Grand jurors also determined that administrators excluded information about low morale and their disconnect with management in state reports.
Complaints against the Human Service Agency's Child Welfare Services allege social workers in the intake and assessment unit are overloaded with referrals, increasing safety risks for children.
Although the agency doesn't deny it is overburdened, it maintains that changes have addressed employee concerns.
According to the grand jury:
» Social worker referrals exceed state guidelines, which recommend a maximum of 13.03 or an ideal 9.88 referrals monthly for each worker.
» Only 40 to 50 percent of referrals are closed within the state's 30-day requirement period.
» Repeat referrals average 39.7 percent versus the state average of 31.4 percent.
» A lack of productive, two-way communication exists between employees and management, and social workers' efforts to improve dialogue are ignored, adding to low morale.
» There is no formal, in-house debriefing program to help workers cope with traumatizing incidents.
» Some information concerning employee attitudes and communication was removed from state reports.
John Greco, the county deputy director of Children's Services, said the county has been taking steps to improve services.
He said intake and assessment workers now average 13.2 referrals, a decrease from last year's 16.3 average.
"I'm not stating I'm OK with high caseloads," Greco said. At the same time, he said the county is mandated to care for the children, even amid budgetary restraints.
"It's not really a choice for our county any more than any other county," he said. "Most of the counties are in about the same boat as we are."
Greco is asking the Board of Supervisors for additional funds to hire more social workers.
In addition, Greco said he has initiated regular meetings with employees since taking the helm in 2011. He has an open-door policy, he said.
"I'm not refuting that it's good practice to have higher worker morale," Greco said. "I don't think any manager or myself is adverse to undergoing any more training"
He also said the department will look into establishing a debriefing program.
Contact reporter Jennie Rodriguez-Moore at (209) 943-8564 or jrodriguez@recordnet.com. Visit her blog at recordnet.com/courtsblog.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
(Riverside Co) BANNING: Grand jury faults health care district
BY ERIN WALDNER - Press-Enterprise
A Riverside County civil grand jury report faults the San Gorgonio Memorial Healthcare District for its management of a $108 million bond measure.
Measure A was supposed to pay for a new intensive care unit and emergency department, a helicopter pad, upgrades to information technology, a central plant to house boilers and chillers, and a six-story patient tower.
The measure passed in 2006. Afterward, hospital officials acknowledged it looked like there would not be enough money from bond sales to build the patient tower, and that project was put on the back burner.
Hospital representatives have attributed the shortfall to a rise in building costs.
The grand jury report says one factor in this “disconnect between the requested bond money amount and the final projected cost” is the failure to have detailed construction plans prepared, which led to inaccurate cost projections.
Other findings in the grand jury report:
There is public perception that having the hospital CEO serve as a voting member of the hospital board is a conflict of interest.
It is difficult for the public to determine exactly how their tax dollars are being spent because the district co-mingles its hospital and taxpayer revenues.
It is estimated it would have cost $184 million to build a six-story patient tower along with the rest of the project.
Hospital CEO Mark Turner has said the district would have to look for outside revenue sources to finance the costs, and that another bond measure is an option.
The grand jury report recommends that if a new bond measure is pursued, the district needs to include verifiable construction costs and the scope of the project, and not inflate the final product in news releases.
It also calls on the district to pursue all other possible funding sources before asking voters to support a bond measure.
In a statement Friday, June 22, Turner said, “I have read the grand jury’s report on San Gorgonio Memorial Healthcare District and will soon begin reviewing and evaluating their report and recommendations with our board of directors. A response will be provided to the grand jury, as required, within 90 days of their report.
“Upon initial review,” he continued, “I am pleased to see that the grand jury has identified areas of improvement that we, too, have identified for improvement and have already addressed or are in the process of addressing.”
Turner was hired after Measure A was passed and bond sales revenues started coming into the district. He came on board in 2009.
A Riverside County civil grand jury report faults the San Gorgonio Memorial Healthcare District for its management of a $108 million bond measure.
Measure A was supposed to pay for a new intensive care unit and emergency department, a helicopter pad, upgrades to information technology, a central plant to house boilers and chillers, and a six-story patient tower.
The measure passed in 2006. Afterward, hospital officials acknowledged it looked like there would not be enough money from bond sales to build the patient tower, and that project was put on the back burner.
Hospital representatives have attributed the shortfall to a rise in building costs.
The grand jury report says one factor in this “disconnect between the requested bond money amount and the final projected cost” is the failure to have detailed construction plans prepared, which led to inaccurate cost projections.
Other findings in the grand jury report:
There is public perception that having the hospital CEO serve as a voting member of the hospital board is a conflict of interest.
It is difficult for the public to determine exactly how their tax dollars are being spent because the district co-mingles its hospital and taxpayer revenues.
It is estimated it would have cost $184 million to build a six-story patient tower along with the rest of the project.
Hospital CEO Mark Turner has said the district would have to look for outside revenue sources to finance the costs, and that another bond measure is an option.
The grand jury report recommends that if a new bond measure is pursued, the district needs to include verifiable construction costs and the scope of the project, and not inflate the final product in news releases.
It also calls on the district to pursue all other possible funding sources before asking voters to support a bond measure.
In a statement Friday, June 22, Turner said, “I have read the grand jury’s report on San Gorgonio Memorial Healthcare District and will soon begin reviewing and evaluating their report and recommendations with our board of directors. A response will be provided to the grand jury, as required, within 90 days of their report.
“Upon initial review,” he continued, “I am pleased to see that the grand jury has identified areas of improvement that we, too, have identified for improvement and have already addressed or are in the process of addressing.”
Turner was hired after Measure A was passed and bond sales revenues started coming into the district. He came on board in 2009.
Friday, June 22, 2012
(Orange County) Grand Jury Takes On Sheriff, Fire Authority and Toxic Dump
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2012 9:20 am | Updated: 10:15 am, Fri Jun 22, 2012.
TRACY WOOD
The Orange County Sheriff’s Department needs to modernize jail video surveillance and fix a telephone calling system that some inmates have used to make possibly dangerous contacts with outsiders, according to the most recent reports by the county grand jury.
The recommendations were contained in three reports released this week that also dealt with curbing the growth of salaries at the 1,176-employee Orange County Fire Authority and cleaning up a decades-old, contaminated former oil dump site in Huntington Beach.
“The Sheriff should place a high priority on upgrading video surveillance systems in the county jail system so that all units are protected by high quality digital monitoring systems providing maximum area coverage to improve the safety of inmates, staff, and visitors,” recommended the report on the county jail system.
It also urged Sheriff Sandra Hutchens to work with the Superior Court presiding judge, the district attorney and the public defender to devise a way to prevent inmates from misusing a telephone system.
“The practice of permitting unmonitored, non-collect calls between selected inmates and attorneys, as authorized by court order, has a high potential to contribute to the risk of inmate- orchestrated incidents within and outside of the jail system,” the report asserted.
In other jail issues, the grand jury recommended the Board of Supervisors expand the role of the Office of Independent Review to include the Probation Department. It also urged county officials to move the Office of Independent Review from Sheriff Department offices to the Hall of Administration to avoid a perception that the independent review office is too connected to the sheriff’s staff.
It also said having the Office of Independent Review report to all five supervisors creates management confusion and recommended putting it under the management of the county’s CEO.
And warning that new state policies on releasing prisoners will mean a large increase in Orange County prisoners over the next three years, the grand jury recommended that Hutchens and the Board of Supervisors “should aggressively pursue” the James Musick jail expansion project.
In its report on the Orange County Fire Authority, the grand jury asserted that current policies try to keep Fire Authority salaries comparable to those paid on average by the top three non-Fire Authority departments in the county.
But, the grand jury asserted, that policy doesn’t “appear to reflect the overall economy and finances of the taxpayers and cities they serve.”
The Fire Authority was formed in 1995 after the Orange County bankruptcy and replaced the county Fire Department. It handles fire duties throughout county territory and in 23 of the 34 cities.
Its $282-million budget comes from property taxes, fees and contracts with the cities it serves.
According to the report, Fire Authority directors, who are members of the participating city councils and the Board of Supervisors, may have been unwilling to make “tough choices and balancing the needs of the citizens that they serve.”
The grand jury recommended extending the terms of the Fire Authority’s board of directors to two years to ensure directors are more knowledgeable.
“The OCFA Board of Directors should provide and make public both a short-term and long-term plan that brings the labor agreements in line with the living cost of the citizens they serve rather than solely upon the revenues derived from secured property tax of the property and city fees in their realm,” the report concluded.
“If the growth of firefighter’s salaries is reduced to reflect the economy of the citizens they serve, the OCFA should consider reducing the fees that they charge their contract cities to reflect the change and to be responsive to the financial realities of the cities.”
In Huntington Beach, a 38 to 40-acre former oil field and industrial dump known as the Nesi-Ascon site, existed at Magnolia and Hamilton Avenues for 60 years, from 1924 to 1984.
Material dumped there, according to the grand jury report, included drilling mud, chromic acid, sulfuric acid, aluminum slag, fuel oils, styrene, asphalt, concrete, metal, soil, and wood “as well as other contaminants, including abandoned vehicles.”
Cleanup is a state responsibility, and in 2003 the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and seven companies — Atlantic Richfield, Chevron Environmental Management, Conoco Phillips, the Dow Chemical Co., Shell Oil, Southern California Edison and Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp. — reached a legal agreement on the cleanup.
“The final remedy — now in 2012 — has not yet begun,” the grand jury reported. The State — optimistically — contemplates that the project will be completed in 2015.”
The grand jury noted it has no authority to order the state to do anything but urged "the Huntington Beach leadership to bring pressure on the appropriate entities to hasten the completion of effective and safe reclamation of this site, as well as to work with Orange County public health officials to further inquire into possible connections between the Nesi-Ascon site and physical and neurological complaints reported by neighborhood residents.”
http://voiceofoc.org/countywide/county_government/article_3eb8a376-bc86-11e1-b902-001a4bcf887a.html
TRACY WOOD
The Orange County Sheriff’s Department needs to modernize jail video surveillance and fix a telephone calling system that some inmates have used to make possibly dangerous contacts with outsiders, according to the most recent reports by the county grand jury.
The recommendations were contained in three reports released this week that also dealt with curbing the growth of salaries at the 1,176-employee Orange County Fire Authority and cleaning up a decades-old, contaminated former oil dump site in Huntington Beach.
“The Sheriff should place a high priority on upgrading video surveillance systems in the county jail system so that all units are protected by high quality digital monitoring systems providing maximum area coverage to improve the safety of inmates, staff, and visitors,” recommended the report on the county jail system.
It also urged Sheriff Sandra Hutchens to work with the Superior Court presiding judge, the district attorney and the public defender to devise a way to prevent inmates from misusing a telephone system.
“The practice of permitting unmonitored, non-collect calls between selected inmates and attorneys, as authorized by court order, has a high potential to contribute to the risk of inmate- orchestrated incidents within and outside of the jail system,” the report asserted.
In other jail issues, the grand jury recommended the Board of Supervisors expand the role of the Office of Independent Review to include the Probation Department. It also urged county officials to move the Office of Independent Review from Sheriff Department offices to the Hall of Administration to avoid a perception that the independent review office is too connected to the sheriff’s staff.
It also said having the Office of Independent Review report to all five supervisors creates management confusion and recommended putting it under the management of the county’s CEO.
And warning that new state policies on releasing prisoners will mean a large increase in Orange County prisoners over the next three years, the grand jury recommended that Hutchens and the Board of Supervisors “should aggressively pursue” the James Musick jail expansion project.
In its report on the Orange County Fire Authority, the grand jury asserted that current policies try to keep Fire Authority salaries comparable to those paid on average by the top three non-Fire Authority departments in the county.
But, the grand jury asserted, that policy doesn’t “appear to reflect the overall economy and finances of the taxpayers and cities they serve.”
The Fire Authority was formed in 1995 after the Orange County bankruptcy and replaced the county Fire Department. It handles fire duties throughout county territory and in 23 of the 34 cities.
Its $282-million budget comes from property taxes, fees and contracts with the cities it serves.
According to the report, Fire Authority directors, who are members of the participating city councils and the Board of Supervisors, may have been unwilling to make “tough choices and balancing the needs of the citizens that they serve.”
The grand jury recommended extending the terms of the Fire Authority’s board of directors to two years to ensure directors are more knowledgeable.
“The OCFA Board of Directors should provide and make public both a short-term and long-term plan that brings the labor agreements in line with the living cost of the citizens they serve rather than solely upon the revenues derived from secured property tax of the property and city fees in their realm,” the report concluded.
“If the growth of firefighter’s salaries is reduced to reflect the economy of the citizens they serve, the OCFA should consider reducing the fees that they charge their contract cities to reflect the change and to be responsive to the financial realities of the cities.”
In Huntington Beach, a 38 to 40-acre former oil field and industrial dump known as the Nesi-Ascon site, existed at Magnolia and Hamilton Avenues for 60 years, from 1924 to 1984.
Material dumped there, according to the grand jury report, included drilling mud, chromic acid, sulfuric acid, aluminum slag, fuel oils, styrene, asphalt, concrete, metal, soil, and wood “as well as other contaminants, including abandoned vehicles.”
Cleanup is a state responsibility, and in 2003 the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and seven companies — Atlantic Richfield, Chevron Environmental Management, Conoco Phillips, the Dow Chemical Co., Shell Oil, Southern California Edison and Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp. — reached a legal agreement on the cleanup.
“The final remedy — now in 2012 — has not yet begun,” the grand jury reported. The State — optimistically — contemplates that the project will be completed in 2015.”
The grand jury noted it has no authority to order the state to do anything but urged "the Huntington Beach leadership to bring pressure on the appropriate entities to hasten the completion of effective and safe reclamation of this site, as well as to work with Orange County public health officials to further inquire into possible connections between the Nesi-Ascon site and physical and neurological complaints reported by neighborhood residents.”
http://voiceofoc.org/countywide/county_government/article_3eb8a376-bc86-11e1-b902-001a4bcf887a.html
Solano County grand jury: Registrar of Voters office lacking
BY MELISSA MURPHY - The Reporter, Vacaville, CA
The Solano County's Registrar of Voters office falls short in several areas, according to a report by the Solano County grand jury.
Lacking adequate office space and a Voting Accessibility Advisory Committee, the office is in need of several improvements, grand jurors concluded in a report released Wednesday.
The report noted that sensitive areas were not adequately controlled and monitored, supervisors outnumbered the technicians in the office and that some policies and procedures need to be written, some need to be updated and all need to be better organized.
Deputy Registrar of Voters John Gardner said the department is already working on a response to the report. He added that since last fall, when he was hired, he's been working diligently to improve the voting process.
"We're hopefully eliminating the human errors going forward," he said about adding more oversight to the process.
"It's always good to have an outside independent review," he said of the report. "This gives us a chance to improve."
Gardner explained that the primary election earlier this month was "very smooth" since the department is already making necessary improvements. Grand jurors investigated during last November's election.
Among its 25 findings, the grand jury noted:
* That budget constraints and the elimination of two election technician positions not only impacted staff workload, but also left the organization with seven supervisors for three technicians;
* That the department had no formal training plan or program designed to develop or improve technical abilities of the staff;
* That a processing error resulted in candidates being left off the November 2011 ballot. Because of this error, the county incurred approximately $30,000 in costs for supplemental ballots and voting materials;
* That individual staff reviewed and repaired vote-by-mail ballots without a second opinion/approval, as required by policy; and
* That the "vault room" used by the Registrar of Voters Office to store ballots and the warehouse to store election material and equipment were not adequately protected. A concern regarding vault security was also expressed in the 2008 report on ballot handling commissioned by the county.
The Solano County's Registrar of Voters office falls short in several areas, according to a report by the Solano County grand jury.
Lacking adequate office space and a Voting Accessibility Advisory Committee, the office is in need of several improvements, grand jurors concluded in a report released Wednesday.
The report noted that sensitive areas were not adequately controlled and monitored, supervisors outnumbered the technicians in the office and that some policies and procedures need to be written, some need to be updated and all need to be better organized.
Deputy Registrar of Voters John Gardner said the department is already working on a response to the report. He added that since last fall, when he was hired, he's been working diligently to improve the voting process.
"We're hopefully eliminating the human errors going forward," he said about adding more oversight to the process.
"It's always good to have an outside independent review," he said of the report. "This gives us a chance to improve."
Gardner explained that the primary election earlier this month was "very smooth" since the department is already making necessary improvements. Grand jurors investigated during last November's election.
Among its 25 findings, the grand jury noted:
* That budget constraints and the elimination of two election technician positions not only impacted staff workload, but also left the organization with seven supervisors for three technicians;
* That the department had no formal training plan or program designed to develop or improve technical abilities of the staff;
* That a processing error resulted in candidates being left off the November 2011 ballot. Because of this error, the county incurred approximately $30,000 in costs for supplemental ballots and voting materials;
* That individual staff reviewed and repaired vote-by-mail ballots without a second opinion/approval, as required by policy; and
* That the "vault room" used by the Registrar of Voters Office to store ballots and the warehouse to store election material and equipment were not adequately protected. A concern regarding vault security was also expressed in the 2008 report on ballot handling commissioned by the county.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Santa Barbara County Grand Jury looks into LHCDC
BY AMY ASMAN - SantaMariaSun.com
After much public scrutiny over whether it would investigate the demise of the bankrupt low-income housing nonprofit LHCDC, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury released on June 13 a report titled, “A Failure of Oversight: Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corporation.”
“In January 2012, residents of Lompoc and indeed all of Santa Barbara County were shocked to learn that two homeless shelters in the city, Marks House and Bridgehouse, had closed with only five days’ notice on a holiday weekend,” the report begins. “Public officials should have anticipated the closing of the shelters, as it was clear that the Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corporation (LHCDC), the non-profit organization that owned and operated the shelters and many other affordable housing projects in the city, was failing.”
According to the report, LHCDC was the city of Lompoc’s primary agency for providing affordable housing. It owned nearly two thirds of the affordable living units in the city and received funds for these developments from at least 12 identifiable sources. Virtually all of the money was funneled through two overseeing bodies: the city of Lompoc or its redevelopment agency, and the county of Santa Barbara.
As the lead entity for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HOME program, the county invested $2.89 million in LHCDC properties. The estimated potential liability to the county is $1.4 million.
As of June 13, the report says, the city of Lompoc “does not know for certain how much it and its Redevelopment Agency loaned LHCDC nor the extent of its losses.” As of October 2009, it’s estimated the redevelopment agency disbursed $1.8 million to the nonprofit.
Under the HOME agreement, agencies that receive loans must demonstrate “affordability” by submitting records to the lead entity—in this case, the Santa Barbara County Housing and Community Development Department. The federal government holds the lead entity accountable for repayment of funds if loan recipients fail to meet HOME requirements.
The Lompoc Redevelopment Agency had similar requirements.
According to the grand jury report, starting in 2007, the Lompoc RDA sent numerous letters informing LHCDC that it was out of compliance with various affordability requirements.
However, when the Santa Barbara County Housing and Community Development Department inspected all of the county’s HOME-funded rental projects one month later, it failed to identify any noncompliance issues.
In a 2011 memo, the Lompoc Community Development Department told the City Council that LHCDC had a property out of compliance as early as 2003. Correspondence included in the grand jury report clearly documents LHCDC’s unresponsiveness to such notifications.
The Lompoc RDA loaned LHCDC approximately $1.7 million while the agency was technically out of compliance.
“It did not enforce its loan agreements and covenant restrictions when there was a clear pattern of failing to respond to the agency’s requests,” the grand jury report says. “The Redevelopment Board, and ultimately the Lompoc City Council, bear the responsibility for this inaction.”
The grand jury placed blame on the county as well. The report noted that while audited financial statements wouldn’t necessarily affirm compliance with loan agreements, the county should have taken the initiative to conduct its own inspection of LHCDC’s financial records, especially when there was an increasing pattern of noncompliance.
In its report, the jury recommended that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors establish a policy directing the county auditor-controller to conduct an audit of all organizations that receive county funds in excess of $100,000, and report his findings to the board. The jury recommended the Lompoc City Council direct the city management services director to conduct annual audits for organizations that receive more than $50,000. Finally, the jury recommended that the county and city withhold funding if an organization fails to supply complete records for the audits or fails to meet requirements of existing contracts.
The county, the auditor-controller, and the city of Lompoc now have 90 days each to respond to the report.
To view a complete copy of “A Failure of Oversight: Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corportation,” visit sbcgj.org/2012/LompocHousing.pdf.
After much public scrutiny over whether it would investigate the demise of the bankrupt low-income housing nonprofit LHCDC, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury released on June 13 a report titled, “A Failure of Oversight: Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corporation.”
“In January 2012, residents of Lompoc and indeed all of Santa Barbara County were shocked to learn that two homeless shelters in the city, Marks House and Bridgehouse, had closed with only five days’ notice on a holiday weekend,” the report begins. “Public officials should have anticipated the closing of the shelters, as it was clear that the Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corporation (LHCDC), the non-profit organization that owned and operated the shelters and many other affordable housing projects in the city, was failing.”
According to the report, LHCDC was the city of Lompoc’s primary agency for providing affordable housing. It owned nearly two thirds of the affordable living units in the city and received funds for these developments from at least 12 identifiable sources. Virtually all of the money was funneled through two overseeing bodies: the city of Lompoc or its redevelopment agency, and the county of Santa Barbara.
As the lead entity for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HOME program, the county invested $2.89 million in LHCDC properties. The estimated potential liability to the county is $1.4 million.
As of June 13, the report says, the city of Lompoc “does not know for certain how much it and its Redevelopment Agency loaned LHCDC nor the extent of its losses.” As of October 2009, it’s estimated the redevelopment agency disbursed $1.8 million to the nonprofit.
Under the HOME agreement, agencies that receive loans must demonstrate “affordability” by submitting records to the lead entity—in this case, the Santa Barbara County Housing and Community Development Department. The federal government holds the lead entity accountable for repayment of funds if loan recipients fail to meet HOME requirements.
The Lompoc Redevelopment Agency had similar requirements.
According to the grand jury report, starting in 2007, the Lompoc RDA sent numerous letters informing LHCDC that it was out of compliance with various affordability requirements.
However, when the Santa Barbara County Housing and Community Development Department inspected all of the county’s HOME-funded rental projects one month later, it failed to identify any noncompliance issues.
In a 2011 memo, the Lompoc Community Development Department told the City Council that LHCDC had a property out of compliance as early as 2003. Correspondence included in the grand jury report clearly documents LHCDC’s unresponsiveness to such notifications.
The Lompoc RDA loaned LHCDC approximately $1.7 million while the agency was technically out of compliance.
“It did not enforce its loan agreements and covenant restrictions when there was a clear pattern of failing to respond to the agency’s requests,” the grand jury report says. “The Redevelopment Board, and ultimately the Lompoc City Council, bear the responsibility for this inaction.”
The grand jury placed blame on the county as well. The report noted that while audited financial statements wouldn’t necessarily affirm compliance with loan agreements, the county should have taken the initiative to conduct its own inspection of LHCDC’s financial records, especially when there was an increasing pattern of noncompliance.
In its report, the jury recommended that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors establish a policy directing the county auditor-controller to conduct an audit of all organizations that receive county funds in excess of $100,000, and report his findings to the board. The jury recommended the Lompoc City Council direct the city management services director to conduct annual audits for organizations that receive more than $50,000. Finally, the jury recommended that the county and city withhold funding if an organization fails to supply complete records for the audits or fails to meet requirements of existing contracts.
The county, the auditor-controller, and the city of Lompoc now have 90 days each to respond to the report.
To view a complete copy of “A Failure of Oversight: Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corportation,” visit sbcgj.org/2012/LompocHousing.pdf.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
(San Luis Obispo) Supervisors OK new evidence room for sheriff
Decision comes after grand jury criticism, but Ian Parkinson has been asking for the room since he took office in early 2011
By Bob Cuddy - SanLuisObispo.com
Less than two weeks after the San Luis Obispo County Civil Grand Jury criticized local police departments and the Sheriff’s Office for having inadequate evidence rooms, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a new evidence room for the sheriff.
The timing was coincidental. Sheriff Ian Parkinson has been lamenting the inadequacy of evidence storage facilities almost since he took office a year and a half ago. But the grand jury report, which also critiqued the county’s seven police departments, has put a spotlight on the problem.
In a report to supervisors, Parkinson wrote that his current evidence/property room is in a 2,500-square-foot World War II barracks the county acquired from Camp San Luis Obispo in 1966.
It has a pair of 8-foot by 12-foot freezers as well as shelving and carts gathered over the years as surplus county property. Because the building is too small, the sheriff has had to store evidence in four shipping containers, each at a different locale.
“More evidence arrives each day,” Parkinson wrote. In 2011, the department processed more than 10,000 cases, and the evidence inventory is exceeding 75,000 items.
Parkinson asked the board to approve a new evidence storage area in a 5-year-old, 2,300-square-foot building on Kansas Street currently being used to store vehicles. He estimated that the new setup would store up to 45 percent more and be adaptable in case the department needs more room.
The proposal also would incorporate a steel-titanium security cage, a vault for drug storage, a drug storage refrigerator, two walk-in freezers and three work stations.
The project would cost $420,000, of which $370,000 would come from public facility trust fund fees and $50,000 from asset forfeiture funds.
The expenditure would leave $586,201 in the trust fund. The asset forfeiture fund is money the government raises from the seizure of assets from suspected though not yet convicted criminals.
In a highly detailed report released earlier this month, the civil grand jury criticized inadequacies and disparities in the way various departments handle evidence.
They also spent considerable time stressing the importance of evidence rooms.
The rooms store not only evidence in criminal cases, but also contraband, property set for destruction and property for safekeeping.
Mishandling any of this, or mismanagement, “can easily lead to court cases not being filed, loss of public confidence … personnel problems, litigation, and possible financial loss,” grand jurors wrote.
It could also interfere with the administration of justice, in the sense that “prosecution or exoneration of a person may be jeopardized,” the grand jury wrote.
One of the grand jury’s recommendations was to consolidate the several property rooms into one countywide locale, as is being considered in San Mateo County. Such a move could save a considerable amount of money, grand jurors hypothesized.
The grand jury’s recommendations are nonbinding.
By Bob Cuddy - SanLuisObispo.com
Less than two weeks after the San Luis Obispo County Civil Grand Jury criticized local police departments and the Sheriff’s Office for having inadequate evidence rooms, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a new evidence room for the sheriff.
The timing was coincidental. Sheriff Ian Parkinson has been lamenting the inadequacy of evidence storage facilities almost since he took office a year and a half ago. But the grand jury report, which also critiqued the county’s seven police departments, has put a spotlight on the problem.
In a report to supervisors, Parkinson wrote that his current evidence/property room is in a 2,500-square-foot World War II barracks the county acquired from Camp San Luis Obispo in 1966.
It has a pair of 8-foot by 12-foot freezers as well as shelving and carts gathered over the years as surplus county property. Because the building is too small, the sheriff has had to store evidence in four shipping containers, each at a different locale.
“More evidence arrives each day,” Parkinson wrote. In 2011, the department processed more than 10,000 cases, and the evidence inventory is exceeding 75,000 items.
Parkinson asked the board to approve a new evidence storage area in a 5-year-old, 2,300-square-foot building on Kansas Street currently being used to store vehicles. He estimated that the new setup would store up to 45 percent more and be adaptable in case the department needs more room.
The proposal also would incorporate a steel-titanium security cage, a vault for drug storage, a drug storage refrigerator, two walk-in freezers and three work stations.
The project would cost $420,000, of which $370,000 would come from public facility trust fund fees and $50,000 from asset forfeiture funds.
The expenditure would leave $586,201 in the trust fund. The asset forfeiture fund is money the government raises from the seizure of assets from suspected though not yet convicted criminals.
In a highly detailed report released earlier this month, the civil grand jury criticized inadequacies and disparities in the way various departments handle evidence.
They also spent considerable time stressing the importance of evidence rooms.
The rooms store not only evidence in criminal cases, but also contraband, property set for destruction and property for safekeeping.
Mishandling any of this, or mismanagement, “can easily lead to court cases not being filed, loss of public confidence … personnel problems, litigation, and possible financial loss,” grand jurors wrote.
It could also interfere with the administration of justice, in the sense that “prosecution or exoneration of a person may be jeopardized,” the grand jury wrote.
One of the grand jury’s recommendations was to consolidate the several property rooms into one countywide locale, as is being considered in San Mateo County. Such a move could save a considerable amount of money, grand jurors hypothesized.
The grand jury’s recommendations are nonbinding.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
(MARIN CO) Volunteers a great return on investment, finds grand jury
by Jason Walsh - PacificSun.com
Finding people willing to work for free is a boon for the County, a Marin County Civil Grand Jury announced this week.
In fact, the jury reports, we're living in a veritable golden age for volunteerism in Marin County.
In its report, "Civic Center Volunteers Program: The Goose that Lays the Golden Eggs," the grand jury found that the onslaught of retiring baby boomers combined with the recession-led budget cuts and increase in unemployment has led to a "perfect storm" in regards to the needs and availability of volunteers.
As of 2010, a Civic Center volunteer financial impact report, estimated more than 8,000 people volunteering in county government, as compared to the county's 1,750 full-time employees.
"These volunteers work from a few hours a week to several days a week and, in many cases, they have been doing so for many years," reports the grand jury. "They volunteer in our libraries, health and human services, parks and open space, courts system, at public events and in numerous other areas.
"It is not an exaggeration to say that county government would be severely challenged if these people did not show up for work tomorrow."
The 2010 volunteer impact report also calculated the volunteer hours, if paid at a rate similar to temp workers, would have been valued at about $9 million.
To help keep up the good volunteer work the report recommends that: The Civic Center Volunteers program restore the administrative assistant position to a full-time permanent position; the person leading the Civic Center Volunteers program be given the authority of a county department manager; the Board of Supervisors continue its twice-yearly volunteer recognition ceremonies; a volunteer handbook be written to educate about responsibilities and liabilities; and the CCV staff continue to be actively involved in training and coordination of volunteers.
Finding people willing to work for free is a boon for the County, a Marin County Civil Grand Jury announced this week.
In fact, the jury reports, we're living in a veritable golden age for volunteerism in Marin County.
In its report, "Civic Center Volunteers Program: The Goose that Lays the Golden Eggs," the grand jury found that the onslaught of retiring baby boomers combined with the recession-led budget cuts and increase in unemployment has led to a "perfect storm" in regards to the needs and availability of volunteers.
As of 2010, a Civic Center volunteer financial impact report, estimated more than 8,000 people volunteering in county government, as compared to the county's 1,750 full-time employees.
"These volunteers work from a few hours a week to several days a week and, in many cases, they have been doing so for many years," reports the grand jury. "They volunteer in our libraries, health and human services, parks and open space, courts system, at public events and in numerous other areas.
"It is not an exaggeration to say that county government would be severely challenged if these people did not show up for work tomorrow."
The 2010 volunteer impact report also calculated the volunteer hours, if paid at a rate similar to temp workers, would have been valued at about $9 million.
To help keep up the good volunteer work the report recommends that: The Civic Center Volunteers program restore the administrative assistant position to a full-time permanent position; the person leading the Civic Center Volunteers program be given the authority of a county department manager; the Board of Supervisors continue its twice-yearly volunteer recognition ceremonies; a volunteer handbook be written to educate about responsibilities and liabilities; and the CCV staff continue to be actively involved in training and coordination of volunteers.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Can Orange County sharpen teeth of its citizen watchdog?
One could call it the Rodney Dangerfield of local government institutions.
Every year, 19 well-meaning, civic-minded (and mostly retired) folks with an eclectic collection of life experiences assemble in a cramped corner of the county courthouse for some serious business. They draw inspiration from words attributed to Margaret Mead: ”Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
They take the oath of office: “I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of California, and … will diligently inquire into, and true presentment make, of all public offenses against the people of this state, committed or triable within this county....”
And then, after promising not to disclose a word of their closed-door deliberations now and forever, these Regular Joes and Janes transform into the official eyes and the ears of We The People, peering under rocks, poking worms with sticks, examining the effectiveness and efficiency of our local democratic institutions.
Over the past few years, grand juries have railed in official reports about everything from Orange County’s lack of a spay/neuter law for dogs and cats (which contributes to a high kill rate at the animal shelter), to the steep (but not abusive) pay granted to senior city officials, to a plethora of “shadow governments” (and the tremendous amounts of money that pile up in their bank accounts), to the silliness of how we run modern fire departments (when only a tiny fraction of calls are for fires).
Needless to say, this sort of criticism is not always welcome in the hallowed halls of government. That’s the single dumbest report I have ever read – and I apologize for the insult to dumb people everywhere, seethed one public servant whose agency was criticized by the grand jury.
While most officials are surely polite to these citizen watchdogs, there’s a powerful but unspoken tension, and grand jurors are often seen as intruders who will soon be gone. Grand juries, after all, are usually empowered for just one year; the folks at the agencies being probed will be ar0und for much, much longer than that.
Thus the Rodney Dangerfield thing. Even grand jurors can have trouble getting public information out of public agencies. We’ve heard about records that are delivered as the grand jury’s term ends, so there’s no time to do much with them; the new jury often doesn’t want leftovers, so the issue just fades away.
The grand jury’s often-biting reports are also released at the end of the term, and the agencies probed are legally required to respond to its recommendations within 90 days. But no one from the grand jury that made the recommendations is around to get the responses, which means no one really follows up on them, and the issues often just fade away.
Kent Moore, who served on the grand jury three decades ago, shook his head as he read about the grand jury’s recent report on special districts. The 1981-82 grand jury addressed this same subject in great detail, he said — and was roundly criticized for concluding that consolidating special districts was in the best interests of the county.
The story was exactly the same a generation later.
CAN O.C. SHARPEN WATCHDOG’S TEETH?
We at The Watchdog once worked for an editor who refused to cover grand jury reports precisely because the institution lacked the teeth necessary to enforce its recommendations. But even without the power to consolidate every special district, court officials could take steps to make the grand jury here stronger, if they so wished.
Consider our friends in Fresno. There, it is common practice to “hold over” several grand jurors from one year to the next – something which rarely happens here in O.C.
Holding over has several advantages: It lets the new jury get up to speed much more quickly, as seasoned folks share wisdom with newbies; it allows the jurors who wrote the reports be around to collect responses, so issues don’t die quietly of neglect; and it allows the jurors who asked for documents that weren’t delivered until late in the game to follow up, so those don’t die of neglect, either.
This year, four of Fresno’s 19 jurors will continue their service, said jury service manager Sherry Spears. “That gives them two years on the panel rather than just one,” she said. “I’m surprised that that’s not typical down there. I thought most counties do it.”
Marsha Caranci, a director with the statewide California Grand Jurors Association, says that indeed is the case. “I would say by far the majority of the counties in the state do allow for and encourage holdover jurors,” she said. “The penal code allows for up to 10, but most counties find that they don’t want that many because that’s half the jury, and that’s too much power. It is a decision up to the presiding or supervising judge. I would say most of them encourage three or four or five holdovers every year.”
Michael Verrengia has served on the Orange County grand jury twice — but not consecutively, and not as a holdover. “The majority of the people we talked to understood the function of the grand jury and were good about it — ‘OK, what can I help you with.’ But not all of them,” he said.
“Not all of them were real appreciative of the grand jury asking questions, and some of them were defensive. It all depends on what report you were working on and how they viewed their position in this report. I can almost understand their position. They don’t know who we are, they don’t know what we’re working on, they don’t know how they’re going to look when it’s done. A lot of it is based on the personality of the grand jury panel — some can be very neutral, some very pro and some very con.”
Back in 2007 and 2008, the issue of holdovers had come up among the jurors. “One of the downsides is that, after you release a report, there’s a considerable amount of time before you get responses. But we were gone. They could send a one word response — ‘Disagree’ — and we’re not there to do anything about it. My feeling is there’s not enough teeth in these things.”
Holding over jurors might help, he said. Another idea: Grand juries might ramp up and try to release reports as early as possible — starting in, say, December, rather than in May and June, as they currently do. That way, they’d still be empaneled when the responses come in, he said, and they’ll have time to follow up.
Some jurors couldn’t wait to get off the panel, saying they’d never do it again – -but not Verrengia. “I found it hugely interesting, and to me it’s a function that really does need to be supported,” he said. “We’re members of the public, not specially chosen by politicians or businesses. We act as the public’s watchdog. We’re there making sure that there’s transparency in government — here’s your tax dollars at work, we’re looking at it to make sure they’re using them wisely.”
It probably wouldn’t hurt to make the watchdog’s teeth as sharp as possible.
Every year, 19 well-meaning, civic-minded (and mostly retired) folks with an eclectic collection of life experiences assemble in a cramped corner of the county courthouse for some serious business. They draw inspiration from words attributed to Margaret Mead: ”Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
They take the oath of office: “I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of California, and … will diligently inquire into, and true presentment make, of all public offenses against the people of this state, committed or triable within this county....”
And then, after promising not to disclose a word of their closed-door deliberations now and forever, these Regular Joes and Janes transform into the official eyes and the ears of We The People, peering under rocks, poking worms with sticks, examining the effectiveness and efficiency of our local democratic institutions.
Over the past few years, grand juries have railed in official reports about everything from Orange County’s lack of a spay/neuter law for dogs and cats (which contributes to a high kill rate at the animal shelter), to the steep (but not abusive) pay granted to senior city officials, to a plethora of “shadow governments” (and the tremendous amounts of money that pile up in their bank accounts), to the silliness of how we run modern fire departments (when only a tiny fraction of calls are for fires).
Needless to say, this sort of criticism is not always welcome in the hallowed halls of government. That’s the single dumbest report I have ever read – and I apologize for the insult to dumb people everywhere, seethed one public servant whose agency was criticized by the grand jury.
While most officials are surely polite to these citizen watchdogs, there’s a powerful but unspoken tension, and grand jurors are often seen as intruders who will soon be gone. Grand juries, after all, are usually empowered for just one year; the folks at the agencies being probed will be ar0und for much, much longer than that.
Thus the Rodney Dangerfield thing. Even grand jurors can have trouble getting public information out of public agencies. We’ve heard about records that are delivered as the grand jury’s term ends, so there’s no time to do much with them; the new jury often doesn’t want leftovers, so the issue just fades away.
The grand jury’s often-biting reports are also released at the end of the term, and the agencies probed are legally required to respond to its recommendations within 90 days. But no one from the grand jury that made the recommendations is around to get the responses, which means no one really follows up on them, and the issues often just fade away.
Kent Moore, who served on the grand jury three decades ago, shook his head as he read about the grand jury’s recent report on special districts. The 1981-82 grand jury addressed this same subject in great detail, he said — and was roundly criticized for concluding that consolidating special districts was in the best interests of the county.
The story was exactly the same a generation later.
CAN O.C. SHARPEN WATCHDOG’S TEETH?
We at The Watchdog once worked for an editor who refused to cover grand jury reports precisely because the institution lacked the teeth necessary to enforce its recommendations. But even without the power to consolidate every special district, court officials could take steps to make the grand jury here stronger, if they so wished.
Consider our friends in Fresno. There, it is common practice to “hold over” several grand jurors from one year to the next – something which rarely happens here in O.C.
Holding over has several advantages: It lets the new jury get up to speed much more quickly, as seasoned folks share wisdom with newbies; it allows the jurors who wrote the reports be around to collect responses, so issues don’t die quietly of neglect; and it allows the jurors who asked for documents that weren’t delivered until late in the game to follow up, so those don’t die of neglect, either.
This year, four of Fresno’s 19 jurors will continue their service, said jury service manager Sherry Spears. “That gives them two years on the panel rather than just one,” she said. “I’m surprised that that’s not typical down there. I thought most counties do it.”
Marsha Caranci, a director with the statewide California Grand Jurors Association, says that indeed is the case. “I would say by far the majority of the counties in the state do allow for and encourage holdover jurors,” she said. “The penal code allows for up to 10, but most counties find that they don’t want that many because that’s half the jury, and that’s too much power. It is a decision up to the presiding or supervising judge. I would say most of them encourage three or four or five holdovers every year.”
Michael Verrengia has served on the Orange County grand jury twice — but not consecutively, and not as a holdover. “The majority of the people we talked to understood the function of the grand jury and were good about it — ‘OK, what can I help you with.’ But not all of them,” he said.
“Not all of them were real appreciative of the grand jury asking questions, and some of them were defensive. It all depends on what report you were working on and how they viewed their position in this report. I can almost understand their position. They don’t know who we are, they don’t know what we’re working on, they don’t know how they’re going to look when it’s done. A lot of it is based on the personality of the grand jury panel — some can be very neutral, some very pro and some very con.”
Back in 2007 and 2008, the issue of holdovers had come up among the jurors. “One of the downsides is that, after you release a report, there’s a considerable amount of time before you get responses. But we were gone. They could send a one word response — ‘Disagree’ — and we’re not there to do anything about it. My feeling is there’s not enough teeth in these things.”
Holding over jurors might help, he said. Another idea: Grand juries might ramp up and try to release reports as early as possible — starting in, say, December, rather than in May and June, as they currently do. That way, they’d still be empaneled when the responses come in, he said, and they’ll have time to follow up.
Some jurors couldn’t wait to get off the panel, saying they’d never do it again – -but not Verrengia. “I found it hugely interesting, and to me it’s a function that really does need to be supported,” he said. “We’re members of the public, not specially chosen by politicians or businesses. We act as the public’s watchdog. We’re there making sure that there’s transparency in government — here’s your tax dollars at work, we’re looking at it to make sure they’re using them wisely.”
It probably wouldn’t hurt to make the watchdog’s teeth as sharp as possible.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
(Marin County) Grand jury lauds Novato community for anti-alcohol work
The Novato community, led by the nonprofit Novato Blue Ribbon
Coalition for Youth, has been a leader in the effort to cut teen alcohol use and
is a model for other Marin communities, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury said
in a report released Friday.
Organized efforts to reduce teen drinking date back to 1987, when the city of Novato formed the Novato Drug and Alcohol Prevention Advisory Task Force, and it has continued in various forms under the direction of city and schools officials, according to the report. In 2008, the private sector took the lead when a school board-led committee was re-formed as the independent blue ribbon commission.
The commission now includes citizens and members of Novato's police department, school district, city government and civic organizations. Including a broad group of people has helped the commission focus on factors such as alcohol advertising, the availability of alcohol and teen use patterns rather than simply targeting individuals, said Teri Rockas, co-chair of the commission and a health educator for Kaiser Permanente.
"This is about mobilizing the community to make change, regardless of what the funding availability is, regardless of what the political will is," Rockas said.
Calling youth binge drinking a "public health crisis in Marin County," the grand jury report cites statistics such as a 50 percent drinking rate among 11th-graders — the highest rate in California — and incidents including fatal car crashes in 2005 and 2010 in which drunken teens were driving
. The report calls on public agencies, including the county's Health and Human Services Department and the Marin County Office of Education to support anti-drinking efforts, and states the city should increase its enforcement of its social host ordinance, which targets adults who serve alcohol to minors.
The blue ribbon coalition is already working to share $5,400 of its grant funding with the Novato Police Department for patrols focused on teen parties this summer, said Bill Welch, the commission's co-chair and a retired Novato police officer.
The commission was bolstered in fall 2011 by the receipt of a multi-year, $625,000 grant from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and other funds have come from Kaiser, the county, the Peter E. Haas Jr. Family Foundation, the Marin Community Foundation and the Dennis and Carol Ann Rockey Fund.
The coalition is still developing its strategy but in the past year it has supported advocacy efforts such as fighting a new alcohol permit for a gas station and lobbying clothing retailer Tilly's to pull an alcohol-related display from its stores.
A major focus of the group is changing adult's attitudes toward drinking, said Jennifer Treppa, coalition member and former Novato school board member.
"Every time a young person takes a drink of alcohol, there was an adult involved at some point," Treppa said.
Members of the group have attended several PTA meetings and will continue to reach out to parents and other adults in the fall, she said.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
New Contra Costa County Bond Oversight Group Forming
The California League of Bond Oversight Committees (CaLBOC)
is announcing the formation of the Contra Costa County Chapter of CaLBOC.
Everyone is invited to the first meeting on Saturday June 23, 2012, from 10 am
to noon at La Tapatia Restaurant, 536 Main Street in Martinez. This will be an
organizational meeting that will include the recent Grand Jury report on school
bond oversight as a main topic of discussion. Nine school districts in Contra
Costa County are to respond to their 16 findings and 12 recommendations.
(PRWEB) June 16, 2012
The California League of Bond Oversight Committees (CaLBOC) is announcing the
formation of the Contra Costa County Chapter of CaLBOC. Everyone is invited to
the first meeting on Saturday June 23, 2012, from 10 am to noon at La Tapatia
Restaurant, 536 Main Street in Martinez. This will be an organizational meeting
that will include the recent Grand Jury report on school bond oversight as a
main topic of discussion.
The 2011-2012 Contra Costa County Grand Jury released Report #1208 on May 11,
2012 titled ”School Bond Oversight – Raising the Bar”. This is a 13 page report
with 16 findings and 12 recommendations that requires responses by the governing
boards of nine school districts. These districts are: Acalanes Union School,
Antioch Unified School District, Byron Union School District, Contra Costa
Community College District, John Swett Unified School District, Martinez Unified
School District, Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Pittsburg Unified School
District, and West Contra Costa Unified School District.
Prop. 39 required districts to have CBOCs (Citizens’ Bond Oversight
Committees) to oversee school bond expenditures. CBOCs are required to actively
review the expenditure of bond funds and to verify that the funds are being
spent only for authorized purposes. The county Grand Jury findings address
issues covering bond language, conflict of interest issues in the selection of
bond oversight committee members, inadequate training and resource materials for
oversight committees, and performance audits that are so limited that they don’t
provide effective oversight.
Voters have approved over $3 billion dollars of school facility bonds in
Contra Costa County alone. This makes lack of effective bond oversight a great
concern with potential financial impacts on much of the community – also
potentially impacting education. Recently, when a school parcel tax failed, some
believe this was in part because of the already large property tax burden from
school facility bonds.
CaLBOC provides support and training for CBOC members. It is an
all-volunteer, non-partisan association of CBOC members, current and past, who
are interested in helping other CBOC members. Since CBOC volunteers may be
overseeing multi-million dollar school bond projects with inadequate support and
training, a local chapter of CaLBOC could become a great asset for Contra Costa
County.
To register and for more info please visit: http://www.ccccalboc.eventbrite.com
Topics include: 1.)
Organization, 2.) Discussion of the CCC Grand Jury Report #1208
Thursday, June 14, 2012
(Santa Barbara) Grand Jury Blasts 'Failure of Oversite'
By Bo Poertner/Associate Editor/bpoertner@santamariatimes.com
The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury on Wednesday issued a report detailing the failure of Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corp., inadequate government oversight of the nonprofit’s use of public money, and the dire consequences for the community.
Called “A Failure of Oversight,” the 18-page report makes clear the widespread impact of LHCDC’s inadequate operations and the failure of Santa Barbara County and the city of Lompoc in monitoring its financial status.
The Grand Jury, while focusing primarily on improving government operations, documented LHCDC noncompliance with regulations as far back as 2003, how it over-charged low-income tenants for rent and stopped providing financial reports as it tried to control government attempts to monitor its operations.
LHCDC did not cooperate with the investigation, the report noted.
The Grand Jury, which launched its investigation after receiving several complaints from citizens, made four recommendations each for the city and county regarding annual audits and reporting of the findings.
Also, the Grand Jury asked the county Board of Supervisors, the city of Lompoc and the county Auditor-Controller to respond to its report within 90 days.
The report begins with a well publicized public event — the closing of the Bridgehouse and Marks House homeless shelters by LHCDC on a holiday weekend this January.
On the first page , the Grand Jury states, “The most immediate victims of the fall of LHCDC are the homeless who were thrown out of the shelters, the low-income tenants whose homes are in disrepair, and the residents of Lompoc who have to suffer the resulting blight.
“Taxpayers are also victims. Many of the loans given to LHCDC will have to be repaid by the County of Santa Barbara or the City of Lompoc,” the report continues.
The county, as the lead agency in the federal HOME program, invested $2.89 million in LHCDC properties and faces a potential liability of $1.4 million under a recallable loan provision, according to the report.
“Lompoc, at this time, does not know for certain how much it and its Redevelopment Agency loaned LHCDC nor the extent of its losses,” the Grand Jury reported. “As of October 2009, the Redevelopment Agency expenditure was $1.8 million.”
The Redevelopment Agency has since been dissolved as a result of a state Supreme Court decision in December 2011 that eliminated redevelopment agencies across the state.
The Grand Jury noted that the terms and conditions of loan contracts between the county and LHCDC varied from contract to contract over the years, but concluded that “it was the monitoring and enforcement of the loan requirements that ultimately fell short.”
The loan agreements offered many opportunities to demand accountability by LHCDC, but “the (county) Department of Housing and Community Development simply didn’t do its job in seizing the opportunities available in the agreements,” according to the report.
Lompoc also failed to enforce its loan agreements and covenant restrictions “when there was a clear pattern of failing to respond to the agency’s requests,” the report stated.
The city’s Redevelopment Agency loaned LHCDC about $1.7 million while the nonprofit was “technically out of compliance,” according to the report.
Included in the report was extensive correspondence between LHCDC and government overseers that reveals how oversight was delayed. Among the correspondence:
• An exchange between the city and LHCDC Executive Director Sue Ehrlich in April 2009 about required audits that were late.
After being notified on April 6, 2009 that LHCDC’s annual report for a federal CDBG grant program was late per a contractual agreement with the city, Ehrlich, who is not mentioned by name in the report, replied on April 13, 2009: “The 2006 audited financial statements have been delayed ‘for a variety of reasons,’ but will be completed by the end of April 2009. In addition, the 2007 audit will be completed by the end of August 2009 and 2008 will be completed by the end of September 2009.”
That memo contrasts with public statements made by LHCDC officials that audits were not required.
• On April 27, 2009, Santa Barbara County notified LHCDC that the county would conduct an immediate “brief monitoring” in response to an unsolicited comment from a College Park tenant.
Two days later, Ehrlich asked the county to put its plans for monitoring on hold, questioning whether such monitoring was recommended by HUD and questioning the “nature of the survey” and the “methodology to analyze survey responses.”
The outcome of the exchange is unclear.
• On Sept. 25, 2009, per LHCDC’s request, the county postponed a monitoring of all county-funded projects until Oct. 27 and 28. On Oct. 19 that year, LHCDC asked that the inspections be delayed to late November or early December and asked that a “pre-monitoring meeting” be held at least two weeks prior to the monitoring to review the scope of the monitoring and its goals and objectives.
LHCDC’s last audit, submitted in 2006, revealed that all tenants Casa Con Tres Apartments on North L Street in Lompoc were being charged rent that exceeded the maximum allowed by the Redevelopment Agency’s affordability covenant for the property. The city notified LHCDC repeatedly of the correct rent amounts and requested reduction, according to the report.
The county had granted a HOME loan of $157,300 for the same property. Although LHCDC was in noncompliance with the county covenants, the county’s 2006-07 annual audit reported that 17 HOME-funded rental projects managed by four different agencies were monitored and no noncompliance issues were identified, the Grand Jury Report stated.
Carol Benham, who has written extensively about LHCDC in columns that appear in the Lompoc Record, called the report “proof of a massive failure to oversee taxpayer funds and to hold LHCDC accountable for almost anything. LHCDC failed. The county failed. The city failed. And tenants, residents and taxpayers are paying the price.”
“LHCDC overcharged tenants for rent, and when confronted with it, they simply stopped submitting required data. This organization’s arrogance and hubris is boundless. They seem to believe they were accountable to no one,” she said.
Benham said the case should now move from the civil arena to the criminal.
“I believe it’s time to take it to the next step — an investigation by the State Attorney General or the District Attorney into the possible misappropriation of public funds,” she said.
http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/grand-jury-blasts-failure-of-oversight/article_0e05b376-b5ed-11e1-ae30-0019bb2963f4.html?comment_form=true
The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury on Wednesday issued a report detailing the failure of Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corp., inadequate government oversight of the nonprofit’s use of public money, and the dire consequences for the community.
Called “A Failure of Oversight,” the 18-page report makes clear the widespread impact of LHCDC’s inadequate operations and the failure of Santa Barbara County and the city of Lompoc in monitoring its financial status.
The Grand Jury, while focusing primarily on improving government operations, documented LHCDC noncompliance with regulations as far back as 2003, how it over-charged low-income tenants for rent and stopped providing financial reports as it tried to control government attempts to monitor its operations.
LHCDC did not cooperate with the investigation, the report noted.
The Grand Jury, which launched its investigation after receiving several complaints from citizens, made four recommendations each for the city and county regarding annual audits and reporting of the findings.
Also, the Grand Jury asked the county Board of Supervisors, the city of Lompoc and the county Auditor-Controller to respond to its report within 90 days.
The report begins with a well publicized public event — the closing of the Bridgehouse and Marks House homeless shelters by LHCDC on a holiday weekend this January.
On the first page , the Grand Jury states, “The most immediate victims of the fall of LHCDC are the homeless who were thrown out of the shelters, the low-income tenants whose homes are in disrepair, and the residents of Lompoc who have to suffer the resulting blight.
“Taxpayers are also victims. Many of the loans given to LHCDC will have to be repaid by the County of Santa Barbara or the City of Lompoc,” the report continues.
The county, as the lead agency in the federal HOME program, invested $2.89 million in LHCDC properties and faces a potential liability of $1.4 million under a recallable loan provision, according to the report.
“Lompoc, at this time, does not know for certain how much it and its Redevelopment Agency loaned LHCDC nor the extent of its losses,” the Grand Jury reported. “As of October 2009, the Redevelopment Agency expenditure was $1.8 million.”
The Redevelopment Agency has since been dissolved as a result of a state Supreme Court decision in December 2011 that eliminated redevelopment agencies across the state.
The Grand Jury noted that the terms and conditions of loan contracts between the county and LHCDC varied from contract to contract over the years, but concluded that “it was the monitoring and enforcement of the loan requirements that ultimately fell short.”
The loan agreements offered many opportunities to demand accountability by LHCDC, but “the (county) Department of Housing and Community Development simply didn’t do its job in seizing the opportunities available in the agreements,” according to the report.
Lompoc also failed to enforce its loan agreements and covenant restrictions “when there was a clear pattern of failing to respond to the agency’s requests,” the report stated.
The city’s Redevelopment Agency loaned LHCDC about $1.7 million while the nonprofit was “technically out of compliance,” according to the report.
Included in the report was extensive correspondence between LHCDC and government overseers that reveals how oversight was delayed. Among the correspondence:
• An exchange between the city and LHCDC Executive Director Sue Ehrlich in April 2009 about required audits that were late.
After being notified on April 6, 2009 that LHCDC’s annual report for a federal CDBG grant program was late per a contractual agreement with the city, Ehrlich, who is not mentioned by name in the report, replied on April 13, 2009: “The 2006 audited financial statements have been delayed ‘for a variety of reasons,’ but will be completed by the end of April 2009. In addition, the 2007 audit will be completed by the end of August 2009 and 2008 will be completed by the end of September 2009.”
That memo contrasts with public statements made by LHCDC officials that audits were not required.
• On April 27, 2009, Santa Barbara County notified LHCDC that the county would conduct an immediate “brief monitoring” in response to an unsolicited comment from a College Park tenant.
Two days later, Ehrlich asked the county to put its plans for monitoring on hold, questioning whether such monitoring was recommended by HUD and questioning the “nature of the survey” and the “methodology to analyze survey responses.”
The outcome of the exchange is unclear.
• On Sept. 25, 2009, per LHCDC’s request, the county postponed a monitoring of all county-funded projects until Oct. 27 and 28. On Oct. 19 that year, LHCDC asked that the inspections be delayed to late November or early December and asked that a “pre-monitoring meeting” be held at least two weeks prior to the monitoring to review the scope of the monitoring and its goals and objectives.
LHCDC’s last audit, submitted in 2006, revealed that all tenants Casa Con Tres Apartments on North L Street in Lompoc were being charged rent that exceeded the maximum allowed by the Redevelopment Agency’s affordability covenant for the property. The city notified LHCDC repeatedly of the correct rent amounts and requested reduction, according to the report.
The county had granted a HOME loan of $157,300 for the same property. Although LHCDC was in noncompliance with the county covenants, the county’s 2006-07 annual audit reported that 17 HOME-funded rental projects managed by four different agencies were monitored and no noncompliance issues were identified, the Grand Jury Report stated.
Carol Benham, who has written extensively about LHCDC in columns that appear in the Lompoc Record, called the report “proof of a massive failure to oversee taxpayer funds and to hold LHCDC accountable for almost anything. LHCDC failed. The county failed. The city failed. And tenants, residents and taxpayers are paying the price.”
“LHCDC overcharged tenants for rent, and when confronted with it, they simply stopped submitting required data. This organization’s arrogance and hubris is boundless. They seem to believe they were accountable to no one,” she said.
Benham said the case should now move from the civil arena to the criminal.
“I believe it’s time to take it to the next step — an investigation by the State Attorney General or the District Attorney into the possible misappropriation of public funds,” she said.
http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/grand-jury-blasts-failure-of-oversight/article_0e05b376-b5ed-11e1-ae30-0019bb2963f4.html?comment_form=true
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Sutter County rejects grand jury findings in inmate's death
By Rob Parsons/Appeal-Democrat.com
Saying the facts presented in the Sutter County grand jury report are "in question," county officials formally responded to the report that concluded the jail's medical clinic may have contributed to an inmate's death last year.
Nathan Alexander Prasad, who died Jan. 28, 2011, at Rideout Memorial Hospital, was behind bars for failing to appear in court and was taken to the hospital twice after his health began to deteriorate, authorities have said.
Prasad, 30, a Glenn County native, had been released from custody at the time of his death.
READ THE COUNTY'S RESPONSE.
Grand jurors concluded that it was unlikely that Prasad's life would have been saved had he been transported to the hospital earlier, but sharply criticized the jail's on-duty nurse, who they said "failed to recognize the emergency and confined the seriously ill inmate in the medical cell for three hours while she attended to other routine duties."
Prasad's family is suing Sutter County in federal court for damages to be determined during trial. A status conference is scheduled in August.
Sutter County Sheriff J. Paul Parker said he could not comment on the report because of ongoing litigation.
"But, the health services of the jail are not controlled by the sheriff's office," Parker said.
County officials disagreed with nearly all the findings of the grand jury and said many of the recommendations in the report have already been implemented.
Officials rejected the notion that jail medical staff "acted inadequately" in their treatment of Prasad, as well as the finding the nurse "did not take any interest or immediate action" responding to a medical emergency.
"The facts as stated in the grand jury report are in question. The finding is a medical and legal conclusion and lacks proper foundation," the county responded.
Saying the facts presented in the Sutter County grand jury report are "in question," county officials formally responded to the report that concluded the jail's medical clinic may have contributed to an inmate's death last year.
Nathan Alexander Prasad, who died Jan. 28, 2011, at Rideout Memorial Hospital, was behind bars for failing to appear in court and was taken to the hospital twice after his health began to deteriorate, authorities have said.
Prasad, 30, a Glenn County native, had been released from custody at the time of his death.
READ THE COUNTY'S RESPONSE.
Grand jurors concluded that it was unlikely that Prasad's life would have been saved had he been transported to the hospital earlier, but sharply criticized the jail's on-duty nurse, who they said "failed to recognize the emergency and confined the seriously ill inmate in the medical cell for three hours while she attended to other routine duties."
Prasad's family is suing Sutter County in federal court for damages to be determined during trial. A status conference is scheduled in August.
Sutter County Sheriff J. Paul Parker said he could not comment on the report because of ongoing litigation.
"But, the health services of the jail are not controlled by the sheriff's office," Parker said.
County officials disagreed with nearly all the findings of the grand jury and said many of the recommendations in the report have already been implemented.
Officials rejected the notion that jail medical staff "acted inadequately" in their treatment of Prasad, as well as the finding the nurse "did not take any interest or immediate action" responding to a medical emergency.
"The facts as stated in the grand jury report are in question. The finding is a medical and legal conclusion and lacks proper foundation," the county responded.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
(MARIN CO) Grand jury: 'Prison is no deterrent from crime'
by Jason Walsh - PacificSun.com
The Marin County Civil Grand Jury is demanding justice--restorative justice, that is.
In a report released this week titled "Restorative Justice--Its Time Has Come in Marin County," the grand jury is calling upon the county criminal justice system and Marin school officials to implement "restorative" practices, which have a proven track record of lowering wrongdoer recidivism but, according to the grand jury, has been met with an under-whelming response from the Marin County sheriff's and district attorney's offices.
Theories about restorative justice have been gaining momentum in education and public safety circles for over a decade. In essence, the practice seeks to shift society's "punishment" response to wrongdoing toward one of repairing the harm on a more personal level between victim and perpetrator.
According to the grand jury, "retributive justice focuses on public vengeance, deterrence and punishment through an adversarial process, whether in a school principal's office or in a courtroom." Restorative justice, on the other hand, "emphasizes repairing the harm caused or revealed by wrongdoing or criminal behavior."
Restorative practices include face-to-face encounters between wrongdoer and victim, as well as the possibility of material and financial restoration, while forcing the offender to take responsibility for their negative impact on the victim and the community.
"In Marin County," the report states, "restorative justice principles are currently employed at several middle schools as an alternative to suspension and expulsion."
Del Mar Middle School in Tiburon and Davidson Middle School in San Rafael currently employ restorative programs and have seen a dramatic decrease in the number of suspension levied throughout the school year. The Marin County Youth Court and the Novato Blue Ribbon Coalition for Youth have also found success via the use of peer courts.
Despite what's been achieved in schools, continues the report, "restorative justice currently find only limited application in the County's Juvenile Hall and County Jail," though the grand jury notes efforts are currently underway to expand its use. "Although the District Attorney's Office provides mediation services and citation hearings for various civil and criminal disputes," says the grand jury, "(the DA's office) and the Sheriff's Department appear to be significantly less supportive of expanded use of restorative justice techniques."
The report suggests that opposition to restorative justice may stem from the view that the process is "soft on crime."
According to the report, more than 6.7 million American adults--3.1 percent of the adult population--is either behind bars, on probation or on parole. Sixty percent of offenders are arrested for nonviolent offenses. Meanwhile, California has one the country's highest recidivism rates--67 percent of those released in 2005 and 2006 returned to prison within three years (70 percent of those were due to parole violations rather than new offenses).
"These figures suggest that using prison as a deterrent doesn't work," the report says.
In its conclusion, the grand jury recommends that the Marin County Office of Education, local school districts, as well as the Marin County District Attorney, Sheriff and Public Defender initiate restorative justice programs—and the grand jury calls on the Board of Supervisors to fund the training and operations for such programs.
"The Jury believes that a realistic examination of the features and benefits of restorative justice indicate opportunities for broadening the use of the techniques in Marin County to achieve significant tax dollar savings, reduce the extent of recidivism and deter young offenders from becoming career criminals," concludes the jury. "Cost savings are an attractive goal but even more attractive is the opportunity to transform an offender into a responsible law-abiding member of his or her community."
The Marin County Civil Grand Jury is demanding justice--restorative justice, that is.
In a report released this week titled "Restorative Justice--Its Time Has Come in Marin County," the grand jury is calling upon the county criminal justice system and Marin school officials to implement "restorative" practices, which have a proven track record of lowering wrongdoer recidivism but, according to the grand jury, has been met with an under-whelming response from the Marin County sheriff's and district attorney's offices.
Theories about restorative justice have been gaining momentum in education and public safety circles for over a decade. In essence, the practice seeks to shift society's "punishment" response to wrongdoing toward one of repairing the harm on a more personal level between victim and perpetrator.
According to the grand jury, "retributive justice focuses on public vengeance, deterrence and punishment through an adversarial process, whether in a school principal's office or in a courtroom." Restorative justice, on the other hand, "emphasizes repairing the harm caused or revealed by wrongdoing or criminal behavior."
Restorative practices include face-to-face encounters between wrongdoer and victim, as well as the possibility of material and financial restoration, while forcing the offender to take responsibility for their negative impact on the victim and the community.
"In Marin County," the report states, "restorative justice principles are currently employed at several middle schools as an alternative to suspension and expulsion."
Del Mar Middle School in Tiburon and Davidson Middle School in San Rafael currently employ restorative programs and have seen a dramatic decrease in the number of suspension levied throughout the school year. The Marin County Youth Court and the Novato Blue Ribbon Coalition for Youth have also found success via the use of peer courts.
Despite what's been achieved in schools, continues the report, "restorative justice currently find only limited application in the County's Juvenile Hall and County Jail," though the grand jury notes efforts are currently underway to expand its use. "Although the District Attorney's Office provides mediation services and citation hearings for various civil and criminal disputes," says the grand jury, "(the DA's office) and the Sheriff's Department appear to be significantly less supportive of expanded use of restorative justice techniques."
The report suggests that opposition to restorative justice may stem from the view that the process is "soft on crime."
According to the report, more than 6.7 million American adults--3.1 percent of the adult population--is either behind bars, on probation or on parole. Sixty percent of offenders are arrested for nonviolent offenses. Meanwhile, California has one the country's highest recidivism rates--67 percent of those released in 2005 and 2006 returned to prison within three years (70 percent of those were due to parole violations rather than new offenses).
"These figures suggest that using prison as a deterrent doesn't work," the report says.
In its conclusion, the grand jury recommends that the Marin County Office of Education, local school districts, as well as the Marin County District Attorney, Sheriff and Public Defender initiate restorative justice programs—and the grand jury calls on the Board of Supervisors to fund the training and operations for such programs.
"The Jury believes that a realistic examination of the features and benefits of restorative justice indicate opportunities for broadening the use of the techniques in Marin County to achieve significant tax dollar savings, reduce the extent of recidivism and deter young offenders from becoming career criminals," concludes the jury. "Cost savings are an attractive goal but even more attractive is the opportunity to transform an offender into a responsible law-abiding member of his or her community."
Sunday, June 10, 2012
(SOLANO CO) Grand jury rips Dixon library
BY KIMBERLY K. FU - TheReporter.com
The Dixon Public Library District is on financially shaky ground and in no shape to build a new facility, according to a Solano County grand jury report released this week.
Grand jurors cited shrinking revenues and increased spending, especially in regard to the proposed new library.
Building reserves totaled nearly $764,000 by 2007. Two years later, officials spent $427,000 on land for the new library, $110,000 on an environmental survey, $85,000 on conceptual plans and more on other pre-construction costs.
"At the time of the grand jury review, the building reserve within the General Fund had a balance of $0.12," the report notes.
The Building Fund apparently suffers a similar fate.
"Although construction and development fees continue to be deposited in the Building Fund, the fund balance as of June 30, 2011, was $43.26," the report states. "To date, the district has spent more than $2 million on pre-construction costs for a new library; however, the district has no money to actually build the facility. The grand jury learned that a plan to ask voters to approve a bond measure to pay for construction was never finalized."
The report questions the district's decision to continue on with the building plans.
"The district has little to show for its $2 million dollar investment and little hope of building a new library facility in the near future," it said.
Other issues noted in the report include untimely audits, with the last one dated August 2011, more than a year after the end of the reporting period. To fix the matter, the grand jury recommends that audits be completed no later than 180 days after the close of the reporting period.
Addressing the library district's finances, the grand jury suggests that the Governing Board of Library Trustees develop a financial plan to address the fiscal upheaval and determine the economic benefit and viability of joining the Solano County Library System.
The grand jury's concern regarding the possible expiration of Measure L, the 1/8-cent library sales tax slated to expire in October 2014, is moot as voters in this week's primary election approved the extension of Measure L by an overwhelming majority.
The Dixon Public Library District is on financially shaky ground and in no shape to build a new facility, according to a Solano County grand jury report released this week.
Grand jurors cited shrinking revenues and increased spending, especially in regard to the proposed new library.
Building reserves totaled nearly $764,000 by 2007. Two years later, officials spent $427,000 on land for the new library, $110,000 on an environmental survey, $85,000 on conceptual plans and more on other pre-construction costs.
"At the time of the grand jury review, the building reserve within the General Fund had a balance of $0.12," the report notes.
The Building Fund apparently suffers a similar fate.
"Although construction and development fees continue to be deposited in the Building Fund, the fund balance as of June 30, 2011, was $43.26," the report states. "To date, the district has spent more than $2 million on pre-construction costs for a new library; however, the district has no money to actually build the facility. The grand jury learned that a plan to ask voters to approve a bond measure to pay for construction was never finalized."
The report questions the district's decision to continue on with the building plans.
"The district has little to show for its $2 million dollar investment and little hope of building a new library facility in the near future," it said.
Other issues noted in the report include untimely audits, with the last one dated August 2011, more than a year after the end of the reporting period. To fix the matter, the grand jury recommends that audits be completed no later than 180 days after the close of the reporting period.
Addressing the library district's finances, the grand jury suggests that the Governing Board of Library Trustees develop a financial plan to address the fiscal upheaval and determine the economic benefit and viability of joining the Solano County Library System.
The grand jury's concern regarding the possible expiration of Measure L, the 1/8-cent library sales tax slated to expire in October 2014, is moot as voters in this week's primary election approved the extension of Measure L by an overwhelming majority.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
(SANTA BARBARA) Jury Examines Citizen Access to Law Enforcement Audio/Video Recordings
Santa Barbara Independent
The 2011-12 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury inquired if there is access by citizens to the law enforcement patrol vehicle audio/video recordings.
Certain California government codes and court decisions preclude access to recordings except through standard court procedures. However, the Jury found that other California government codes allow law enforcement officials discretion to provide access.
The Jury also learned that when citizens and parents/guardians are informed that they can have access, the vast majority choose not to pursue a citizen complaint or lawsuit.
The Jury recommends that citizens and parents/guardians have access to A/V recordings; that they are informed that they may have access; and that each law enforcement agency report to its respective government possible savings of time and money.
The entire report can be found on the Grand Jury’s website.
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.
The 2011-12 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury inquired if there is access by citizens to the law enforcement patrol vehicle audio/video recordings.
Certain California government codes and court decisions preclude access to recordings except through standard court procedures. However, the Jury found that other California government codes allow law enforcement officials discretion to provide access.
The Jury also learned that when citizens and parents/guardians are informed that they can have access, the vast majority choose not to pursue a citizen complaint or lawsuit.
The Jury recommends that citizens and parents/guardians have access to A/V recordings; that they are informed that they may have access; and that each law enforcement agency report to its respective government possible savings of time and money.
The entire report can be found on the Grand Jury’s website.
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.
Friday, June 8, 2012
(NEVADA CO) Civil Grand Jury takes issue former GV school supes' salary (Update)
by Chris Rosacker - TheUnion.com
The Nevada County civil grand jury released a report Thursday claiming Grass Valley School District's former superintendent, Jon Byerrum, received unauthorized salary increases that should not have been included in the calculations of his retirement compensation.
The jurors' report notes Byerrum received a salary increase to $134,227 in the summer of 2008, however, this nearly $13,000 raise was not on any of the school board of trustee's agendas or minutes and none of its members recalled discussing, granting or voting on the matter.
Instead, as the jury report states, an Item LL appears on copies of the June 10, 2008, agenda and subsequent minutes that simply indicate unanimous approval of a 4 percent increase to the superintendent's salary.
Prior to his June 2010 retirement, Byerrum's 2008 pay raise was retroactive to July 2007. His June 2007 pay raise to $116,720 was also retroactive to July 2006, according to the Civil Grand Jury report.
Additionally, the jurors reported Byerrum instructed the district's business manager, Gail Headstrom, in a June 2006 email to discontinue his medical benefits and instead allocate him $5,613.60 of yearly in-lieu pay, even though his contract did not allow for cash in lieu of receiving medical benefits.
The district's business manager at that time followed the superintendent's instructions and the in-lieu pay was included as part of Byerrum's salary, along with his 2008 raise, for the purpose of calculating his retirement compensation, the jury report states.
Both the unauthorized raise and in-lieu pay “should not have been included in the calculations of (Byerrum's) retirement compensation,” the civil grand jury report concludes.
“This has resulted in the former superintendent receiving retirement benefits to which he is not entitled and increased retirement fund liabilities to the Grass Valley School District,” the report states.
Byerrum could not be reached for comment Thursday.
The civil grand jury recommends the district notify the California State Teachers' Retirement System of the unauthorized salary increases included in the retirement calculations.
The district has until Sept. 4 to respond to the Civil Grand Jury report.
“(T)he district will respond to the report in accordance with the grand jury's instructions,” reads a statement from Grass Valley School District. “In the interim, no further comment on the report, its findings or recommendations, will be issued by the Board until its official response is finalized and submitted to the Grand Jury.”
Reached by phone Thursday afternoon, current Superintendent Eric Fredrickson said he could not comment on the matter. Nor would school board President Paula Roediger, as she indicated in an email to The Union.
California is the only state that convenes a civil grand jury, a practice traced back as far as the Norman conquest of England in 1066, according to Nevada County Superior Court's website.
The Nevada County grand jury consists of 19 county residents who volunteer and investigate day-to-day operations of government agencies within the county and consider how to improve the overall functioning of governmental entities.
Its members serve for one year and have the power to subpoena citizens and documents in the course of an investigation.
On top of the former superintendent's payment and retirement, the jurors also took issue with two administrative assistant positions.
In 2007, the district's board of trustees created the positions of Administrative Assistant I and Administrative Assistant II in 2009, the jurors noted which were held by Betty Benthin. However, the district has not yet defined job duties and responsibilities for these positions as of April 15, 2012.
“The promotion of and increase in salary for an individual into an undefined position demonstrates a lack of management and fiscal responsibility by the Board,” concluded the jurors.
Additionally, promoting an individual with an accompanying salary increase, retroactive for one year, one week prior to their retirement creates the impression of “pension spiking,” the jurors reported.
A copy of the civil grand jury's report can be found by visiting www.TheUnion.com, clicking on this story.
To contact Staff Writer Chris Rosacker, email crosacker@theunion.com or call (530) 477-4236
The Nevada County civil grand jury released a report Thursday claiming Grass Valley School District's former superintendent, Jon Byerrum, received unauthorized salary increases that should not have been included in the calculations of his retirement compensation.
The jurors' report notes Byerrum received a salary increase to $134,227 in the summer of 2008, however, this nearly $13,000 raise was not on any of the school board of trustee's agendas or minutes and none of its members recalled discussing, granting or voting on the matter.
Instead, as the jury report states, an Item LL appears on copies of the June 10, 2008, agenda and subsequent minutes that simply indicate unanimous approval of a 4 percent increase to the superintendent's salary.
Prior to his June 2010 retirement, Byerrum's 2008 pay raise was retroactive to July 2007. His June 2007 pay raise to $116,720 was also retroactive to July 2006, according to the Civil Grand Jury report.
Additionally, the jurors reported Byerrum instructed the district's business manager, Gail Headstrom, in a June 2006 email to discontinue his medical benefits and instead allocate him $5,613.60 of yearly in-lieu pay, even though his contract did not allow for cash in lieu of receiving medical benefits.
The district's business manager at that time followed the superintendent's instructions and the in-lieu pay was included as part of Byerrum's salary, along with his 2008 raise, for the purpose of calculating his retirement compensation, the jury report states.
Both the unauthorized raise and in-lieu pay “should not have been included in the calculations of (Byerrum's) retirement compensation,” the civil grand jury report concludes.
“This has resulted in the former superintendent receiving retirement benefits to which he is not entitled and increased retirement fund liabilities to the Grass Valley School District,” the report states.
Byerrum could not be reached for comment Thursday.
The civil grand jury recommends the district notify the California State Teachers' Retirement System of the unauthorized salary increases included in the retirement calculations.
The district has until Sept. 4 to respond to the Civil Grand Jury report.
“(T)he district will respond to the report in accordance with the grand jury's instructions,” reads a statement from Grass Valley School District. “In the interim, no further comment on the report, its findings or recommendations, will be issued by the Board until its official response is finalized and submitted to the Grand Jury.”
Reached by phone Thursday afternoon, current Superintendent Eric Fredrickson said he could not comment on the matter. Nor would school board President Paula Roediger, as she indicated in an email to The Union.
California is the only state that convenes a civil grand jury, a practice traced back as far as the Norman conquest of England in 1066, according to Nevada County Superior Court's website.
The Nevada County grand jury consists of 19 county residents who volunteer and investigate day-to-day operations of government agencies within the county and consider how to improve the overall functioning of governmental entities.
Its members serve for one year and have the power to subpoena citizens and documents in the course of an investigation.
On top of the former superintendent's payment and retirement, the jurors also took issue with two administrative assistant positions.
In 2007, the district's board of trustees created the positions of Administrative Assistant I and Administrative Assistant II in 2009, the jurors noted which were held by Betty Benthin. However, the district has not yet defined job duties and responsibilities for these positions as of April 15, 2012.
“The promotion of and increase in salary for an individual into an undefined position demonstrates a lack of management and fiscal responsibility by the Board,” concluded the jurors.
Additionally, promoting an individual with an accompanying salary increase, retroactive for one year, one week prior to their retirement creates the impression of “pension spiking,” the jurors reported.
A copy of the civil grand jury's report can be found by visiting www.TheUnion.com, clicking on this story.
To contact Staff Writer Chris Rosacker, email crosacker@theunion.com or call (530) 477-4236
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
(SAN MATEO) Board members fire back at grand jury
By Mark Noack - Half Moon Bay Review
Defending their actions, a majority of Coastside Fire Protection District board members last week poked holes in a blistering San Mateo County civil grand jury report.
The April report criticized the fire board for investigating how to sever ties with the state fire agency and bring back a stand-alone department. The report concluded that it was nonsensical to bring back local management when CalFire was providing superior service at a cost savings.
But in their May 23 meeting, three board members complained that the report was riddled with inaccuracies. Director Mike Alifano questioned figures in the report, such as the low number of cliff rescues and the staff turnover under CalFire.
“If (the grand jury) can’t get their facts straight, how can we run with this?” he said. “It just seems wrong.”
The grand jury has no power to influence district policy, but the report has become a political lightning rod for the fire board’s leadership. The Coastside fire district is required to submit a response to the report in the coming weeks.
Last month, the board worked on a draft response that largely concurred with most of the grand jury’s findings. But the board split when it came to the report’s recommendations, particularly the suggestion that it should immediately sign a new three-year contract with CalFire.
In the minority on the board, Director Gary Burke used the opportunity to once again emphasize that, in his view, CalFire had a stellar record on the Coastside. There have been no lawsuits or complaints so far.
That wasn’t the case under the Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District, which was rocked by infighting and legal battles over its final years of operation. Starting in 2006, a series of fire chiefs urged the board to create the Coastside fire district and contract out services through CalFire, a process that was completed two years later.
“Overall, the citizens and taxpayers have received outstanding service,” Burke said. “A number of people are asking why we’re now doing this.”
“This” includes hiring consultants to devise a plan for going it alone. Tonight, fire board directors are meeting with those consultants to hear their plan for running a new department. The presentation is expected to include salary and benefits schedules, work rules and department policies.
he purpose of the exercise, Alifano said, was to assert control and retain local firefighters. “I want the best level of service for the community,” he said. “If it’s with CalFire, and we can get them to do what we want them to do, then great.”
Last week, board members asked CalFire management staff to double-check many of the numbers in the grand jury report. Alifano questioned the purported $2 million that the district saved when it switched to the state agency, saying the public had to sacrifice service in trade.
The board directed Chief John Ferreira, a longtime CalFire employee who manages day-to-day operations on the Coastside, to include the last 10 years of data in the district’s response.
At times, order at the board meeting broke down as fire directors argued between each other or with the people in the audience. Several public speakers reprimanded the board members for trying to dismantle its CalFire contract, and some threatened a recall election.
Defending their actions, a majority of Coastside Fire Protection District board members last week poked holes in a blistering San Mateo County civil grand jury report.
The April report criticized the fire board for investigating how to sever ties with the state fire agency and bring back a stand-alone department. The report concluded that it was nonsensical to bring back local management when CalFire was providing superior service at a cost savings.
But in their May 23 meeting, three board members complained that the report was riddled with inaccuracies. Director Mike Alifano questioned figures in the report, such as the low number of cliff rescues and the staff turnover under CalFire.
“If (the grand jury) can’t get their facts straight, how can we run with this?” he said. “It just seems wrong.”
The grand jury has no power to influence district policy, but the report has become a political lightning rod for the fire board’s leadership. The Coastside fire district is required to submit a response to the report in the coming weeks.
Last month, the board worked on a draft response that largely concurred with most of the grand jury’s findings. But the board split when it came to the report’s recommendations, particularly the suggestion that it should immediately sign a new three-year contract with CalFire.
In the minority on the board, Director Gary Burke used the opportunity to once again emphasize that, in his view, CalFire had a stellar record on the Coastside. There have been no lawsuits or complaints so far.
That wasn’t the case under the Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District, which was rocked by infighting and legal battles over its final years of operation. Starting in 2006, a series of fire chiefs urged the board to create the Coastside fire district and contract out services through CalFire, a process that was completed two years later.
“Overall, the citizens and taxpayers have received outstanding service,” Burke said. “A number of people are asking why we’re now doing this.”
“This” includes hiring consultants to devise a plan for going it alone. Tonight, fire board directors are meeting with those consultants to hear their plan for running a new department. The presentation is expected to include salary and benefits schedules, work rules and department policies.
he purpose of the exercise, Alifano said, was to assert control and retain local firefighters. “I want the best level of service for the community,” he said. “If it’s with CalFire, and we can get them to do what we want them to do, then great.”
Last week, board members asked CalFire management staff to double-check many of the numbers in the grand jury report. Alifano questioned the purported $2 million that the district saved when it switched to the state agency, saying the public had to sacrifice service in trade.
The board directed Chief John Ferreira, a longtime CalFire employee who manages day-to-day operations on the Coastside, to include the last 10 years of data in the district’s response.
At times, order at the board meeting broke down as fire directors argued between each other or with the people in the audience. Several public speakers reprimanded the board members for trying to dismantle its CalFire contract, and some threatened a recall election.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Marin grand jury calls for more sharing of costs among local government agencies
By Richard Halstead - Marin Independent Journal
The Marin County Civil Grand Jury has issued a report that amounts to a plea for increased sharing of costs among the county's many local government agencies, including police and fire departments.
The grand jury report issued last week acknowledges that full immediate consolidation of agencies may be either impractical or politically unfeasible.
"Consequently," the grand jury stated, "this report focuses on the interim strategy that some governmental managers have found increasingly useful in these challenging times: sharing services." Noting that it was unable to even determine the total number of taxpayer-funded agencies in Marin, the grand jury recommended:
• The county of Marin immediately publish on its website a list of all of the special districts and joint powers authorities and their contact information. The sheer number of duplicate government entities providing similar services in Marin is "mindboggling," the grand jury noted.
• City councils and the Marin County Board of Supervisors require annual reports from their city managers and county administrator that identify any and all opportunities for a regional approach to sharing public services.
• Every local government entity, when facing major capital expenditures, seek out other entities to share the use and costs of the items.
• All government officials make it a priority to identify institutional duplication and then seek more cost-effective alternatives.
• Request that the Local Agency Formation Commission present an annual report detailing the mergers, consolidations and agreements for shared services enacted within the county that year and analyses of future opportunities.
The grand jury report contains several examples of Marin agencies that have consolidated in the past and agencies that are either in the process of merging or sharing services. One positive example it cites is the recent collaboration between the San Anselmo Police Department and the Twin Cities Police Authority.
"I think there is a clamor among the public for further sharing of services and/or consolidation where it makes sense," said San Anselmo Mayor Tom McInerney. "Because with reduced tax revenues, citizens are feeling hit up from all angles with increased fees and taxes. Local government needs to do what it can to explore all options where it makes sense."
McInerney said San Anselmo is now considering a full consolidation between the San Anselmo Police Department and the Twin Cities Police Authority.
The grand jury report also mentions the Larkspur Fire Department's increasing cooperation with the San Rafael Fire Department. It was announced last week that the two departments are considering consolidation.
Larkspur Mayor Len Rifkind said, "I'm a major fan of sharing as many services as possible among all the cities. Ultimately, I think there should be just one Marin County fire district. It matters not that it says Corte Madera, Larkspur, Sausalito or San Rafael on the side of the truck. What people care about is that when they dial 911 people show up, and fast."
The grand jury also provides, as a cautionary tale, the controversy over the proposed annexation of the Sausalito Fire Department by the Southern Marin Fire Protection District. It notes that opposition to the merger resulted in the annexation being put on Tuesday's ballot even though rejection of the merger would result in the city having to pay an additional $1.4 million annually for fire services.
Sausalito Councilman Mike Kelly said, "It is kind of tragic because I think we do fit the profile of a jurisdiction that is too small to run a full-time fire department and maybe other things as well. Sewer consolidations are another area we need to look at."
Marin Supervisor Judy Arnold, who serves on the Marin LAFCO board, said, "Everyone thinks consolidation is a good idea in theory and good government until it comes to losing control in their area, and then they don't like it."
The Marin County Civil Grand Jury has issued a report that amounts to a plea for increased sharing of costs among the county's many local government agencies, including police and fire departments.
The grand jury report issued last week acknowledges that full immediate consolidation of agencies may be either impractical or politically unfeasible.
"Consequently," the grand jury stated, "this report focuses on the interim strategy that some governmental managers have found increasingly useful in these challenging times: sharing services." Noting that it was unable to even determine the total number of taxpayer-funded agencies in Marin, the grand jury recommended:
• The county of Marin immediately publish on its website a list of all of the special districts and joint powers authorities and their contact information. The sheer number of duplicate government entities providing similar services in Marin is "mindboggling," the grand jury noted.
• City councils and the Marin County Board of Supervisors require annual reports from their city managers and county administrator that identify any and all opportunities for a regional approach to sharing public services.
• Every local government entity, when facing major capital expenditures, seek out other entities to share the use and costs of the items.
• All government officials make it a priority to identify institutional duplication and then seek more cost-effective alternatives.
• Request that the Local Agency Formation Commission present an annual report detailing the mergers, consolidations and agreements for shared services enacted within the county that year and analyses of future opportunities.
The grand jury report contains several examples of Marin agencies that have consolidated in the past and agencies that are either in the process of merging or sharing services. One positive example it cites is the recent collaboration between the San Anselmo Police Department and the Twin Cities Police Authority.
"I think there is a clamor among the public for further sharing of services and/or consolidation where it makes sense," said San Anselmo Mayor Tom McInerney. "Because with reduced tax revenues, citizens are feeling hit up from all angles with increased fees and taxes. Local government needs to do what it can to explore all options where it makes sense."
McInerney said San Anselmo is now considering a full consolidation between the San Anselmo Police Department and the Twin Cities Police Authority.
The grand jury report also mentions the Larkspur Fire Department's increasing cooperation with the San Rafael Fire Department. It was announced last week that the two departments are considering consolidation.
Larkspur Mayor Len Rifkind said, "I'm a major fan of sharing as many services as possible among all the cities. Ultimately, I think there should be just one Marin County fire district. It matters not that it says Corte Madera, Larkspur, Sausalito or San Rafael on the side of the truck. What people care about is that when they dial 911 people show up, and fast."
The grand jury also provides, as a cautionary tale, the controversy over the proposed annexation of the Sausalito Fire Department by the Southern Marin Fire Protection District. It notes that opposition to the merger resulted in the annexation being put on Tuesday's ballot even though rejection of the merger would result in the city having to pay an additional $1.4 million annually for fire services.
Sausalito Councilman Mike Kelly said, "It is kind of tragic because I think we do fit the profile of a jurisdiction that is too small to run a full-time fire department and maybe other things as well. Sewer consolidations are another area we need to look at."
Marin Supervisor Judy Arnold, who serves on the Marin LAFCO board, said, "Everyone thinks consolidation is a good idea in theory and good government until it comes to losing control in their area, and then they don't like it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)