The Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury needs some changes. Having served three times, I have a basis of comparison on how that group operates.
When I was first sworn in as a grand juror in July 1996, there were 17 new members and two people who had served on the previous grand jury. Those two helped new members become familiar with the system and offered suggestions on procedures. With only two holdovers, they did not overwhelm new members.
We agreed on procedure. Upon receipt of a complaint or when made aware of a governmental issue, any two members could make a preliminary investigation. If they found the complaint or issue valid, they proposed a new study delineating the scope of the issue. The proposal was presented to the grand jury at the general meeting. If a majority of members agreed on the issue and scope, the investigation could proceed. Any member could volunteer to be on the study committee.
Having been invited by the foreman, the next year I was one of the two holdovers. We helped the 17 new members become familiar with maintaining confidentiality, interview techniques, and staying within the scope of the investigation.
I was again a member in 2009, with five holdovers. The system had changed. There were specific, structured committees. Members had to choose which committee they wanted to serve on, without knowing what issues might come up. State law requires all jails and holding cells in the county to be inspected, so that was one committee.
Another requirement of the grand jury is review of county audit and finances, thus another committee.
Another vague committee was government operations, but all grand jury work involves government operations.
Instead of two members taking a preliminary look at an issue, it required a vote of 12 members to begin a study, thus, many valid complaints were eliminated before even a preliminary investigation could begin.
I didn't agree with that limited process, since there were some of us who thought an issue deserved a preliminary look. With such structured committees, a topic had to be assigned to one of them, regardless if that topic fit that description. The members of a committee were to investigate the issue, whether they were interested or not.
The structure of the grand jury has further changed now, since there are so many holdovers. At the end of my term in 2010, there were eight who wanted to hold over, regardless of whether they were effective members in the previous term. I think there should be a limit of two, by invitation of the foreperson.
Another problem is that many people serve for years on a grand jury. Some of the same people are holdovers or apply year after year. Yes, there are interviews and then a drawing to become a member. But with a group of repeat members, the grand jury takes on its own perspective on what issues to investigate. That limits the scope of grand jury investigations, based on the priorities and inclinations of those members who have worked together for years.
It is time to get rid of the tight committee structure and good-old-members attitude for those career grand jurors. Grand jury service should be limited to a total of two years.
With teleconferencing available instead of a drive to Santa Barbara, Santa Maria citizens should apply. We need a more balanced group, not just geographically, but with a more diverse representation of our entire county.
Joan Leon is a local resident. She can be reached at joanleon@verizon.net. Looking Forward runs every Friday, providing a progressive viewpoint on local issues.
When I was first sworn in as a grand juror in July 1996, there were 17 new members and two people who had served on the previous grand jury. Those two helped new members become familiar with the system and offered suggestions on procedures. With only two holdovers, they did not overwhelm new members.
We agreed on procedure. Upon receipt of a complaint or when made aware of a governmental issue, any two members could make a preliminary investigation. If they found the complaint or issue valid, they proposed a new study delineating the scope of the issue. The proposal was presented to the grand jury at the general meeting. If a majority of members agreed on the issue and scope, the investigation could proceed. Any member could volunteer to be on the study committee.
Having been invited by the foreman, the next year I was one of the two holdovers. We helped the 17 new members become familiar with maintaining confidentiality, interview techniques, and staying within the scope of the investigation.
I was again a member in 2009, with five holdovers. The system had changed. There were specific, structured committees. Members had to choose which committee they wanted to serve on, without knowing what issues might come up. State law requires all jails and holding cells in the county to be inspected, so that was one committee.
Another requirement of the grand jury is review of county audit and finances, thus another committee.
Another vague committee was government operations, but all grand jury work involves government operations.
Instead of two members taking a preliminary look at an issue, it required a vote of 12 members to begin a study, thus, many valid complaints were eliminated before even a preliminary investigation could begin.
I didn't agree with that limited process, since there were some of us who thought an issue deserved a preliminary look. With such structured committees, a topic had to be assigned to one of them, regardless if that topic fit that description. The members of a committee were to investigate the issue, whether they were interested or not.
The structure of the grand jury has further changed now, since there are so many holdovers. At the end of my term in 2010, there were eight who wanted to hold over, regardless of whether they were effective members in the previous term. I think there should be a limit of two, by invitation of the foreperson.
Another problem is that many people serve for years on a grand jury. Some of the same people are holdovers or apply year after year. Yes, there are interviews and then a drawing to become a member. But with a group of repeat members, the grand jury takes on its own perspective on what issues to investigate. That limits the scope of grand jury investigations, based on the priorities and inclinations of those members who have worked together for years.
It is time to get rid of the tight committee structure and good-old-members attitude for those career grand jurors. Grand jury service should be limited to a total of two years.
With teleconferencing available instead of a drive to Santa Barbara, Santa Maria citizens should apply. We need a more balanced group, not just geographically, but with a more diverse representation of our entire county.
Joan Leon is a local resident. She can be reached at joanleon@verizon.net. Looking Forward runs every Friday, providing a progressive viewpoint on local issues.
