A Solano County grand jury praises work on jail in Fairfield

A Solano County grand jury report released Thursday praised the sheriff's office for the maintenance and operation of its main jail facility in downtown Fairfield.

The report indicated that the Grand Jury began its investigation and inspection of the main jail, at 530 Union Ave., in Fairfield, late last year. The jurors found the facility to be clean, debris free, well maintained and well organized, according to the report.

The jail facility, opened in 1989 with a capacity rated at 537 beds, and expanded in 1999 to facilitate 740 beds.

According to the report, sheriff's officials informed the grand jury that inmate violence on staff has increased sharply since the implementation of AB109, commonly referred to as the criminal justice realignment act. One aspect of the legislation created a change in sentencing guidelines and has resulted in some inmates formerly destined for state prison to remain in county jails.

"The sheriff's office informed the grand jury that inmates have become more brazen, more willing to ignore a deputy's orders and instigate a confrontation likely to result in violence," the report stated.

From September to November, local police agencies made 2,233 bookings, with Fairfield and Vallejo accounting for more than half of that total. Total bookings for 2013 reached 14,600.

The grand jury's inspection also included the jail's medical facility, in which there was no appearance of impropriety, according to the report.

The grand jury simply recommended that the sheriff's office continue with its current operation and maintenance procedures.

"The sheriff's office should be complimented for exhibiting and providing a high level of proficiency on the security, safety, and service to the citizens of Solano County," the grand jury wrote.

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_25452140/solano-county-grand-jury-praises-work-jail-fairfield

Should Contra Costa school volunteers be trained to report child abuse?

By Matthias Gafni Contra Costa Times

Posted:   03/29/2014 03:26:23 PM PDT

Contra Costa school employees and possibly even volunteers who deal with students should be trained annually to report child abuse, according to recommendations by the Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury.

The recently released report -- which cited investigations by this newspaper that have led to $20 million in settlements in Moraga, Brentwood and Antioch school districts, terminations, a federal report and state legislation -- said districts have "scrambled" the past two years to implement training in light of media scrutiny.

Claims and lawsuits are still pending in the Moraga and Mt. Diablo school districts with plaintiffs accusing school employees of failing to properly report child abuse, as required by law.

"Most districts have failed for years to adequately train their employees about their legal obligations to recognize and report suspected, or known, instances of child abuse," the report stated. "Some districts have now made a good, but belated, start to put in place training programs."

Grand jurors surveyed all 18 Contra Costa school districts, the county Office of Education and the Contra Costa Community College District as well as interviewed school district personnel in charge of such training.
The jurors found training "cursory, haphazard and sporadic," and sometimes nonexistent.

The Contra Costa Community College District has no training program despite more than 1,500 minors enrolled in the district and many more in its summer programs and child care centers, according to the report.

The Pittsburg school district had no formal training until this school year when its human resources department created one.

Training for all employees was only adopted by many other districts, according to the report, in the past two years, including Liberty Union, Oakley and Mt. Diablo.

A report by this newspaper last year found that fewer than half of 94 Bay Area school districts surveyed trained employees on the identification and reporting of child abuse and neglect. Training standards also varied by district.

The story led to Assembly Bill 1432, which would require annual training for school employees statewide. Currently, districts are "strongly encouraged" to train employees.

Since a flurry of media reports on the issue, the county's schools have instituted new policies.
"Evidence uncovered by the Grand Jury, as well as other investigations, have revealed that school districts within the county have 'scrambled' in the last two years to create training programs where none previously existed and to correct inadequacies in the programs that were used to train school personnel in abuse reporting," the report stated. "Nevertheless, many programs still have deficiencies, and there is a (lack of) uniformity in programs throughout the county."

The report also calls for more uniform training, rather than the "hodgepodge" in the county where some require online training while others have live presenters, the report said.

The Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa has seen a spike in training sessions with districts and provides the 60- to 90-minute course for free.

The report also stresses the need for a verification system to ensure that workers complete training.
Even volunteers who work with kids at schools, although not "mandated reporters" by law, should receive "serious consideration" by districts to get training, jurors wrote.

"If an effective and comprehensive training program prevents only one child from being abused, one family from having to endure the hardships of an abused child, one district from having to pay millions of dollars to settle a child abuse lawsuit, then there is no reason for any district to resist implementing the training," the report stated.

Contact Matthias Gafni at 925-952-5026. Follow him at Twitter.com/mgafni.

Lew’s Views: Behind the Scenes of the Orange County Grand Jury

By Lew AveraLast month I suggested grand jury service as an opportunity of a lifetime. In so doing, I provided background information on the derivation, statutory background and other information, but little on the real dynamics of full time service for a year on our local Orange County Grand Jury. Briefly, some of those are below.

Grand jury members are selected from across the county. They represent a very wide and diverse range of experiences and perspectives. The foreperson of the jury is selected by the court, however, other positions such as pro tem, secretary, committee chairs, etc. are selected by the jury members themselves. These kind of organizational dynamics require a very high level of teamwork and collegiality. It doesn’t mean that all members have to see eye-to-eye or agree on everything. Quite the contrary. The law requires that public actions and decisions be made with a vote of at least 12 of the 19 members. Should we not agree with the “supermajority” vote, crucial is the ability to put the issues behind us and move on to the next matter of business. Among the sterling rewards of serving are the potentially lasting relationships and friendships with fellow jurors developed through serving and working together for the year.

The county grand jury is organized into six “investigative” committees of six members each. Each member of the jury serves on two of these committees. In addition, there are two larger committees, editorial and orientation, which provide support to the entire jury. The activities of the six investigative committees represent the major time commitment of the jury members over the year.

For the first several months, a significant amount of time is spent with all 19 members together, organizing and determining topics for investigation, bringing in outside speakers and making site visits to county organizations. As time goes on and investigative topics are determined, the majority of time will be spent working in the six member committees actually conducting interviews, accomplishing the investigations and writing the actual investigative reports.

In carrying out their work, jury members are, by law, sworn to “secrecy for life” for all matters and information coming before the jury. In this same sense, the jury has no outside parties telling it what to do or looking over its shoulder. The grand jury is a completely independent body. Its advisors include a supervising judge, primarily for administrative matters and the final sign off on investigations, but not for operational or decision making supervision. In addition, the CountyClerk, District Attorney, and state Attorney General, may act as “legal advisors” and are available to the jury only at the jury’s request. One exception to this rule is the role of the District Attorney in bringing criminal indictment hearings to the jury. This is done at the request of the DA to the jury and with the jury’s cooperation. The DA does all the investigative work, develops all of the evidence and brings the case to the jury via a closed and secret hearing. The jury makes the decision to forward for trial based upon the DA’s work.

Given the above, you can see that the jury members are working closely with each other   for a full year. Again, you are encouraged to apply and serve. More information is available online at www.ocgrandjury.org. In addition, I am happy to answer questions, and can be reached at lewavera@cox.net.

Lew Avera is a retired career officer, Lt. Col., U.S. Marine Corps. He was a resident of San Clemente in 1963-1965 while serving as a Company Commander at Camp San Mateo. He returned to San Clemente in 2001 when he retired from PricewaterhouseCoopers as a senior managing director. He has been a director of the Talega HOA since 2003, was foreperson of the Orange County grand jury in 2004-2005 and served on the San Clemente Planning Commission from 2005 to 2013.

Grand jury 'ill-suited' to review critical police incidents

The Sonoma County grand jury is ill-suited to act as a civilian review board investigating police handling of critical incidents, say two members of the jury. The panelists cite what they describe as the grand jury's lack of transparency, diversity and expertise reviewing fatal or otherwise serious incidents involving law enforcement. "I think this is not the appropriate body for civilian review," said Cheryl Davey of Santa Rosa, the jury forewoman.

The comments, offered in public forums and in interviews this month, add to an ongoing debate spurred by calls for stronger law enforcement oversight in the wake of the shooting death last fall of 13-year-old Andy Lopez by a Sonoma County Sheriff's deputy. They also act as an indirect rebuttal to prior statements by Sheriff Steve Freitas that the grand jury was a capable, independent oversight body for law enforcement.

Freitas spoke in the aftermath of the shooting of Lopez in October and in the face of a campaign by critics and activists who have questioned whether the Santa Rosa Police Department, which investigated the shooting, and the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office are capable of objectively determining whether the boy's death was justified or a criminal act.

The grand jury, which has subpoena powers, provides a review by "people totally independent from law enforcement . . . who are open to criticizing law enforcement in an open and transparent way," Freitas said at the time. But last week he said he would not dispute the grand jurors' assessment, adding that he would reserve judgment on an alternative model until the details are spelled out. "I'm open to the idea of citizen review," Freitas said.

Davey, the jury forewoman, and Martin Jones, another grand jury member, raised their concerns at a March 3 meeting of a subcommittee of the 21-member community task force established by the county in the wake of Lopez's death. The task force is charged with reviewing options and ultimately recommending a model for an "independent citizen review body."

Use of the grand jury as it is, or with variations, was cited as one of the options to be considered. But the grand jury, at least in its current structure, shouldn't be on that list, the two jury members said in interviews last week.

They said the panel's $77,000 annual budget can't support the hiring of outside experts. Also, the jury's final report is its only public statement, its deliberations by legal requirement are entirely secret and its recommendations have no legal force.

"A civil grand jury is not the place to conduct review of critical incidents," said Jones, a Santa Rosa wine industry management consultant.

The panel's lack of diversity is another key problem, Jones and Davey said. Members are volunteers who are interviewed and screened by a Superior Court judge and then selected by drawing.

Jones said his demographic profile of the current grand jury showed that the average age of the 18 jurors is 65 and only two are younger than 60; 17 are white, one is African-American and they all are retired, work part time or are self-employed. One jury slot is vacant. The jury is "not representative of a cross-section of the community," Jones said. A civilian review board ought to include young and old, people of color and members of law enforcement, Davey said.

Davey and Jones said they were speaking for themselves, not the grand jury as a whole. Davey was invited to the subcommittee meeting as the forewoman and said she included Jones because he is interested in the matter.

Napa County's grand jury officially disqualified itself from police oversight in a report last year, and a national expert on civilian review of law enforcement acknowledged some shortcomings inherent in the grand jury process.

The jury, under current law, is not required to take on a critical incident, nor is it allowed to continue an investigation past the June 30 end date for each grand jury, the Napa jurors said.
Grand juries can be "a valuable tool in holding police agencies accountable," Brian Buchner, president of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, a nonprofit organization dedicated to police oversight, said in an interview.

But their secrecy conflicts with the principle of "shining a light" on law enforcement investigations that have traditionally been opaque, he said.

A civil grand jury's primary role is to investigate the performance of public agencies and "make recommendations for positive change," Davey said. But the jury has no budget to hire experts to assist in their investigations, which Jones said is a "huge impediment" to functioning as a civilian review board.

"We are not trained investigators," Davey said.

Freitas said he considers the grand jury "a form of citizen review," but he said he won't quarrel with the jurors' contention that it may not be the ideal approach. "I would respect their thought on that," he said.
Asked if members of law enforcement are averse to civilian review, Freitas said, "I've heard from many people in law enforcement that they have a good relationship with their civilian review."

Freitas said he agreed with the idea that a police review panel should be diverse. "Any advisory group should as much as possible reflect the community," he said.

In cases of officer-involved shootings, the county grand jury has limited its scope to a determination of whether police investigators followed a protocol established by the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs' Association, which includes the Sheriff's Office and the county's nine municipal police departments.
During its 2012-13 term, the jury reviewed the fatal shooting of an armed suspect by a Sebastopol police officer responding to a domestic disturbance on Nov. 24, 2011.

The shooting was justified because the suspect brandished a pistol and refused to back down, District Attorney Jill Ravitch said four months later. In its one-page report on the case, the grand jury said that "review of the critical incident report confirmed the required protocols were followed." No recommendation was made.

Davey and Jones presented their views on the grand jury's capabilities at meeting of the community task force's Law Enforcement Accountability Subcommittee, which is exploring options for a civilian review board.

Todd Mendoza, a Petaluma real estate broker who is chairman of the subcommittee, said last week he had drawn no conclusion regarding the grand jury's proper role. "It's really premature to say what would work and what wouldn't," he said in an interview. "We haven't gone down the road with civilian review models."

Robert Edmonds, a subcommittee member, said he was skeptical of the grand jury's suitability as a police review body because of its secrecy, which is mandated by law, and one-year time limit for investigations.
Lack of transparency "doesn't lead to trust in the community," said Edmonds, a Santa Rosa Junior College student trustee. Edmonds also noted that a grand jury is "self-directed" and that no local entity can set standards for how it operates. The meeting with the two grand jurors confirmed his views, Edmonds said.

"I think it was pretty clear to our entire subcommittee that the grand jury isn't what we're after," he said.
Task force member Joe Palla, a Cloverdale city councilman and former Healdsburg police chief, said the grand jury as it stands "would not work" as a civilian review board. But with adequate budget and staffing "it may be a vehicle with some teeth," he said.

Napa County's grand jury investigated the fatal shooting of a man by Napa police on Nov. 28, 2010, in the city's Alta Heights neighborhood, reviewing police documents and conducting its own interviews with witnesses. In a June 2012 report, the jury recommended formation of a civilian review board to examine officer-involved shootings, but several local governments said the jury should take on that role. The jury, in response, said the suggestion was "erroneous," citing the time constraints imposed by a jury's annual term.

Lopez was shot by Sonoma County Sheriff's Deputy Erick Gelhaus on Oct. 22 after Gelhaus reportedly mistook the airsoft BB gun Lopez was carrying on a street near his Moorland Avenue home for a real assault rifle. The shooting prompting a series of protests and calls for change.

Civilian review advocates have pointed out that the county, Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park failed to implement review boards recommended by a U.S. Civil Rights Commission's advisory committee in 2000, in the aftermath of a series of fatal incidents involving law enforcement. The civil rights committee noted that the grand jury lacks financial independence and organizational separation from local law enforcement.

Meanwhile, the community task force studying the issue has failed to meet its initial February deadline for submitting a report on civilian review options. Edmonds said county officials have acknowledged the work will take longer than expected. Supervisor Shirlee Zane said the community is anxious for responses to Lopez's death, but the task force, which has met five times since Jan. 13, needs time to do "quality work."

"They're moving ahead," Zane said. "We expect they'll get back to us soon."

You can reach Staff Writer Guy Kovner at 521-5457 or guy.kovner@pressdemocrat.com.

Grand jury: Marin County Civic Center flunks recycling 101

                                                                          

County government is failing to walk its talk of "zero waste" at the Civic Center, where the diversion rate of recyclable materials falls well below the countywide average, a civil grand jury investigation disclosed.

The jury probe, in effect contending the county flunks recycling 101, found diverting material from landfills is not a priority at the Civic Center, where it said recycling leadership is lax, written recycling policies have not been developed, procedures are inconsistent and recycling processes misunderstood.

Based on misinformation and confusion, officials thought they were doing better, the jury said. Staff disposed of garbage in plastic bags without realizing the bags were not sorted at Marin Sanitary Service for recyclables — but sent to the landfill unopened.

In 2012, the jury reported 243 tons of garbage were removed from Civic Center offices by Marin Sanitary Service, and an estimated 134 tons wound up in the landfill. In addition, the county jail generated 162 tons of garbage, with 137 tons going to the landfill.

"While sustainability and recycling may be a part of the culture of the Marin County government, the practices of recycling, composting, and reuse by county employees and by visitors to the Civic Center are neither actively promoted nor made easy to accomplish," the jury concluded. "There is some talk, but there's not nearly enough walk."

The jury said its study indicated diversion rates, or the percentage of waste diverted from traditional disposal for recycling, averaged from 65 percent to 66 percent across the state. Marin posted an overall rate 75 percent in 2012, but "the grand jury estimates that the diversion rates of the Marin County Civic Center and Marin County Jail were only 45 percent and 15 percent, respectively."

The estimated 45 percent diversion rate, based on a new, apparently rigorous November 2013 audit Marin Sanitary provided after the jury launched its probe, was far less than earlier "erroneous" data from the firm indicating the Civic Center rate in 2012 was 84 percent, slightly more than the county's "zero waste Marin" goal for the year.

The jury also indicated officials scrambled to increase recycling as its investigation unfolded, with the jail staff quickly cutting its landfill garbage 25 percent. More loose garbage is now dumped into debris boxes, rather than bagged, so that it can be sorted by Marin Sanitary's conveyor belt system.

"There's lots of opportunities for the county to divert more and we're here to help," said Kim Scheibly, Marin Sanitary's communications manager. She said the firm advocates "source separation" of recyclables and does not open plastic garbage bags in light of hygienic concerns. A Marin Sanitary audit provided a number of improvement recommendations, she added.

County officials took issue with the jury's methodology but noted improvements can be made.

"They are making estimates based on one spot check," County Administrator Matthew Hymel said, adding officials don't think the situation is as bad as the jury report indicates.

"With that said, we can always do better," Hymel said.

“It’s not a bad thing to get some feedback on how we can do better,”  he added.  “We want to do better.”  Supervisor Kate Sears, president of the county board, was at a conference when the report was issue Thursday." I have not had a chance to read the report yet, but certainly will as we all want to ensure our recycling efforts are effective and have a meaningful impact," she said.

The jury said county supervisors do not have written plans or policies on recycling, composting and reuse in county facilities, and that leadership is lacking.

"County employees do not perceive clear direction or imperative from leadership on the importance of recycling, composting, and reuse," the jury asserted. "Recycling practices are inconsistent across county departments and facilities."

The jury lauded the county's paper recycling system, but found many opportunities for improvements in a host of areas.

"These include continuing to recycle steel cans used by the county jail kitchen (implemented during this investigation), providing glass, plastic, and aluminum recycling bins in the offices of the Civic Center, composting food waste from the county jail, and promoting reuse of coffee and tea containers in the Civic Center," the jury said, noting those who bring their own cups to the cafeteria get big discounts.

"The environmental footprint of the county government's business practices is paramount as with over

2,000 employees it is the largest employer in the county and can set an example for other employers," the jury noted. Marin County government should 'walk the talk' when it comes to recycling, composting and reuse."

The jury's recommendations included increasing diversion rates, examining recycling and reuse practices and policies, and developing a long-range plan tied to performance metrics and goals.

The jury report can be found at http://www.marincounty.org/depts/gj/reports-and-responses

Contact Nels Johnson via email at njohnson@marinij.com. Follow him at twitter.com/nelsjohnsonnews