Budget remains a point of contention between the county and the jury
In June, the 14-member grand jury
published its report covering its findings and recommendations for county
agencies, including how the jury itself functions. Those agencies or
individuals investigated had 60 to 90 days to respond. Five months later, the
jury foreman questions whether the county's financial support of the
grand jury is adequate to allow for the amount and depth of investigations
needed going forward.
According to the California Grand Jurors'
Association, the state's system consists of 58 separate grand
juries—one in each county—that are convened on an annual basis by the Superior
Court to carry out three functions:
•
Investigating and
reporting on the operations of local government (which is known as the
“watchdog “ function—a civil, rather than criminal function)
•
Issuing criminal
indictments to require defendants to go to trial on felony charges
•
Investigating allegations
of a public official’s corrupt or willful misconduct in office, and when
warranted, filing an “accusation” against that official to remove him or her
from office. The accusation process is considered to be “quasi-criminal”
in nature.
Among the nine investigations it conducted,
the 2014-15 San Benito County Grand Jury evaluated patient grievances and
employee complaints against the county’s Behavioral Health Department. It
questioned why so many county staff heads are listed as “interim employees.”
Additionally, it investigated why there is an agreement that allows the
nonprofit Community Services and Development Corporation to lease its office
from the county. Jurors looked into an apparent lack of transparency
about how the $42.5 million bond, Measure G, passed in June 2014 by voters
for improvements to San Benito High School, were being spent. The report also
included an investigation into the county’s obligations regarding the Family
Migrant Housing Center and Single Migrant Workers Dormitories; the District
Attorney’s Office; and the county jail. The grand jury also questioned whether
its budget of $25,432 was enough to fund its own investigations and
expenses.
The budget turned out to be a major point of
contention, in the view of Bob Marden, who served as the grand
jury's foreman.
“At the point that we were sworn in as the
2014-15 grand jury, I went to Ray Espinosa (County Administrative Officer) and
told him we don’t have enough money in your budget,” Marden told BenitoLink
recently. “They had given us $19,000, and the way they run their budget is they
put an administration charge into each department. The grand jury’s charge
was $5,821 that they added in as an expense that we had to pay for the services
that the grand jury was supposedly getting. It’s questionable that we ever
received $5,821. The budget, as we looked at it, was $25,321. That’s how it
appears on paper. But when you back out that expense it goes down to about
$19,500.”
Marden said he met with Espinosa, with whom
BenitoLink made repeated efforts to reach for comment, to tell him the
grand jury did not have sufficient money in the budget, and according to state
law, he was supposed to notify the board of supervisors, through Espinosa, of
the fact, as well as the superior court.
“I told them that we cannot complete the
investigations that the grand jury wants to do unless we get a change in the
budget,” he said. “Espinosa assured me at that time that they (supervisors)
would work with us and we’d be able to do something.
“So, come October (2014), I went back to him
and I said I wanted to reiterate that we have ongoing investigations and that
we do not have sufficient money in our budget to go ahead and complete. By
state law we cannot create money-owed obligations without having the money on
the books. If we do that then we’re technically in violation of state law.
“He said for us not to worry and that they’d
work with us. Then I went and talked with Judge (Harry) Tobias, as well as
Judge (Steven) Sanders. I told them that I had met with Ray and that we cannot
complete what we need to do. I said by state law you have the power to mandate
to the board of supervisors that they have to fund us by court order. They said
let’s wait and see what they’re going to do.”
After several visits with Espinosa and Tobias,
the board voted in February 2015 to provide an additional $5,000 for the grand
jury to complete investigations on which it was working.
“I said it’s still not sufficient,” Marden
said. “I submitted a budget to them of $27,500 as what I thought we’d need to
go ahead. Also, part of my argument was, ‘you are writing a budget on something
you know nothing about. You have never invited the grand jury to appear at your
so-called budget hearings and reviews.’ I said, ‘we’d be more than happy to
come and submit. We cannot tell you all the things we do that are under
confidentiality, but we can tell you that we believe that we have certain
reports that we’re looking into and the amount of time it takes to do this, and
this is how we function.’”
Supervisor Margie Barrios, said: “Every agency
is expected to live within their means. They have to make it work to whatever
extent they can. And to come back and request additional funding puts the
board of supervisors in a very difficult situation because we have to be fair.
We couldn’t do that for every department. If we started doing that, then what’s
the sense of having a budget? We know what our revenues are and what our
expenditures are. But we were able to find a source of money for them to help
them finish out the year.”
Marden said there were three reports on
which the grand jury was unable to work, one of which, he said, he
believed was criminal in nature. Because of confidentiality, he would not
reveal the nature of the investigation, but said the information was passed on
to the district attorney.
The board responded that Espinosa had reviewed
the budget increase request and submitted it as part of the annual budget
process. The board stipulated, though, that it would not implement changes to
those sections dealing with stipends and expenses because they were in
compliance with the penal codes.
The Board of Supervisors sent its official
response on Sept. 8, to the court, as well as to: county interim Department
Head Appointments; the Southside Housing Center; Commercial Lease Agreement;
the Behavioral Health Department; the District Attorney’s Department; Jail
Review; and Juvenile Hall Report.
The 99-page response covered 49 grand jury
findings, corresponding recommendations and responses from the various
departments.
Highlights from the report
- The board disagreed with the grand jury’s
finding that interim directors make up 30 percent of county department heads,
responding that the county has only one vacant department head position and
that the single interim department head only works approximately 20 hours per
week, and not 40, as the grand jury stated.
- Regarding the Southside Housing Center, the
only area of concern, as far as the grand jury found, was the condition of a
laundry and the need for portable restrooms at the playground. Supervisors
disagreed on both, stating that the county works with the state to determine
the needs of the facility.
- The grand jury found structural deficiencies
at the Homeless Coalition, including drainage problems and inadequate
electrical service in the dormitory. The board either disagreed or said routine
maintenance was already in place to address these issues.
- In response to the jury's findings that
the Behavioral Health Department had received numerous complaints regarding
improper medical prescriptions and that the staff is either unwilling or unable
to respond or correct the complaints against psychiatrist, the
county disagreed and said that there is not enough evidence of an
“inordinate large volume of complaints.”
- Grand jury findings and recommendations
regarding the Behavioral Health Department far outnumbered any other county
department. One telling recommendation came across as almost
scolding: “The director needs to be advised that his job requires that he
be an active role player in all phases of his department’s actions. He should
be provided the management training courses to update his skill sets on
directing, relating to, and managing employees.”
In his defense, the supervisors’ response
spelled out the director’s qualifications and training in social work and
community program administration.
- The grand jury also reviewed the District
Attorney’s Office, which had not been reviewed since 2002. The recommendations
mainly dealt with upgrading the phone and computer systems, the regularity of
staff meetings, and ensuring that janitorial services are provided by an
outside service. Candice Hooper, district attorney, responded by letter that a
message had been added to the phone service; staff meetings are scheduled the
first Friday of each month; and DAO is not a janitorial service.
- As for the San Benito County Jail, the grand
jury found, for the most part, that it was “well-run and maintained,” despite
an “enormous amount of overtime being paid due to under-staffing,” which was
adversely affecting officers’ health and safety. It also was noted
that there was not a 24/7 on-site medical staff.
The board agreed on the overtime issue, but
disagreed that the overtime was adversely affecting the officers, though it did
say that “mandatory overtime is not a desirable situation and may adversely
affect the quality of life of employees who do not desire to work such
overtime.”
Lack of jurors a concern
Marden said the county could not get enough
people who were interested in serving on the grand jury this year.
“Judge Tobias had
to subpoena prospective members,” he said. “He told them at their interview
everybody has a job, everybody has personal things at home, none of those are
excuses to get off the grand jury. Of those who served on the last grand jury
only two have returned.”
November 25, 2015
BenitoLink:
San Benito County News
By
John Chadwell
No comments:
Post a Comment