[Santa Clara County] grand jury accuses San Jose Unified of misleading public and its own board about lobbying efforts

San Jose’s biggest school district left the public and its own governing board in the dark about lobbying activities that were carried out on its behalf — and possibly violated government ethics laws in the process, according to a new grand jury report.

San Jose Unified School District hired a consulting firm to help it with a proposal to build affordable housing for district teachers and employees but didn’t disclose to its board or the public that the consulting firm was also lobbying city officials, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury said in a report issued last week.

Indeed, district staff members repeatedly denied to the board the consultancy was doing any lobbying for the district, according to the report.

Meanwhile, SJUSD obscured for the public and its board the lobbying activities another firm it hired was doing at the state level, according to the report.

“The vagueness, inaccuracies and lack of transparency surrounding the consultant contracts cause the Grand Jury to further question whether the district was evaluating these contracts for compliance with government ethics laws,” the grand jury said in its report.

“The Grand Jury is concerned about the district’s lack of attention to this responsibility; the consultants’ failure to disclose their financial interests; and the fact that the public is unaware that consultants may have disqualifying financial interests in the work they perform for the district.”

The district declined to immediately comment, saying it would issue a formal response to the report “within the statutory timeframes.”

SJUSD denial

SJUSD hired planning firm The Schoennauer Company, LLC, a registered lobbyist, in March 2019 at a rate of $2,500 a month to help with its affordable housing proposal. At the time, the district was exploring a plan to relocate some of its schools and construct housing on the properties.

The proposal was opposed by many of the neighbors of the schools facing potential closures. Schoennauer helped SJUSD narrow its list of 10 potential sites for the affordable housing development to four.

The grand jury report also criticized the district’s relationship with a second housing consultant who worked with Schoennauer, Snider Consulting. The agreement with Snider was characterized by a trustee as “very vague about what was to be done.”

From nearly the beginning, opponents criticized the district’s move to hire Schoennauer and questioned the work it was doing for the district. Under questioning from the board, district staff members denied Schoennauer was lobbying for the district.

In fact, though, Schoennauer partner Erik Schoennauer repeatedly met or spoke with city officials, including Mayor Sam Liccardo and Kelly Kline, the city director of land use, about SJUSD’s proposal, according to lobbyist reports filed with the city that were cited in the grand jury report.

“The district repeatedly denied in public meetings that the consultant was lobbying on its behalf despite clear documentation to the contrary,” the grand jury said in its report. “These actions adversely tainted the public contracting process by misleading the board charged with approving the use of public funds for the consultant’s hiring.”

Even if district officials didn’t direct Schoennauer’s lobbying effort, they had little excuse to not be aware of it, the grand jury said in its report. Invoices submitted by the consulting firm to the district explicitly stated that it was performing “political lobbying services” for the district, according to the report.

“I don’t see what the concern is about having a dialogue with the city of San Jose,” said Erik Schoennauer of the Schoennauer Company. “Ultimately, any teacher housing project has to be approved by the city. So certainly it makes sense to check in with the mayor and others in the city to ensure that the direction the district may head in is consistent with the policies and the visions the city has. We should be having more communication, not less.”

Schoennauer said all meetings between city officials and him were lobbying only in the city’s definition of the word.

The city defines lobbying as “influencing or attempting to influence a city official or city official-elect with regard to a legislative or administrative action of the city or redevelopment agency” according to its lobbying ordinance.

“Any communication with a city official is lobbying. Their definition is very simple and very clear,” Schoennauer said. “That’s why our firm included the communications about San Jose Unified in our lobbyist reports to the city. But everyone needs to decide what their definition is of lobbying.”

He added the meetings were to ensure the district and the city were working well together to construct new housing for teachers.

Despite that, when Schoennauer’s contract came up for an extension, district staff declined to correct their previous statements and inform SJUSD’s board about Schoennauer’s lobbying effort, according to the report. Instead, district staff appeared to intentionally obfuscate the work Schoennauer was doing for SJUSD, the grand jury said.

“In response to public comment and a trustee’s request for an update on the consultant’s work, staff provided detail at great length on the consultant’s activities that sound like lobbying without actually using the word ‘lobbying,’” the grand jury said in the report.

With the affordable housing project, SJUSD is seeking to provide homes for its educators and staff in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation. Some teachers within the district have told the board in meetings that they are having extreme difficulty paying rent in the area where they teach.

But the project has garnered considerable pushback from some affluent residents concerned it would decrease property values, increase traffic and endanger pedestrians in the area.

A table displaying Schoennauer’s lobbying activity for the district. Source: Santa Clara County Grand Jury.

No disclosure forms

While it’s legal for the district to lobby city officials, that activity by consultants such as Schoennauer can trigger state financial disclosure requirements that seek to prevent conflicts of interest. Under state law, government bodies are supposed to file a document — Form 805 — with the Fair Political Practices Commission to identify outside consultants who are helping them make governmental decisions.

After an agency files a Form 805, the consultants mentioned in it are required to file their own, separate financial disclosure forms.

But the district hasn’t filed a single Form 805 in the past three years, according to the report. And despite doing extensive work on behalf of SJUSD, including lobbying, neither Schoennauer nor Snider filed the financial disclosure forms, the grand jury reported.

“Without this information, the board and public may not be able to identify areas in which the consultants are potentially prohibited from participating due to their financial interests,” the grand jury said in the report.

Indeed, the grand jury identified one such potentially disqualifying conflict of interest. One of the four sites now being considered for affordable housing is yards away from a house owned by Kelly Snider of Snider Consulting. Snider is also a district parent. Although the district knew about the conflict, it didn’t disclose it to the public or its board, determining that it didn’t need to.

“The school district’s attorney reviewed my contract and all the payments (related to the project) were sent to my house,” Snider told San José Spotlight. “My address is public. I have a business license with the city of San Jose at this address. So this is not a conflict in any way. All of the business I do is out of my own home.”

Snider did not believe her property constituted a conflict of interest, and denied doing any lobbying.

“I did no lobbying, and no one I worked with did any lobbying,” she said. “I am not aware of any lobbying, including the collaboration I did with the other consultants who were working on the project.”

Essentially, the district chose to avoid the issue rather than being transparent about it, the grand jury said. And by doing so, it could have violated state ethics laws.

“While the ultimate resolution of alleged state ethics law violations rests with other public bodies, the Grand Jury’s investigation found deficiencies in the district’s process for identifying consultants who are required to file public statements of economic interests,” the grand jury said.

Lack of transparency

The grand jury also found problems with SJUSD’s lobbying at the state level. Last year, the district hired Ball/Frost Group, LLC to represent it in Sacramento, according to the report. But the contract it signed with Ball/Frost isn’t readily available to the public, and the district didn’t clearly and fully disclose the work Ball/Frost was doing on its behalf, the report found.

Ball/Frost was not immediately available for comment.

“Nothing is remotely transparent about the state lobbying contracts,” the grand jury said in the report.

The grand jury issued four recommendations. It asked the district to be more transparent and accurate in communicating with the public, to revise its contracting procedures to make sure lobbyists are more clearly identified when they work with the district, to clearly place any lobbying business on its agenda and to have a better method to inform contractors of their obligations to disclose information, including information that should be sent to the FPPC.

Civil grand juries are responsible for examining the administration of county services, hearing citizen complaints from county officials and serving as a financial watchdog for public funds, among other duties. They generally release reports on their findings several times a year.

SJUSD educates approximately 30,000 students from kindergarten through 12th grade and employs more than 3,000 teachers and staff. Its boundaries stretch from north of downtown San Jose to Almaden Valley.

San Jose Spotlight
Lloyd Alaban
December 30, 2020

Colusa County grand jury releases annual report

 The 2019-2020 Colusa County Grand Jury recently released its yearly report, highlighting several investigations they conducted over the past year as well as recommendations for the county moving forward.

The grand jury consists of eight officers and 10 members. The citizens act independent of the court and implement investigations into all agencies and departments within their area.

“Our most challenging event this year was the same challenge affecting every community in America, the pandemic of COVID-19,” said foreperson Kristen Simmons in her letter to Judge Jeffery A. Thompson. “Its limitations affected continuing investigations and restricted our assembly as a group. However, all issues brought to the attention of the jury were investigated and received the required consideration.”

Here is a breakdown of the report:

Tri-County Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility and The Maxine Singer  Youth Guidance Center

As the primary sites for youth offenders in the area, the Colusa County grand jury conducted their yearly inspection of the Tri-County Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility and the Maxine Singer Youth Guidance Center – also known as Camp Singer – on Jan. 24, 2020.

Colusa County utilizes the facilities located in Yuba County because it does not have a juvenile detention center of its own.

According to the report, the grand jury completed an in-depth investigation that included programs offered and a comprehensive comparison between the two facilities, finding that in its current state, the facility continues to function adequately. The jury also concluded that inspections at the facility are up to date and a safety plan is in place for staff and inmates.

It was noted that in spite of the age and wear of the facility, which was built in the 1950s, both facilities were well maintained and clean.

“The kitchen and dining hall, which is shared by juvenile hall and Camp Singer, was exceptionally clean and well organized,” read the report.

The facility is equipped with an Intervention counselor and offers a variety of programs focused on anger management, antisocial emotions, gang rehabilitation and parenting in both individual and groups settings. A tattoo removal program is also offered at the juvenile hall.

At the time of the inspection, there were 14 youths housed at the juvenile hall, two of whom were from Colusa County. None of the 16 youths housed at Camp Singer were from Colusa County at the time of the jury’s tour.

Colusa County Jail

The grand jury conducted its annual inspection of the Colusa County Jail on Oct. 25, 2019. Their findings indicate that the facility continues to function adequately. However, as stated in previous reports, safety risks for both staff and inmates exist due to the current building layout.

According to the report, the jail is a single floor facility with an authorized housing capacity of 92 inmates and is staffed by 13 Sheriff’s Department employees.

At the time of the inspection, 81 inmates were in custody at the facility.

 

According to the report, the information for the investigation was sourced from a tour of the jail facility, interviews with jail administrative staff and line personnel, interviews with male and female inmates and reviews of past jail inspections and state inspection reports.

During the interviews with the inmates at the facility, they confirmed that they are provided with all their physical needs – which includes three meals per day, restroom facilities and a bed – while they awaited sentencing or served their time at the jail.

“Reasonable commissary, education facilities, basic liberal arts classes and religious services are also available for interested inmates,” it was stated in the report.

Mosquito Abatement

The grand jury launched a review of the comprehensive operations of the Colusa Mosquito Abatement District because, according to the report, those had not been reviewed in recent years.

The review looked into the district’s responsibilities, boundaries, abatement operations and procedures, incidence of West Nile within the county, education and prevention, safety training and communication strategies.

The district’s boundary encompasses 160 square miles in eastern Colusa County, including the city of Colusa, as well as 20 square miles of Sutter County and the Butte Sink National Wildlife Refuge.

Large areas are agricultural lands, wetlands and river banks which provide prime breeding conditions for mosquitos that are in close proximity to humans, according to the report.

“From late April to early November, CMAD provides abatement services in the city of Colusa and outlying areas within the District boundary,” it was stated in the report. “Application of pesticide is based on mosquito populations and disease activity determined by surveillance.”

The district follows an integrated, ecosystem-based strategy mosquito management program that focuses on long term prevention of mosquitoes through a combination of techniques.

The grand jury found that the District provides a high-level of mosquito control services and public health protection while implementing good abatement practices and maintaining a confident, multi-functional employee team.

“Their facility and equipment are well maintained and the employees take pride in their work and service to the community,” it was stated in the report.

Colusa County Sun Herald
By Lynzie Lowe llowe
December 30, 2020

Report: ‘Frat house culture’ blamed for lack of female firefighters in Santa Clara County

Blog note: This article refers to a Santa Clara County grand jury report

Women trying to become firefighters in cities throughout Santa Clara County face gender bias, a hostile work environment, a conscious lack of recruitment and other major obstacles, according to a newly released grand jury report.

The report on the lack of women firefighters in Santa Clara County offers recommendations for how the male-dominated firefighting profession can take steps to better reflect the county’s demographics by hiring more women.

Issued by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Dec. 17, the report surveyed nearly 1,500 firefighters across four departments and 96 fire stations in the county. It found that only 4% of firefighters were women — far below the 17% target recommended by Women in Fire, an advocacy group.

The San Jose Fire Department, the largest in the region with 665 firefighters, has the lowest percentage of female firefighters — just 16, or 2%.

Of the 95 firefighters in Palo Alto, five are women or approximately 5%. Mountain View has seven women among its 70 firefighters, about 10% of its force, and the Santa Clara County Fire Department has 16 women among 235 firefighters or 7%.

The civil grand jury found it was more difficult for women to be recruited for firefighting jobs because of “insufficient female recruitment, gender bias and lack of inclusivity” among departments.

The report saw a recruitment system that favored men over women, a hostile work environment for women, a lack of women-specific equipment and complaints from female firefighters about harassment from male firefighters.

“The current procedures for recruiting and hiring female firefighters in the Santa Clara County region have resulted in maintaining a male-dominated fire service that does not reflect the face of the community it serves,” read the report.

“For the SCC fire departments to have more female firefighters in the workforce, they must hire more women,” it continued. “This will require a concentrated and continuous effort. Female firefighters should expect appropriate behavior from all colleagues, separate living accommodations for privacy, formal mentoring, opportunity for promotion and properly-fitting work gear.”

According to a survey conducted by the National Report Card on Women in Firefighting, only 35.6% of women said their department recruits and hires women above its general recruiting efforts. When asked the same question, 65.9% of men firefighters said their department went above its recruiting efforts for women.

In addition, leadership positions are almost exclusively male. Female firefighters were approximately 15 times more likely to be verbally harassed, 60 times more likely to report sexual advancements against them at work, 23 times more likely to be exposed to pornography at work and 13 times more likely to be hazed compared to their male counterparts.

Departments also lacked separate changing and living facilities for women, the survey found.

Not wanted

The grand jury report cited four specific instances of female firefighters being harassed in the county. In one instance, a female firefighter could not get transferred to a fire station because that station allegedly “did not want women working there.”

Another firefighter dealt with inappropriate teasing and a third said she heard complaints from the wives of male firefighters about their husbands working closely with women. A fourth firefighter said she didn’t feel supported at the male-dominated firefighters union meeting.

“How do you change that frat house culture? That’s what we’re wrestling with,” read a statement from Curt Varone, a retired deputy fire chief who served 29 years in the Providence Fire Department in Rhode Island. The county used a quote from him in its report. “Hearts and minds have not changed on this issue and that’s the only way we’re going to see progress.”

The report suggested fire departments implement a recruitment process specifically for women firefighters, ensure a non-gender biased hiring process, better living and working conditions for women and more mentoring resources for prospective women applicants and issued six recommendations for implementing such policies.

‘Good old boys’ club’

Matt Tuttle, president of San Jose Fire Fighters Local 230, said he believes there could be better recruitment with more funding.

“For years the fire service has had to combat the ‘frat’ stigma and even a stigma of the fire department being a ‘good old boys’ club,'” Tuttle said. “I believe a lot of that stigma comes from members of the fire department being legacies, for example, sons and daughters of firefighters continuing a family ‘tradition’ of working in the fire service.”

Tuttle said he’s seen a reduction of firefighter applications due to tighter budgets and losing out to other high-paying jobs in the region, such as tech jobs.

Part of San Jose’s efforts to increase women numbers at SJFD includes its SJFD Women’s Boot Camp, which held its second event in March. The boot camp, facilitated by some of the department’s women firefighters, gives participants the opportunity to go through a day in the life of an actual firefighter — everything from grueling physical workouts with the department’s equipment to first aid demonstrations and workshops with women firefighters.

Although the department said it was too soon to review and implement the recommendations from the grand jury report, it said it is actively trying to ensure SJFD reflects the demographics of the city.

“The San Jose Fire Department does enforce a zero-tolerance policy for workplace discrimination,” said Erica Ray, the department’s spokesperson. “And we did implement this annual women’s boot camp to give interested candidates the opportunity to be mentored directly by our female firefighters. It really gives them the hands-on access to what it’s like to be a firefighter.”

The civil grand jury is responsible for examining the administration of county services, hearing resident complaints from county officials and serving as a financial watchdog for public funds, among other duties. It generally releases reports on its findings several times a year.

“If Santa Clara County can cultivate an environment that leads to hiring more women firefighters, it will find its way to equitable female representation in the county,” said the report. “More diverse departments in the SCC region would encourage other Santa Clara County fire departments to change their view, and the balance of genders may inspire additional counties to do so as well.”

San Jose Spotlight
Lloyd Alaban
December 29, 2020

 

Upland City Council wants future city attorney to look into [San Bernardino County] Grand Jury report

In an about face, the Upland City Council last week decided not to hire a private investigator to dig into a grand jury report accusing the city of deceiving the public and hiding information on city pension debts.

However, the Nov. 2 report issued by the San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury will remain a thorny issue for several months for the City Council and for City Manager Rosemary Hoerning.

The City Council on Jan. 11 will take up the report’s 16 recommendations for bettering the way the city deals with its finances and being more transparent. One suggestion is to place pension debt reports on the city’s website.

“I’m really nervous this will be brought up again and again if we don’t resolve them,” said Councilwoman Janice Elliott at the  Dec. 14 City Council meeting.

Despite strong pushes by new Mayor Bill Velto at two previous meetings to hire a private firm at a cost of $50,000 to investigate the city, he failed to gain the votes. On Dec. 14, new council members Shannan Maust and Carlos Garcia did not indicate support for the idea.

Instead, Maust suggested the investigation be done once a new city attorney is hired, a process underway. A new city attorney would be impartial and could conduct interviews of current and past city personnel and find out what led to the Grand Jury’s findings, she said.

“There might be a need for disciplinary actions,” she added, hinting that either a city staffer or council member could be called out for wrongdoing. Velto concluded that his earlier calls for a private investigative firm to investigate the city were moot. The entire City Council agreed on the new approach.

“I felt it was better that we complete the hiring of the city attorney and allow that party to conduct an investigation,” Velto said in a Dec. 22 interview. The new city attorney would review the Grand Jury’s 17 findings and 16 recommendations.

“If we are able, to obtain any basis for those findings from the Grand Jury. Then we will allow the city attorney to use that information to conduct an investigation,” Velto said.

Appointing newly elected City Treasurer Greg Bradley as chief investigator was supported by Lois Sicking Dieter, who ran for mayor and came in third, and Albert Pattison, long-time Upland resident.

But Velto said that would place too much of a burden on the new treasurer and was not his role. He said he has spoken with Bradley and has increased the role of city treasurer in city finance discussions and city meetings — issues at the heart of the Grand Jury report.

The Grand Jury found:

• Five times in early 2019, the city covered up a handwritten notation from then Upland City Treasurer Larry Kinley indicating the city had a bill of $112,039,675 in unfunded pension liabilities by removing it from the city’s monthly Treasury Report. Altered reports were filed with the City Clerk and presented to the City Council for approval, but the Council was not made aware of the changes by city staff. In July 2019, the Finance Committee became aware of the altered reports and stopped the practice, but no disciplinary action was taken.

• The witnesses interviewed agreed unanimously that the city’s pension debts “posed both a serious threat and a financial liability to the citizens of the City.” Also, the City Council was not educated on the implications of such a large pension debt.

• The city purposely deceived the public about pension liabilities because it didn’t want the public asking difficult questions. Back in 2016, the city reduced the role of the city treasurer and prevented him from participating in other meetings involving city finances.

Among the Grand Jury recommendations: Any changes to the City Treasury Report after signed, be documented in writing to the city manager, treasurer and mayor; the treasurer should present his report at City Council meetings monthly; all fiduciary duties be restored to the city treasurer; city should support the appointment of a deputy city treasurer; providing training to council members on unfunded pension liabilities; placing Finance Committee meeting minutes and a report on pension liabilities with a 10-year cost projection on the city’s website.

The report’s recommendations must be implemented by the end of March. But the city doesn’t have to do them all.

“It is not required that the city implement the recommendations but state it is going to implement (some) or isn’t going to (implement others) and what its reasons are,” said Interim City Attorney Steven Flower.

San Gabriel Valley Tribune
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
By STEVE SCAUZILLO
December 28, 2020

Santa Barbara County is building a new $116 million jail branch. Here’s when it will open

Blog note: This article refers to a Santa Barbara County civil grand jury  report

Construction on the Northern Branch Jail is now estimated to be finished by the end of the year, with a 2021 opening date.

The biggest Santa Barbara County capital project in history is even further behind schedule with mounting costs, and the Sheriff’s Office reports that the Northern Branch Jail has a new opening date in spring 2021.

Construction should be substantially completed by the end of the year, followed by on-site training for custody staff, Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman Raquel Zick said.

The “final completion” date is now estimated at Feb. 26, with its opening soon after.

The jail was expected to open in spring 2018, but numerous delays — including the engineering firm allegedly quitting — have pushed the timeline longer, and the cost higher with extended and amended construction-related contracts.

The new facility was built to reduce overcrowding at the run-down Main Jail near Santa Barbara, and was located in the North County to reduce travel time for booking agencies and court-related transportation.

With 376 beds, the Northern Branch Jail is not sized large enough to replace the Main Jail, even with the lower population because of COVID-19 policies and the push for pre-trial releases.

The sheriff’s department reports an average daily population of 607 people since April, which is a 33% drop from the previous year.

Diversion programs, bail reform and alternative sentencing could affect future jail populations, but the county plans to spend about $25 million in major renovations on the Main Jail in the next few years, since both facilities will need to be open.

Each month in 2018, the Main Jail had an average of 15 to 60 “floor-sleepers,” with no bed assigned, because of the lack of capacity, according to data released in response to a California Public Records Act request from Noozhawk.

In July, the county settled a federal class-action lawsuit alleging dangerous and unconstitutional conditions at the Main Jail, and the agreement called for providing each inmate with a bed and clean clothes, among other improvements.

A Civil Grand Jury report released this year raised concerns about the understaffing at the sheriff’s department custody division and the new jail’s lack of in-person visitation areas and small exercise areas.

According to that Grand Jury report, custody costs at the Main Jail are $120 per day per inmate, or $43,800 per inmate per year.

Sheriff’s department records show that in 2018, on average, one-third of unsentenced jail inmates were being held on bail of less than $5,000, and 42% of inmates had bail amounts of less than $10,000.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL CONTRACTS

The county amended its Main Jail medical services contract to include the new jail, but it doesn’t have an agreement yet for food services.

The sheriff’s department contracts with Aramark Corp. for jail food services and inmate commissary services, and the Board of Supervisors approved contact extensions for both agreements in November.

Since there is a “fluctuating” opening date for the Northern Branch Jail, near Santa Maria, the amendments will keep services going at the Main Jail facility while they work on a new agreement to cover both facilities, according to the staff report to the Board of Supervisors.

The Sheriff’s Office’s Programs Unit used to oversee the commissary program, but now it is contracted out to the Aramark Corp.

County supervisors approved a 90-day contract extension for $221,000 on Nov. 10, and approved a contract with Keefe Commissary Network LLC on Dec. 15.

“This is a revenue-generating contract where commissions pay for the vendor’s services,” Lt. Dulce Brooks of the Sheriff’s Office’s Inmate Services Unit wrote.

The Keefe Commissary Network provided commissary services at the Main Jail from 2011 to 2016, when Aramark took over.

People held in custody at the Main Jail have to pay for toiletries, including shampoo and tampons, which are sold at the commissary.

A Keefe Commissary Network menu from 2013 includes toiletries, shoes, stationary, reading glasses, and food items such as ramen, peanut butter, hot chocolate mix, chips, cans of chili, peanuts and cookies.

Inmates in the jail who have no money rely on a hygiene kit that includes a pencil, a razor, a toothbrush, a comb and a small bar of soap.

They get one kit per week, but defense attorneys have said the small soaps might last for only three showers, with careful use.

Noozhawk
BY GIANA MAGNOLI
DECEMBER 24, 2020

[Calaveras County] Grand Jury addresses complaints against Assessor’s Office

 The Calaveras County 2019-20 Grand Jury has released a report addressing citizen complaints of a backlog of properties at the county Assessor’s Office which has caused hefty, unexpected bills sent to taxpayers and an undetermined amount of revenue loss to county funds.

The report, which can be read in full at grandjury.calaverasgov.us, details problems including understaffing, inefficient workload management, and an influx of damaged properties due to the 2015 Butte Fire as contributing factors to the backlog of over 6,800 re-appraisable events.

“The current backlog can sometimes result in the need for years of supplemental bills to be issued for residential properties. Sometimes the taxpayer receives these supplemental bills at or near the same time,” the report reads. “Significant issues can arise if the property changes hands multiple times before a reassessment is completed. Property owners may be unaware that additional tax bills will be issued.” advertisement

The report acknowledges that recommendations made by the 2016-17 Grand Jury to close an approximate three-year gap on residential property reassessments and a four-year gap on commercial property reassessments were not acted upon, specifically by the county’s Administrative Office.

The report did not find any wrongdoing by County Assessor Leslie Davis, who has held the elected position for 12 years and has served as president of the California Assessors’ Association. Alternatively, the Grand Jury pointed to insufficient departmental budget increases of roughly $100,000 over the past 15 years resulting in a staffing deficit.

“Many citizens in Calaveras County are upset with the Calaveras County Assessor’s Office because late reassessments are creating unexpected tax bills,” the latest report reads.

One such individual is Katherine Searcy, a Bay Area resident who decided to pay her retired father-in-law’s several-thousand-dollar tax bill on his West Point property after he was slapped with the unexpected expense.

“It doesn’t seem like a very fair way to do it when they get five years to reassess, and seniors on a fixed income have to turn around and pay out of pocket,” Searcy said.

Taxpayers have the right to an informal interview with the Assessor’s Office as well as the right to appeal within 60 days of the notice in question, though Searcy says she chose not to appeal due to interest and fees charged by the Treasurer/Tax Collector’s Office if the amount goes unpaid.

During fiscal year (FY) 2019-20, there were 108 appeals filed with the Assessor’s Office.

Taxpayers also have the option of undertaking an interest-free payment plan for taxes in excess of $500, though the Grand Jury found that method often delays by years the collection of county funds.

“All taxes comprise about 25% of the total projected General Fund revenue for FY 2020-2021. This tax revenue is in part comprised of real property and personal property taxes. Understanding the value and economic loss to the county as a result of the backlog is difficult to determine. Until a reassessment occurs, the accurate assessed value cannot be taxed,” the report reads. “At the time of this writing, according to the (Assessor’s Office), if the residential reassessments were updated to within six months from the time of a title change, a one-time increase to General Fund revenues would be approximately $2 million to schools and approximately $1 million to county, city and special districts.”

To expedite this process, the Grand Jury recommends that the Assessor’s Office cease comparative market analyses and instead utilize the “Value Concept,” a less accurate but more timely method of assessing property values based on sales price.

“As an alternative ... assessors have the discretion to conduct a comparative market analysis, a more time-intensive method,” the report explains. “This comparative analysis is mainly done when the sales price does not seem to accurately reflect the true market value of the property.”

In all other counties interviewed by the Grand Jury, the Value Concept method was used and backlogs were within the range of two months to two years.

“Accuracy was considered paramount in all counties, but it was acknowledged that less than 100% accuracy was sometimes acceptable in order to keep up with the workload,” the report reads. “It was acknowledged that a lower assessment value was acceptable in order to move through reassessments in a timely manner.”

It was also recommended that the Assessor’s Office should develop a more time-effective work-flow method than its current “first in, first out” policy for reassessments.

Beyond recommending that the county Board of Supervisors “should maintain sufficient funding in the Calaveras County Assessor’s Office budget to bring all reassessments to within one year of all re-appraisable events by June 30, 2022,” the Grand Jury also called on the county’s Administrative Office to follow through with their 2017 pledge to complete a “comprehensive staffing and work methods analysis.”

As is customary, responses to the grand jury’s findings and recommendations are required from elected officials within 60 days of the report’s release, and within 90 days from governing bodies.

Calaveras Enterprise
by Dakota Morlan
December 23, 2020

Failure to Communicate: Orange County Wildfires Highlight Long Standing Emergency Communication Problems

 Blognote: This report references a 2019 Orange County grand jury report

 Orange County residents witnessed three wildfires in the last three months, and while no lives were lost, the event served as a sobering reminder of serious communication problems long present in the county’s emergency communication system. 

Editors Note: This three-day series takes a look at the ongoing risks for many Orange County residents who are living near wildfire zones that are burning more often with each passing year. This is the first story in the series. In the second story, Hosam Elattar examines what the fire means for Chino Hills State Park, with the fire burning more than 60 percent of the parkland.

Over 30,000 acres burned between the Silverado, Blue Ridge and Bond Fires, all of which saw unique communication responses that failed to inform the public in different ways.

In a series of press conferences during Silverado, public officials largely praised their own response to the blaze and their communication with the public, despite resident complaints on social media and in community meetings that emergency responders failed to effectively communicate evacuation orders. 

A grand jury report in 2019 documented how Orange County emergency responders have long struggled with giving timely information to the public, painting a response that failed to communicate clearly to the public throughout the evacuation process.

The grand jury made a variety of recommendations on how to improve the situation, several of which were implemented including updates to the AlertOC notification system.

But similar issues to the Canyon 2 Fire still persisted this year in the county’s fire response.

New issues also arose with the county’s first major emergency during the coronavirus pandemic. Evacuation centers quickly filled up, requiring a mass expansion, and in one fire no evacuation centers were opened by the county at all for fear of the virus’ spread.

Silverado: Interagency Breakdowns

The first two fires this year showed the difference between when cities stepped up to lead versus the county’s decision making.

The City of Irvine, the first and largest city forced to evacuate during this year’s wildfires, focused more on communication with the public than any other city during the wildfire: City council members were publishing updated information on the fire ahead of or in sync with the city’s own police department and emergency response teams, utilizing an evacuation plan drawn up last year.

however, the evacuation plan hadn’t been updated to reflect the COVID pandemic, and the city quickly filled up over a dozen evacuation centers in a few hours. Voice of OC reporters on the ground saw centers fill up in under 20 minutes, and Irvine city staff frequently closed and reopened centers throughout the first few days of the fire.

The city’s leading role also saw discrepancies between evacuation advisories with other agencies. In their live maps, the Sheriffs’ Department and Irvine had big differences, with some residents under no evacuation order or advisory on one map and under mandatory orders in the other.

A similar problem cropped up in 2017, with the OC Sheriffs’ Department and the city of Orange sending out conflicting maps within 20 minutes of each other showing different regions of the city that needed to evacuate during the Canyon 2 Fire.

Irvine Police Sgt. Karie Davies, the police department’s Public Information Officer, said all the data on their maps and mandatory evacuations were issued based on advice from the Orange County Fire Authority, and could not speak on what was represented on the sheriffs’ maps.

But when asked by Voice of OC reporters, OCFA’s public information office said that all evacuation orders were under the sheriff’s control, and decisions were made based on incoming information between OCFA and the sheriff’s department.

Carrie Braun, Public Information Officer for the OC Sheriff’s Department, said evacuation decisions were made at command posts as a unified decision between the different agencies responding to the fires, including OCFA and individual city’s police departments, and that map updates were handled by trained county employees.

A firefighter stands by the 133 South toll road highway entrace observing an active fire that is happening a couple of yards away on Oct. 26, 2020.

Blue Ridge: Evacuation Center Confusions

Over a month after the Blue Ridge Fire, it still remains unclear who was actually in charge of setting up evacuation centers.

When reports of a fire in the hills east of Yorba Linda first popped up it was being called the Green Fire, and then swiftly had its name changed to the Blue Ridge Fire, prompting some confusion among local officials as to whether or not they were two separate fires nearby or one and the same.

The OCFA also didn’t have any public information officers available to respond in the early hours of the Blue Ridge Fire as they were focused on the Silverado Fire, slowing initial efforts to find official updates on the status of what would become the larger fire.

But once public information officers were on site, OCFA and the Sheriff’s Department largely handled all updates surrounding the fire. Voice of OC found no disparities between the evacuation information being released by county agencies and subsequent data from the cities of Lake Forest, Mission Viejo and Yorba Linda.

However, officials struggled more with the establishment of evacuation centers in the Blue Ridge Fire compared to Silverado, which had a series of staffed centers up and running swiftly and was forced to open several previously unplanned locations.

Initially, the Blue Ridge Fire only had one advertised evacuation center, set up at the Thomas Lasorda Jr. Field House several hours after the first round of mandatory evacuations were issued, leaving many residents with no set place to go after leaving their homes.

When asked by Voice of OC who was in charge of arranging evacuation centers, no clear answers were offered by public agencies.

Braun said that there is generally one trained county employee in charge of coordinating evacuation efforts with cities if they requested it, and that individual cities would have more knowledge on how they handled their evacuations.

But the city of Yorba Linda refused to answer questions about their part in the evacuation, directing all questions about the effort back to Braun.

The surrounding cities of Mission Viejo and Lake Forest were also forced to evacuate small portions of the city and both contract with the OCFA and OC Sheriffs’ Department for their public safety offices, leaving it unclear who was responsible for setting up evacuation centers in those cities.

The 2019 grand jury report pointed out similar confusion surrounding fire communication and evacuation procedures last year, finding that, “Lack of coordination among the involved agencies caused Emergency Public Information sent out about evacuations during the Canyon 2 fire to be inconsistent, and confused residents.”

The Orange County Fire Authority’s Board of Directors issued a short statement on the grand jury’s finding.

“Public safety agencies have a responsibility to coordinate messaging to ensure the public will receive factual and concise information. That practice is challenged by media messaging, social media posts and a wildfire that was quickly escalating. In this case, it was a matter of life and death and the best information at the time was sent.”

Bond: Power Down

The worst breakdowns in communication came during the Bond Fire, which set Silverado Canyon ablaze for the second time in two months. Before the fire started, Southern California Edison informed customers they would be turning off the area’s power due to a red flag fire warning in the area.

When a house fire started just a few hours later, residents were unable to call 911, forcing them to go in person to the fire station to report the blaze. According to one complaint sent to the California Public Utilities Commission, residents couldn’t get word to firefighters for half an hour, and neighbors were trying to suppress the blaze with garden hoses.

When evacuations started, residents did not receive notices on any of their devices due to the power outages, and many reported having to run door to door telling their neighbors to get out as the blaze moved forward. Officials also chose not to open any evacuation centers due to concerns surrounding the coronavirus, despite having opened centers for fires just weeks before.

The issue was not unknown: multiple residents have shared letters they sent to the commission outlining those same concerns.

“You need to understand that when you turn the power off in Silverado – We have no cell service therefore we could not call 911 if an emergency arose or a fire did in fact start. When you turn the power off you are endangering the lives of everyone in our community,” wrote Megan Dornbush, who sent an email to the utilities commission the day before the start of the Bond Fire. 

Spenser Li, another resident of Silverado Canyon, began asking Edison questions about the shutoffs after the Silverado Fire, and was shocked by some of the answers.

“I told them that one day there will be a fire and no one in the canyon will know because we can’t get 911. One of them downright told me ‘someone will knock on your door when the fire is close by,’” Li said.

In response to questions from Voice of OC, Edison said that residents were warned in advance that the power would be shut off, and local authorities have repeatedly refused to speak about power shutdowns during any of the fires.

“I think it’s something we’re going to have to explore with them in the future,” said OC Sheriffs’ Lt. Gary Knudsen at a community meeting with residents on Dec. 5. “Unfortunately, they’re not here.”

After action reports on all three fires are still ongoing, with OCFA participating in the investigation behind Silverado and Bond while San Bernardino County handles Blue Ridge, which started in Chino Hills.

Voice of OC
By Noah
December 21, 2020

SAN JOSÉ FIRE DEPARTMENT STATEMENT REGARDING [Santa Clara County] CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT

San José Fire Department Statement Regarding Civil Grand Jury Report, “Why Aren’t There More Female Firefighters in Santa Clara County”

SAN JOSE, Calif. (December 17, 2020) - San José Fire Department (SJFD) was recently included in a Civil Grand Jury review of nine fire departments in Santa Clara County and the status of female representation in each respective agency. Nationally, females are underrepresented in the fire service, comprising just 8% of firefighters, according to the National Fire Protection Association. SJFD has fallen behind the national average, with females representing less than 3% of its firefighters.

In their report, “Why Aren’t There More Female Firefighter in Santa Clara County,” the Civil Grand Jury highlights an issue important to SJFD. SJFD believes we’re able to serve our constituents best when our workforce represents the community we serve. We recognize we’re not meeting that mark in terms of female representation among our sworn personnel and we must maintain and reinforce current efforts to attract more female applicants.

SJFD has worked to enhance recruitment efforts to attract applicants who reflect San José’s diverse community both in gender and ethnic makeup. SJFD launched its first Women’s Boot Camp in 2019, spearheaded by one of our female Firefighter Paramedics. SJFD’s Women’s Boot Camp provides interested candidates a hands-on experience of what it takes to be a firefighter.

Now an annual event, the SJFD Women’s Boot Camp aims to inspire interested women to pursue a fire service career. The event provides participants with the opportunity to engage directly with female professional firefighters, experience hands-on manipulative exercises, and hear information about the steps to becoming a firefighter.

SJFD Women’s Boot Camp attendees who may have never considered a career in the fire service learn about the rewards of serving others, challenging oneself physically and mentally, working in a team environment, building lifelong friendships, and about opportunities for career advancement. It is our sincerest hope participants leave the Women’s Boot Camp inspired – recognizing how rewarding a career in the SJFD would be.

“San José Fire Department will continue its efforts to recruit firefighters who reflect the rich diversity evident in the San Jose community,” said Fire Chief Robert Sapien, Jr. “I’m grateful for the hundreds of women and men of San José Fire Department who have committed themselves to serving others. We can only be made stronger by increasing the diversity of our workforce and embracing the qualities each individual brings to this department.”

About the City of San José

With more than one million residents, San José is one of the most diverse large cities in the United States and is Northern California’s largest city and the 10th largest city in the nation. San José’s transformation into a global innovation center has resulted in one of the largest concentrations of technology companies and expertise in the world. In 2011, the City adopted Envision San José 2040, a long-term growth plan that sets forth a vision and a comprehensive road map to guide the City’s anticipated growth through the year 2040.

About the San José Fire Department

The San José Fire Department (SJFD) is a full-service, all-hazard metropolitan fire department that provides service to and protects a population of over 1 million residents within the approximately 280 square miles of the nation’s tenth largest city. The protection area includes residential, commercial, high-rise, industrial, seven major hospitals (including three trauma centers and seven emergency departments, the SAP Center (home to the NHL’s San José Sharks), the Earthquakes Stadium (home of the MSL’s San Jose Earthquakes), San José State University, Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport, three super-regional malls, the United State Patent and Trademark Office and wildland-urban interface areas. Learn more about SJFD at www.sjfd.org.

City of San Jose
Erica Ray, Public Information Manager, San José Fire Department
December 17, 2020

 

Tulare cemetery board can’t put old issues to rest

Tulare Public Cemetery District board of trustees continue to fight over personnel, accounting issues dating back more than three years ago

Blog note: This article refers to a Tulare County Grand Jury report.

TULARE – The Tulare Public Cemetery District has a long history of digging up dirt, mostly on its own employees and board members.

This year was no different as the Tulare County Grand Jury released its 2019-2020 annual report. Much of the 48-page report was a collection of broad overviews of issues in the county but the jury’s primary investigatory focus was on the cemetery district. The Grand Jury reported receiving at least three citizen complaints about the cemetery’s board of trustees and alleged violations of the district’s own policies as well as state regulations.

The chief finding of the investigation was that antiquated bookkeeping practices had led to inaccurate and lost payroll documents and poor accounting of its endowment care fund. At its Nov. 20 meeting, the cemetery district board of trustees voted to “disagree partially” with Finding 1.

The board admitted to using a non-computerized system to calculate payroll prior to 2018-19 but said it “provided an accurate financial picture of the district.” The response pointed to the district’s June 30, 2017 audit which stated “the financial statements present fairly” and the district’s financial position was “in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted.”

“This is the highest rating that an auditor can give an organization,” the board stated in its response.

The response was narrowly passed on a 3-2 vote by the board with chair Stephen Presant, vice chair Xavier Avila and Secretery James Pennington passing the motion in an effort to bury the past. Trustees Alberto Aguilar and Vicki Gilson voted against the “disagree partially” and were pushing to “agree” with the finding to exhume the skeletons and address them once and for all.

The primary disagreement between the two factions of the board about the Grand Jury report dates back to the resignation of three district employees in September 2017. District manager Marilyn Correia tendered her resignation to the board on Sept. 15, 2017 with an effective date of Sept. 8, 2017. In the letter, Correia wrote she gave notice of her resignation to then board president Patricia Colson on Sept. 7 after reading a news article about issues at the cemetery. More specifically, she said Trustee Gilson “bullied” her at the cemetery office on two occasions on June 30, 2017. Correia wrote she was retiring because she didn’t trust trustees Gilson and Deal, saying they had violated privacy laws by sharing personnel issues with the public in relation to the article.

Correia’s husband, Stephen Cunningham, also submitted his letter of resignation on Sept. 15, 2017. Cunningham had worked as the grounds manager since 1996 and had been a cemetery employee since 1980. Cunningham cited similar reasons for retiring and also claimed Gilson and Deal indicated they were going to terminate he and his wife.

On Sept. 7, 2017, Correia submitted an order to disburse funds to the Tulare County Treasurer/Auditor/Controller’s office in the amount of $4,192.62 for herself and $5,175.63 for her husband for a total of $9,368.25 for unused vacation and sick leave as part of their last checks with the district. The order was signed by board members Patricia Colson, Antonia Chavez and Phillip Deal and clearly states it had been “audited,” meaning verified by the district board. But the amounts could not be audited because the district could not find its payroll records, a fact that was noted by Tulare County Counsel, the attorney for County of Tulare, in a Sept. 20, 2017 letter to Correia and Cunningham stating, “If you have any of these records in your possession, or any other District records, you must return them to the District office immediately.”

In its official response, the cemetery district claims it was a board member and not Correia who removed payroll documents from the office in late 2017 and were later returned. It also stated current office staff reported payroll documents were still missing from January to October 2017.

Correia also submitted a payment voucher to the Treasurer/Auditor/Controller’s office on Sept. 7, 2017 for net payroll from Sept. 1, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017. The voucher was for a net pay of $2,830.96 for herself and $2,964.39 for her husband. According to the cemetery district’s September 2017 Payroll Report, which is compiled by Correia, her gross pay for September was $3,703 and her husband’s was $3,937. When divided by their hourly wage ($21.36 for Correia and $22.71 for Cunningham), the couple was paid for 173 hours of work even though there was a total of just 48 hours before Correia resigned on Sept. 8, 92 hours by the time Cunningham resigned on Sept. 15 and a total of 168 working hours in the entire month. Aguilar, Gilson and Deal also confirmed the order to disburse funds and payroll vouchers never came before the board prior to being submitted to the county.

Aguilar claims Correia’s actions were tantamount to embezzlement, but the majority of the board, and the Tulare County District Attorney’s Office, disagrees. Aguilar submitted his evidence for the alleged embezzlement to the District Attorney’s Office in a Sept. 29, 2017 letter claiming “The financial data submitted to the county treasure[er] for payment of these checks and for payment of other financial payments were done without board approval and through the submission of fraudulent records by Marilyn Correia.”

On Dec. 15, 2017, Assistant District Attorney David Alavezos wrote a letter notifying the cemetery board “no criminal activity can be proved based on the witness interviews and evidence provided, therefore our investigation is closed.” Alavezos went on to state Correia deducted the hours she was paid from her accrued vacation/sick leave balance before paying herself what remained on the books. The letter did note “unexplained erasure marks” on attendance records which would “call into question the validity and trustworthiness of those records.”

POSSIBLE AUDIT

Alavezos’ letter concluded by stating if an audit uncovered evidence of embezzlement or other criminal conduct his office “would be happy to reopen the investigation.” Aguilar and Gilson agree a forensic audit was the only way to be sure if a crime had occurred, but the rest of the board was unsure if the expense of an audit was justified, given the alleged payroll embezzlement could be as low as $10,000.

Topping the list of the Grand Jury’s recommendations was a forensic audit for the last five years, from fiscal years 2015-16 through 2019-20. The board agreed to partial implementation to explore options for a forensic audit but only for calendar year of 2017 due to the cost of a five-year audit. The motion narrowly passed on a 3-2 vote with Presant opposing so that the district could move on and Aguilar opposing because it was not the full five years.

The board unanimously accepted the other three recommendations for greater transparency, restructuring its policies and procedures and to regularly transfer interest earned on its endowment to maintain and improve the cemetery. In his response to the Grand Jury, Presant said the board has already implemented the recommendation to post its agenda 72 hours in advance of meetings in compliance with the Brown Act and is currently working with two certified public accountants, one for annual audits and the second for reviewing quarterly financials.

“These financial experts provide advice to improve our fiscal procedures and internal controls,” the letter stated.

CARING CAUSE

The cemetery district has been contentious since 2017, and the camps are not easily defined as former allies became enemies and former enemies found common ground. Gilson was appointed to the board, along with Phillip Deal, in 2017 in the wake of board resignations under pressure from the public about the poor conditions of the grounds. A year earlier, concerned citizen Elaine Hollingsworth started a Facebook site titled “Caring Cause—Stop Neglect at Tulare Public Cemetery District” after her mother was buried in the wrong plot, something which continued to happen in 2017. Gilson, Deal and Caring Cause were initially aligned in their criticisms of the board and concerns about the grounds, but just four months later the Facebook group, which has grown to 1,700 members, called for Gilson’s resignation at the board’s Feb. 21, 2018 meeting.

The Facebook page became a forum for mudslinging between members of the board and members of the public. The Grand Jury report described Caring Cause as a “volunteer group which is disruptive to Board Meetings,” but in reality it is simply the online message board for those who want to continue verbally assaulting each other after marathon meetings with more of the same. The cemetery board ultimately agreed with the grand jury’s finding on a 3-2 vote, with Gilson and Aguilar dissenting.

Aguilar had been a vocal member of the public attending meetings in 2017, when he also raised issues about the competency of the cemetery board and staff. One of those contentious meetings, on July 12, 2017, led to the resignation of board member Antonia Chavez. Aguilar would later replace Chavez when he was appointed to the cemetery board on Sept. 19, 2017 by the Board of Supervisors, just in time to maintain a quorum as two other board members resigned the week prior. Long-time board member Patricia Colson submitted her letter of resignation on Sept. 8, 2017 followed by Phil Vandergrift on Sept. 11, 2017. They were later replaced by current chair Stephen Presant, who was appointed to the board on June 12, 2018, and current vice chair Xavier Avila, who was appointed to the board on Nov. 6, 2018. Secretary James Pennington was appointed on Dec. 17, 2019.

Both Aguilar and Gilson have threatened to sue the district. Gilson did so in a July 3 letter to board chair Steve Presant regarding his unplanned visit to her property and Aguilar told the Board of Supervisors on Nov. 2 he had retained an attorney to sue the county over its refusal to require a five-year forensic audit of the district finances. As of press time, neither had filed anything in Tulare County Superior Court.

ENDOWMENT FUND

While the final paychecks of former employees may only reach a total of $14,500 in questionable costs, the bigger issue for Gilson and Aguilar is dramatic fluctuations in the cemetery’s endowment, an issue that spans personnel changes from 2017-2019.

Cemeteries are allowed to create endowment care funds, separate, irrevocable trust account where the district deposits funds from selling interment space. The fund ensures that income will always be available for the continued maintenance and upkeep of the cemetery, even when all the interment spaces are sold.

In June 2017, the income report compiled by Correia listed the Endowment Care Fund at $1.5 million but by June 2018 had fallen to just over $1.4 million in the income report compiled by current manager Leonor Castaneda. Aguilar notes there were no income reports produced for the year in between, leaving $87,767.54 unaccounted for. This amount also differed from the June 2018 audit report, compiled by district’s audit committee, which listed the fund at more than $1.7 million, $387,000 more than the income report.

The fund’s income report was then $372,000 less than the September 2018 audit and $365,000 less than the October 2018 audit. In June 2019, the endowment fund was listed at more than $1.8 million but had fallen to $1.5 million by June 2020, a loss of more than $288,000.

“There has been no explanation for the ongoing loss of revenues as noted on these financial reports compiled by Leonor Castaneda,” Aguilar wrote in a statement he submitted to the board at the Nov. 20 meeting.

In May, cemetery manager Leonor Castaneda had to remind board members it was their duty to set a policy but not to give directions to staff on how to perform their job at the direction of a single board members who stopped by the office “to be the boss for that moment.” In addition to Castaneda, the district employs a secretary, foreman and five grounds keepers.

Gilson pointed out only interest income can be transferred out of the endowment. Under California’s Health and Safety Code section 7826, “The principal of all funds for endowment care shall be invested and the income [such as interest, dividends and rents] only may be used for the care, maintenance, and embellishment of the cemetery.”

In 2017, the Endowment Care Interest Fund stood at nearly $137,000 but the 2018 financials showed the previous year’s balance at just under $70,000 yet expenditures in that time period only totaled $14,000. Nearly all of the interest fund was transferred to general fund in September 2018.

The Grand Jury reported in August 2019, $389,147 of accumulated interest was authorized to be transferred from the Endowment Care Fund to the County to be invested with 2% going to maintenance of the cemetery. The amount was computed by a private outside accounting firm employed by TPCD.

The Grand Jury recommended transferring the interest from the endowment for district operations on an ongoing basis. The board unanimously agreed this had already been done. In his formal response to the Grand Jury, Presant said interest monies from the endowment fund for fiscal year 2019-20 were transferred in September and the board has made a policy to continue the practice annually.

As of Aug. 31, financial records show the cemetery district had nearly $6,000 in its checking account, $328,292 in reserves, and nearly $2 million in its endowment.

SUPERVISORS

Even before the Grand Jury completed its investigation, Aguilar took his concerns to the man who nominated him for his position on the board—Supervisor Pete Vander Poel. Aguilar approached the District 2 representative in January 2019 and presented him with the same evidence given to the DA’s office in 2017 and the Grand Jury last year.

When Aguilar did not hear back from Vander Poel, he waited for the Grand Jury to make his case for him. The Grand Jury’s findings fell in line with Aguilar’s claims and also called on the Supervisors to take action.

“I urge all of you to support and comply with recommendations of 2019-2020 TC Grand Jury report regarding Tulare Public Cemetery District,” Aguilar told the supervisors at their Oct. 20 meeting. “We need to ensure the money of the public is being spent in the way that it should be.”

The July 1, 2020 report pointed out the supervisors not only had the authority to intervene but also a responsibility to do so.

“The [Board of Supervisors] has neglected to provide essential oversight to ensure that the public interest is served,” Finding 6 of the report reads. “They continue to reappoint trustees who have demonstrated an inability/unwillingness to adhere to accepted practices as they relate to conduct of Cemetery District board meetings.”

The supervisors unanimously approved a response to the report’s findings and recommendations at their Nov. 3 meeting. The board disagreed with finding 6 saying Aguilar and Gilson’s willingness to dig into the financial and operational details of the district, their requests for documentation were signs of a passionate board, not a dysfunctional one.

“From all appearances, the District is in sound financial shape and the cemetery grounds have never looked better,” the supervisors wrote in their official response. “In the view of the Board of Supervisors, this shows that the public interest is being served by the appointed Cemetery District board.”

Gilson approached the Board of Supervisors just as the Grand Jury report was being released with a proposition that could solve all of the cemetery’s leadership issues without taking sides between the factions of the board.

“My recommendation, I’m asking the board [of supervisors] to remove all five trustees and start again,” she said at the June 23 meeting.

The board of supervisors not only has the authority to appoint members to the cemetery board but also to replace them. Under Section 9026 of the California Health & Safety Code, the Board of Supervisors is allowed to appoint itself to serve as the governing board of the cemetery district “in such cases where it is deemed to be necessary and/or appropriate.” The Grand Jury said the supervisors should consider exercising this authority to bring the cemetery district in compliance with generally accepted practices and state requirements.

The supervisors’ response said wholesale replacement of the board was “not warranted and would detract from the local control that is vital to the success of the District in meeting the needs of and being responsive to the community.” It also said intervening as the acting board was impractical because the county would have to go through the expense of determining how many registered voters reside in the district boundaries to determine if a protest to the cemetery board’s replacement was successful.

Vander Poel delivered his answer to Aguilar, and the rest of the cemetery district, when he called on the cemetery board members to use their experience and training to do the best job for the people they serve.

“A lot of attention brought to the Tulare Cemetery District. I think a lot more has to do with the relationship, or lack thereof, between board members versus the actual appearance and operation of the cemetery district,” Vander Poel said. “Everything I see as a constituent of Tulare is a tremendous improvement in the grounds and finances of the cemetery district.”

The sentiment was shared by cemetery board chair Presant in the closing remarks of this the cemetery district’s response to the Grand Jury report. Present noted that despite the turmoil of the past, the district now enjoys a larger annual budget, reduced operating costs, better fiscal oversight and reporting, more staffing and improved grounds. The board unanimously agreed with the grand jury’s findings board meetings packets are frequently incomplete and not all board members are provided information to which they are entitled. In his letter, Presant said additional office staff was hired in January 2020 to alleviate the workload on the cemetery manager to meet the board’s needs.

The board also unanimously agreed with the grand jury’s finding that its accounting issues could be addressed with new software. Presant said the all financial documents have been inputted into QuickBooks software going back to the 2018-19 fiscal year in addition to the hiring of two certified public accountants.

“The Tulare Public Cemetery has changed dramatically in the last several years and is now an improved organization,” Presant concluded.

Foothills Sun Gazette
By Reggie Ellis
December 16, 2020