[Orange County] Grand Jury Questions TCA’s Role in OC

An Orange County Grand Jury investigation into the Transportation Corridor Agencies found, among other things, that the toll road operators have continued to place themselves in future road planning efforts and projects likely outside of their legislative purview, despite having fulfilled much of their original mandates—to build toll roads.

The 55-page report released Monday, June 29, outlines several key findings of the Grand Jury’s investigation while laying out a laundry list of policy recommendations, largely advocating for the agencies to withdraw from such projects and focus on repaying their debt so it could dissolve as planned per state legislation.

“The TCA clearly has the mission to operate the toll roads and pay off the bonds but beyond that, any additional planning and activities could be considered out of its legislatively authorized scope of activity since the toll roads are essentially complete,” the report stated.

The Grand Jury noted that the TCA’s duties and responsibilities are currently already under the purview of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA).

“An important fact here is that the Grand Jury did not find anything the TCA does that is unique and can’t be accomplished by OCTA and Caltrans other than the repayment of its substantial debt,” the report said.

In response, the TCA flatly rejected much of the findings, calling the report incomplete and lacking information as the investigation was cut short because of the COVID-19 pandemic—a predicament the Grand Jury noted in the report’s preface.

“The report contains outdated information and neglected to address the fact that TCA is responsible for the operations of the largest network of toll roads in the state serving nearly two million accountholders and processing more than 100,000,000 tolls last year,” the agencies said in a press release.

The TCA goes on to state that “all projects undertaken by TCA are well within TCA’s legal authority” and that state law authorizes the agencies to “fund, plan, acquire and construct major thoroughfares and bridges in Orange County.”

Entitled “The Transportation Corridor Agencies – Are They Taking Their Toll on Orange County?” the report came about after the Grand Jury received three citizen complaints alleging that the TCA was mismanaging its funds, was conducting unethical political practices and violating the 1986 legislation that established the agencies.

According to the report, the San Joaquin Hills agency (SJHTCA) completed construction of the SR-73 in 1998 and completed two widening projects in 2009 to add 5.7 lane miles in each direction. Since then, “the SJHTCA has developed no additional plans whatsoever for additional lane miles or additions to their network nor the need for additional interchanges or other significant actions.”

“The Grand Jury was unable to discover why this (Joint Power Authority) has not instituted plans to pay off its debt and sunset its operations per its founding document recital,” the report added.

Similarly, the Foothill Eastern agency (F/ETCA) has just about completed its intended purpose of constructing the SR-133, 241 and 261, with the exception of two outstanding projects—completing the connection between the northern SR-241 and the SR-91, and the connection of the 241 to Interstate 5.

The former is a $181.3 million project that is expected to be completed in Fiscal Year 2023. However, the Grand Jury found that the project is expected to cost between $200 million and $220 million, and likely completed in FY 2025 because of a delay in the completion of an HOV lane connection between the 91 and Interstate 15.

The latter, as it stands, is essentially moot, as the agency’s board of directors this past March unanimously voted in favor of pursuing an untolled, arterial route from the 241 to the San Clemente city limit, abandoning contentious proposals to extend the 241 to the I-5 via San Clemente.

BOND OBLIGATIONS

Regarding its debt, the TCA is currently slated to owe more than $11 billion, including interest, according to the report. The F/ETCA is expected to complete its payments by January 2053 and the SJHTCA is scheduled to complete payments by January 2050.

According to the report, since 1993 and 1995, the TCA has twice refinanced the bonds that had been floated to construct the highways and raised nearly $2.42 billion. Both times, the report stated, were when the agencies were scheduled to start repaying the principal amounts.

Citing the TCA’s financial documents, the Grand Jury said that the agencies refinanced the bonds to take advantage of lower interest rates, as well as remain solvent. That meant delaying the payment, and in turn meant that the interest needed to be paid increased to more than 3.4 times the borrowed amount.

“The Grand Jury noted the claim that refinancing at lower interest rates may have extended the pay-off date and supposedly saved millions of dollars in interest payments, but the reality is the action drove up the overall cost of repaying the debts,” according to the report.

“What this means is that every time the debt of each (Joint Powers Authority) is restructured to a later pay-off date, the TCA extends its life, which is in direct contradiction to the founding principal cited when the agency was established in 1986,” the reported added.

According to the Grand Jury, the TCA is reportedly looking to refinance portions of its debt again in 2023 and 2025—when the TCA is required to begin making “substantive payments on the debt principal.”

The TCA explained that their refinancing efforts have been done to “strengthen the Agencies’ finances” while the boards of directors have held talks regarding strategies to begin paying the bonds early.

“The Boards have been considering strategies for early payment and/or reducing the Agencies’ debt as a high priority,” the TCA said. “The recent bond transactions executed by the Agencies, reduced the overall debt payments by approximately $400 million without extending the maturity dates. The Agencies have also approved debt management policies that include best practices and guidance, as well as ensuring the Agencies’ commitment to transparency. ”

COLLECTING FEES

Between 1986 and Fiscal Year 2019, the TCA collected approximately $703.6 million in development impact fees—payments from property owners of new developments built within the associated cities and unincorporated areas that benefit from the toll roads—and fee credits, according to the report.

Those fees, the report noted, have consistently gone up since 1986, when the DIF was $1,305 for a single-family residence within the SJHTCA area and $760 per unit for a multi-family residence. This past fiscal year, the DIF was $5,740 or $4,448 per multi-family unit.

Unless the state legislature amends the current law governing the TCA’s charter, “the collection of these fees only terminates when the TCA has fully repaid its bond debt and ceases to exist,” the report explained.

And with the expected construction of low-rent homes and apartments to address the county’s homelessness problem, known as Permanent Supportive Housing, the TCA, the report claims, is likely to benefit from development fees from those projects—even if such tenants are unlikely to use the toll roads.

“It appears likely that hundreds of thousands of PSH dollars appropriated to benefit less fortunate citizens will be paid directly to the coffers of the TCA,” the Grand Jury said.

The TCA contended the finding and argued that it would waive the fees for the supportive housing projects.

“TCA’s DIF Program supports the development of affordable housing by waiving fees for developments, which qualify for exemptions from property taxes,” the TCA said. “In addition, pursuant to the Agencies’ DIF Program, accessory dwelling units of less than 750 square feet are not charged any fees.”

GOING ON THE ATTACK

The Grand Jury said it also found that proponents of the TCA have launched personal attack campaigns against politicians who have come out against the agencies, namely 73rd District Assemblymember Bill Brough (R-Dana Point).

Brough, who this past March lost his bid for reelection, finishing fourth in the Primary race, introduced legislation last year that would have vastly restricted the TCA’s authority and put a moratorium on constructing new roads and incurring additional debt.

That measure, Assembly Bill 1273, died in committee this January, after receiving considerable opposition from several Orange County cities and business groups.

Since introducing the measure, Brough has faced accusations of campaign finance misuse and sexual misconduct—notably from OC Board Supervisor Lisa Bartlett who served on the Dana Point City Council with Brough in 2011 when, she alleges, he made sexual advances toward her.

Brough has vehemently denied those claims and has argued that the allegations only surfaced as retribution for his political positions on the Toll Roads.

Bartlett, who serves on both the SJHTCA and F/ETCA, is among four other women who have made similar allegations.

An investigation conducted by the state Legislature’s Workplace Conduct Unit concluded in May that Brough provided “political help” in exchange for sexual favors. He has since been removed from his position on California Assembly committees.

“This bill has fostered quite a bit of animosity between the bill’s author and other TCA opponents against TCA proponents,” the Grand Jury report stated, regarding AB 1273. It later added that “The Grand Jury learned that other TCA critics believe they have been personally targeted suggesting there should be a Fair Political Practices Commission investigation of TCA lobbying, financial dealings, and advocacy activities.”

But claims of retaliation cut both ways, the report notes, as advocates of the TCA said they too believe they’ve come “unfairly under fire” from TCA opponents.

Rancho Santa Margarita Councilmember and TCA Director Anthony Beall, the report said, made such a claim in his address to the board on March 12, when he “blamed his recent recall notice and FPPC investigation on TCA opponents.”

DISSENTING VIEWS

In a press release from Brough’s office, the assemblymember said the report raises questions on whether public funds are being spent responsibly and whether the TCA’s actions are transparent.

“However, the TCA has a history of refusing oversight and transparency. This is not the first report that has been critical of TCA operations,” Brough said in the release, noting a similar Grand Jury report from 2015.

“Extensive changes are simply long overdue to instill greater accountability, transparency and finality to an agency that Orange County taxpayers, who fund this operation, deserve and expect.” Brough concluded in the release.

In its response, the TCA continued to slam the Grand Jury for not being “fair, balanced and independent.”

“Unfortunately, the report does not appear to meet these expectations and, again, we are forced to assume that is a result of the abbreviated nature of the investigation,” the TCA said, before accusing the Grand Jury of taking the allegations raised by those calling for the report “at face value.”

“From the noted editorial comments throughout, the report paints a picture that the Grand Jury took at face value the allegations of the three citizens who requested the investigation and, in fact, took their side, implying that any ‘pro-TCA elected source’ was not legitimate, honest and open,” the TCA said.

Per state law, the TCA has 90 days to file a response with the Orange County Superior Court regarding the report.

The TCA said it is preparing its formal response that will “address in greater detail the overwhelming inaccuracies.”

SC [San Clemente] Times
Shawn Raymundo
June 29, 2020

[Santa Barbara County] GRAND JURY INVESTIGATES INMATE DEATHS

Source: Santa Barbara County Grand Jury

Pursuant to California Penal Code section 919, subdivisions (a) and (b), “[t]he grand jury may inquire into the case of every person imprisoned in the jail of the county on a criminal charge and not indicted,” and “shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” Under that statute, prior Santa Barbara County Grand Juries often have examined the circumstances surrounding inmate deaths at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail. Four inmates died in 2019 while in the custody of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department; they will be identified in this report by the identifiers A1, B1, C1, and D1. The deaths of A1 and B1 were determined to be natural causes, while C1 and D1 were determined to have died by suicide.

The 2019-20 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury investigated the circumstances and facts surrounding these deaths, studied the facts, and made recommendations with the goal of improving local government operations. The Jury recommends several changes to the medical and housing protocols employed by the Sheriff’s and Wellpath staff, especially when handling inmates with mental health symptoms.

The complete report with agency responses are posted on the Grand Jury’s website: www.sbcgj.org.

Edhat
June 29, 2020

[Santa Cruz County] Grand Jury Weighs In on Failures at Santa Cruz City Hall and More

Report says public has ‘lost confidence in the city leadership’s ability to function effectively.

The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury has released its reports for the year, a sizable agglomeration of 10 investigations ranging from behavior at City Hall to fire services to voter information security.

The all-volunteer group convenes every year to take a deep dive into local governmental affairs, a process codified in California law.

“It’s about citizens really keeping their government accountable,” says Bruce Gritton, who served as foreperson for this year’s 19-member Grand Jury.

After a grand jury report is released, the agencies in question typically have up to 90 days to respond. These responses usually contain several agreements and disagreements with the allegations. 

The agencies are not, however, bound by law to follow any of the recommendations.

But Gritton says that the jurors go into the year-long project knowing the reports do not carry any real legal weight.

“The real pressure for change needs to come from the citizenry that sees the reports,” he says. “They need to make sure their government is held accountable.”

As of press time, the Grand Jury had released seven of its reports (with the final three set for release this week); here is a look at each of their investigations:

A CITY DIVIDED

In the latest chapter in Santa Cruz’s leadership soap opera, the Grand Jury slammed city leaders for not following or enforcing policies governing workplace behavior.

And even if it did, the City Council’s policies are not a sufficient tool by which to guide good behavior, the report states. In addition, those policies leave new city council members ill-prepared for the position.

City employees who reported harassment said they did not feel supported by management.

The City Council also took some heat for its inability to control disruptive behavior at meetings, which the Grand Jury says “increases meeting length and inhibits a representative cross-section of the public from participating.” Perhaps the most telling line in this report was the line, “The public has lost confidence in the City Leadership’s ability to function effectively.”

RISKY BUSINESS

In a hefty 60-page tome detailing the county’s preparedness for risk from calamities such as financial catastrophe, natural disaster and global pandemic, the Grand Jury found that local government agencies are underprepared, and that cities should align their risk assessment framework with that of the California Auditor’s Office.

“Our findings indicate that all of our cities are just one economic shock away from serious financial distress, and that their current approach to risk management is not adequate to effectively manage and mitigate the range of risks that are typically confronted by local governments,” the report states. 

The Grand Jury also urges the county’s jurisdictions to get a grasp on the risk associated with rising pension costs, and prognosticates that with Covid-19 having brought the world to a financial halt, financial calamity is likely on its way.

A VOTE FOR SECURITY

The Grand Jury made no allegations that the Santa Cruz County Elections Department has mishandled voter registration data. In fact, the report offers its praise, stating that its procedures “comply with all local, county, state, and federal laws and regulations governing Collected Data and Distributed Data.”

But it said the department should change the way it distributes publicly available voter registration data. 

Rules governing such distribution, the report states, were established in 1994, long before identity theft and phishing attacks were a thing.

Those requesting such data could be doing so for fairly innocuous reasons, such as politicians contacting constituents or sending political mailings.

Under current procedures, however, voter data lists include personally identifiable information such as full birthdays, which can also be used for nefarious purposes such as identity theft, illegal sale of voter registration data, attempted election disruption, fraud, and cyber-extortion.

That should change to include only a birth year, the report states. The Elections Department should also ask those requesting voter data to include a narrative on why they are doing so.

INSPECTING THE INSPECTORS

After looking at six of the county’s 13 fire agencies responsible for performing safety inspections, the Grand Jury found that Santa Cruz and Watsonville Fire departments, along with Santa Cruz County Fire, have not “adequately inspected all schools, hotels, apartments, and licensed residential care facilities for fire and safety,” as required by state law.

Felton Fire District, meanwhile, has not accounted for its inspection of those facilities, the report states.

The agencies should tell their governing agencies what resources they would need to perform the necessary inspections, the Grand Jury recommends, and should all publish annual reports of their inspections.

The Aptos and Central Fire Districts, meanwhile, received praise for the “persistence shown” in performing their inspections and reporting the results.

CAUGHT IN THE WEB

The county’s website is replete with “missing, out-of-date and inaccurate” information, along with several broken links, the report says. The lack of updates makes it harder for citizens to inform themselves and to navigate county services.

This includes missing information from public meetings, among other things.

Furthermore, the county lacks a process by which the website is reviewed and improved, and does not have a way for users to be alerted to website updates.

Finally, the investigation found that, while web content providers often know the reasons behind the missing or out-of-date information, such information is typically not provided to the public.

To ameliorate the problem, the Grand Jury recommends formal processes for evaluating content, including a quarterly review.

A POWER STRUGGLE

The Grand Jury excoriated the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office for being unprepared during a 26-hour power failure on Sept. 28, 2019, that affected the Main Jail and the Blaine Street Women’s Jail.

“Services were lost and backup failed to properly operate in several critical areas,” the report reads. “Clearly, the safety of inmates and jail personnel was compromised. This cannot be tolerated.”

The power outage killed all overhead lights in the jail housing units, along with perimeter security cameras and the ventilation system. In addition, fire evacuation doors were inoperable, the kitchen lost power and jail officials had to complete arrest records on paper. 
The investigation revealed, among other things, that the backup generator lacked the power for “mission critical” operations, and in any case there was not sufficient fuel to run the generator.

The report blames jail personnel for a lack of communication before, during and after an emergency, and for the fact that the jail had no policy for its response to such an emergency.

All of this violated county policy that among other things requires a working generator capable of a “seamless transition in the event of a loss of power,” those responsible for the generators were unaware.

The jail has since gotten a new generator, but has not yet tested it, the report says.

A HOLE LOT OF TROUBLE 

A half-century anniversary after DeLaveaga Golf Course was built, the Grand Jury’s investigation into the facility shows that it is a poorly managed and underutilized money drain, annually adding to the county’s deficit.

This could be abated, the report states, by marketing the course through such organizations as local chambers of commerce and the Northern California Golf Association.

The 18-hole, 6,010-yard course is owned by the City of Santa Cruz and managed by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department.

According to the report, DeLaveaga Golf Course has been operating at a deficit for the last several years, and it will keep doing so through at least 2023. 

The course’s financial woes stem largely from senior maintenance personnel salaries—to the tune of $1 million annually—and from pension benefits. The yearly half-million dollar water bill also takes a bite.

A lack of routine inspections led to problems that took more than $1 million in recent repairs to bring the restaurant/lodge up to code. It’s set to re-open sometime this year.

The Grand Jury recommends that the course tweak its green fees and readjust its staffing system, among other things.

Santa Cruz Good Times
BY TODD GUILD
June 29, 2020

 

[Santa Barbara County] Grand Jury Reports Hit City Hard on Issues of Housing, Homelessness

Jury says Santa Barbara can and should do more for low- and middle-income residents

In the latest blow to the city of Santa Barbara's planning policies, the civil Grand Jury issued a report criticizing the city's ability to build affordable housing, suggesting that it is inconsistent, lacks leadership and is stuck in the thinking of yesteryear.

"The City Council needs a change in vision," the report states. "It has spent the recent years guarding the interests of certain residents and neglecting the rich diversity of people that the city celebrates. The city of Santa Barbara needs to show that it will embrace affordable housing or inclusionary housing, as it did decades ago. Council members have been silent regarding recent low-cost housing developments, and those building efforts have floundered."

The June 24 report follows a June 2 report that determined the city's Community Development Department was adversarial with the business community and that the department lacked leadership.

Community Development Director George Buell, who recently announced his resignation, said: "I will acknowledge that some of the findings and recommendations are well-founded.  However, staff is concerned with a number of others that require analysis, and we are in the process of doing that work now. Draft responses will be presented to the City Council in mid-August."

About 20,000 people commute from Ventura County and northern Santa Barbara into the city, where the median price of a house is $1.2 million. The jobs-housing imbalance has led to massive delays in commute times from Ventura County and a multimillion-dollar, decades-long project to widen Highway 101. Santa Barbara created a high-density housing program that led to new apartments for the first time in 40 years, but the homes are market-rate and have done little to help low- and middle-income people find housing in the city.

While the names and faces of the politicians change over the years, the lack of affordable housing in the city has become as much as part of the city's lexicon as the beach, the mountains and the red-tile roofs.

The latest report points more blame in the direction of the City Council, and for "prevaricated" or evasive leadership.

"This indecisiveness has set one neighbor against another," the report states. "Now each councilmember has the opportunity to show that for the sake of the entire city, they can welcome housing for all those thousands of people who contribute by working here but cannot enjoy living here."

The affordable housing direction has been inconsistent, the report states.

"For the past few years the City Council has wavered in its affordable housing policies," the report states. "It now needs to define a more certain path in terms of planning, building, financing, and leadership. The COVID-19 pandemic will deflate the budget in so many ways that the only way forward will be to act in groundbreaking ways."

Noozhawk
By Joshua Molina
June 29, 2020

 

Judges’ delays in #MeToo case mock accusers, [Contra Costa County] Grand Jury

Contra Costa judiciary 18-month postponement of trial for county assessor undermines public-official accountability

MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA – JULY 26: Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer, left, and his attorney Mike Rains exit the AF Bray Courthouse Building after a hearing related to the grand jury accusations against him in Martinez, Calif., on Friday, July 26, 2019. Grand jury seeks Kramer’s removal from office for alleged misconduct. (Ray Chavez/Bay Area News Group)

Foot-dragging by Contra Costa judges in a #MeToo case involving the county assessor has made a mockery of the state’s grand jury process designed to check public officials who engage in willful or corrupt misconduct.

It’s been 14 months since the Contra Costa Grand Jury signed a formal accusation that county Assessor Gus Kramer, currently a candidate for county supervisor, had created a hostile work environment for employees within his office and under his supervision.

The accusation alleges that Kramer, in incidents dating back to 2014, told stories about his conquests with women, made unwanted advances on a subordinate, talked about giving a sex toy to his niece, made crude comments about his sexual desires, and disparaged people of Mexican descent.

An accusation is the first step in a seldom-used process that should trigger a trial to determine whether a public official is removed from office. But the punishment of removal from office is meaningless if the accused remains on the job through years of delays.

Yet, that’s exactly what is happening in the Kramer case, which was bungled for years by the county before it even reached the Grand Jury. Since the accusation was filed, the case has been passed between three Superior Court judges, Theresa Canepa, Charles Burch and, most recently, John Cope.

This month, Cope set a date for jury selection of Oct. 19. That’s right. It won’t even begin until 18 months after the Grand Jury foreman signed the accusation. Meanwhile, Kramer draws salary and benefits worth about $360,000 a year and continues to fatten his pension.

And he remains in charge of a critical county department that determines the tax values on more than $200 billion of property in Contra Costa. That includes overseeing an office that includes one of his accusers.

Lest there be any thought that Kramer was chastened by the Grand Jury accusation, he’s currently running for a seat on the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors. He eked out a second-place finish in March to qualify for the Nov. 3 runoff against incumbent Federal Glover.

It was bad enough that Kramer hadn’t been put on trial before the March election. Now jury selection will commence two weeks after ballots for the November election are mailed out. And with the trial expected to take about three weeks, most ballots likely will be counted before a jury verdict is rendered.

What a fiasco.

Kramer, who denies the allegations, deserved his day in court before then, although his attorney seems in no hurry. Just as important, county residents and voters deserve a speedy resolution to the case to know whether Kramer will keep his office and should be considered for another.

Blame District Attorney Diana Becton for five weeks of delay in serving Kramer with the accusation before the process could even start. Blame County Counsel Sharon Anderson and Chief Assistant Mary Ann Mason for repeated delays turning over documents.

Foremost, blame the judges – the three who have presided over this case and let pre-trail proceedings drag out for over a year. By the time the court was temporarily shut down because of coronavirus, the judiciary already had relinquished control. Once court hearings resumed, Judge Cope continued the delays by setting a trial date yet another four months off.

It’s unlikely that Kramer will win the November election. In March, Glover garnered 49.9% of the vote, a hair short of the simple majority needed to avoid a runoff, while Kramer and a third candidate nearly evenly split the other half of the votes.

Whatever the outcome of the election and the trial, Kramer will have served about half his current four-year term as assessor by the time the case is resolved.

And if Kramer were to win the election, that would moot the accusation. Kramer would have to quit his current job to become a county supervisor, anyhow. So, the outcome of a trial to remove him as assessor would be meaningless.

This isn’t the first time the public has been left in the dark before an election about the outcome of accusations against Kramer. In 2015, two of his employees lodged the complaints that were the genesis of this case. They were buried.

More than two years later, in January 2018, County Administrator David Twa, acting in response to the growing #MeToo movement, sent a memo to employees urging reporting of inappropriate workplace behavior.

One of the employees spoke up again, triggering a formal county investigation and finding that it was “more likely than not” on several occasions Kramer had made inappropriate comments. But by the time the report was completed, Kramer had ensured election to another term because he had no opposition.

Then county supervisors kept the report from the public until one of the victims came to me and this news organization publicized the findings. Only then did supervisors censure Kramer and refer the case to the Grand Jury.

Which brings us to the final victims in this case – the grand jurors who served in the 2018-19 fiscal year, carefully investigated the allegations and brought the allegations. The three judges’ delay in this case not only sends a very troubling message to employees who report misconduct, it tells grand jurors that their work ferreting out wrongdoing is not respected.

The Contra Costa judiciary should be ashamed.

East Bay Times
By DANIEL BORENSTEIN | dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
June 27, 2020

 

Vallejo school district finds fault with [Solano County] grand jury report

In its response to the Solano County civil grand jury, the Vallejo school district admitted it has lost more than $36 million over the past four years due to students transferring out of the district.

However, district officials said the March 16 grand jury report contained several misleading facts, including the district not providing the number of transfers to private or charter schools.

“This statement leads the reader to assume that the District withheld this data. Actually, data would not be collected nor shared because a formal transfer is not needed for a student to attend a private school or an independent charter school,” district officials wrote in the five-page June 3 response to the grand jury report. “Parents are not required by the California Department of Education or California Education Code to complete a transfer request or inform a public school district of their intent to enroll in a private school or independent charter school.”

District officials also denied that most of the transfers are due to safety concerns, stating a majority of the transfer requests are for employment, “followed by childcare, and further, to enroll in a particular program such as Mandarin or Sports Medicine.”

 “Very few transfer requests are submitted due to safety concerns. Those parents who state ’employment’ as a reason for requesting a transfer, must be employed within the receiving school district’s boundaries, not ‘several miles from home,'” the district said.

Officials claimed that all transfer requests are verified before being processed.

 “If the transfer request is for safety/bullying, an investigation is conducted to the validity of the claim before a decision is made to grant a transfer,” they said. “All transfer request require documentation that is examined prior to approval or denial.”

The grand jury said that 3,237 students transferred out of the district, with just 84 transferring in during the same time period, costing the district $36 million.

“The 2019-2020 Solano County Civil Grand Jury has concerns about the revenues lost and the impact of that loss on current students and staff, as well as the community perception of VCUSD,” the report states. “The District has a long history of struggles, both financial and academic. Community perceptions and opinions of VCUSD may improve if it finds a way to stem these financial losses and implement cutting-edge curriculum taught by highly-qualified staff in well-maintained, state-of-the-art facilities.”

Finally, district officials said that the majority of transfer appeals were denied by the Solano County Board of Education.

“From March 2016 to June 2019, 23 appeals were presented to the Solano County Board of Education, 16 of those appeals to transfer were denied. In 2017, 5 of the 6 appeals heard by the Solano County Board of Education were denied; in 2018, 3 of the 4 appeals were denied; in 2019, 6 of 6 appeals were denied,” the district wrote. “In all, since 2017, VCUSD has successfully prevailed in 14 of the 16 appeals heard by the Solano County Board of Education.”

Vallejo Times-Herald
By JOHN GLIDDEN  jglidden@timesheraldonline.com
June 27, 2020

HUMBOLDT COUNTY JAIL AND JUVENILE HALL HAVE DIRE STAFF SHORTAGES AND SEMPERVIRENS IS OUTDATED, REPORTS THE CIVIL GRAND JURY

• A shortage of mental health staff.
• Uncertified substance use counselors.
• An outdated facility.
• A mobile mental health response team with limited hours.
• A shortage of housing for patients leaving mental health care.

These are some of the findings from the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury’s report on the Humboldt County Correctional Facility, Juvenile Hall and Sempervirens Psychiatric Health Facility.

Staff shortages thread through the issues for each facility.

“This issue of hiring is part of a larger recruitment problem suffered for years throughout the medical and mental health community in Humboldt County,” the report says.

The report urges the county to examine mental health staff hiring practices. The report notes that Humboldt County doesn’t have the urban lifestyle and associated amenities health professionals might seek out, but it points to other problems, too.

“How are private contractors able to find willing workers, and we are not?” the report asks.

The need for willing workers appears particularly dire at the jail.

“This problem is exacerbated by the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) failure to provide round-the-clock, qualified mental health staffing,” the report states.

The Civil Grand jury also blames a slow hiring process at the DHHS and low wages for potential hires. It had similar findings last year. At the time, the Board of Supervisors agreed and said the DHHS was recruiting for and filling positions.

The report says Wellpath, a private healthcare provider, could temporarily alleviate the shortage. Wellpath currently provides medical services at the jail.

“The easiest and most immediate solution is to utilize outside, for-profit contractors to fill these positions,” the report says. However, they acknowledge, “This tactic may be just a band-aid approach to deeper problems.”

Wellpath has faced criticism for poor practices, and the Civil Grand Jury acknowledges this in the report.

“Their ability to deliver quality care has been questioned,” the report points out. “They have been cited in a wide array of public articles regarding substandard care, and they have been the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging negligence.”

According to a CNN article, Wellpath has regularly hired inexperienced staff and left facilities understaffed—issues already present in some of Humboldt’s facilities. Wellpath, in 2019, had been sued for more than 70 wrongful deaths.

If the county goes ahead with Wellpath for mental health services, the report recommends the county make sure consistent, quality care is ensured within the contract.

At the juvenile hall, the Civil Grand Jury found two of the three substance use disorder counselors had not completed their certifications.

“While State regulations allow the hiring of ‘counselors-in-training’ provided that they are actively enrolled in recognized certification studies, this is considered a contentious practice among many SUD professionals,” the report points out.

Juvenile Hall staff are anxious to see their new facility finished, which, after two years of construction and delays, is slated to finish this month, according to the report.

While the new Juvenile Hall facility is almost complete, the Civil Grand Jury recommends building a new mental health facility as well. Patients frequently fill Sempervirens at or beyond capacity.

“The atmosphere in Sempervirens is dated; it has an early 20th century sanitarium feel which is not conducive to mental health rehabilitation,” the report says. “The space is crowded and there is no room in the building for expansion.”

The report also recommends hiring more staff to the mental health Mobile Response Team to meet the need for 24/7 service and finding more step-down housing for recently released Sempervirens patients.

In a final two-page section, the report makes the case for adopting Laura’s Law, which would allow patients to receive ongoing treatment for severe mental illness outside of mental health facilities. The report says the law would help patients overcome severe mental illness and lead to long-term savings, citing Mendocino County, which passed the law in 2014, as a possible template.

The report also notes that, despite money allotted in the 2015-2016 budget, a security barrier still hasn’t been put in place in the jail to stop inmates from jumping off higher tiers.

“It has been well-established that a large proportion of inmates have mental health disorders, and many inmates are at an elevated risk for suicide,” the report says.

The report requests responses from the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors and the DHHS, among other departments.

A spokesperson for the DHHS declined to comment.

“We appreciate the work of the Civil Grand Jury,” Christine Messinger of the DHHS said. “Our first response is always to them through the [County Administrative Office], and we will respond well within the timeline established by the Grand Jury.”

Redheaded Blackbelt
James Wilde
June 28, 2020 69 comments

 

Butte County Superior Court releases 2019-20 Grand Jury report

OROVILLE — Butte County Superior Court released the 2019-20 Grand Jury report, detailing the operations of certain departments and agencies within the county.

A total of eight reports were published. Areas of focus included the Butte County Jail and Butte County Juvenile Hall facilities, Butte County mosquito abatement districts, Butte County Public Works roads, the status of government in Butte County, and athletic facilities within the Oroville Union High School District.

The 132-page report can be viewed at www.buttecounty.net/administration/Grand-Jury.

Service on the Grand Jury is voluntary. The 2019-20 Grand Jury consisted of Susan Blood (foreperson), Mark Chrisman, Stephen Dunbar, Sandra Harrington, Sara Heimbecher, John Hollister, Barbara Hubler, Margaret Krehbiel, Diane Larson, Geraldine Mahood, James Marxmiller, David Pegg, Betty Pennington, Mark Riggs, Lidia Vargas, Jeffery Wiles and Erin Wooldridge.

The 12-month service period began on June 28, 2019. The stay-at-home order due issued in March due to COVID-19 forced the 17 jurors to finish their interviews and report writing via teleconferencing.

Judge Michael R. Deems thanked the Grand Jury for their work and excused them in a Zoom meeting on Friday.

CHICO ENTERPRISE-RECORD
June 27, 2020

Castlemont teachers in Oakland engaged in unethical behavior: [Alameda County] grand jury

OAKLAND, Calif. - The Alameda County grand jury painted an unflattering picture of a small number of Castlemont High teachers in Oakland who might have had good intentions, but acted unethically by promoting failing or underperforming students.

The teachers used a "hodgepodge of methods" to make sure the young people could graduate, knowing that they were unprepared, the grand jury found.

"This school and the district that runs it are failing its students," the grand jury wrote. "There is no excuse for awarding a high school diploma to those who do not earn it."

The grand jury, which released its findings on Monday, found that some teachers misused the online educational program called Apex, unfairly graded courses and, in some cases, entered grades for tests and courses never taken.

In one telling example, the grand jury learned that one teacher guided students through tests, question by question. The teacher also encouraged them to use their phones to search for answers to the test questions or better understand what they were being asked.

Apex is a credit recovery program used to offer struggling students an online alternative to completing required work.

The grand jury also took aim at the Oakland Unified School District, where officials said last fall that they found "no evidence to support" the cheating allegations. The grand jury chastised district administrators for not knowing any of this was going on.

"It is unfathomable that OUSD administrators were oblivious to the problems at Castlemont and did not intervene long before whistleblowing teachers reached out to the media in desperation," the jurors wrote. "Statistical data demonstrating Castlemont’s under-performance, student truancy and rising graduation rates in the face of poor standardized test results have long been available for district scrutiny. When OUSD was forced to acknowledge the problems publicly, it wrongly denied there was misconduct, doing teachers, students, and the public a disservice. OUSD’s investigative reports failed to acknowledge the severe academic and ethical breakdown occurring at Castlemont High."

In response, OUSD spokesman John Sasaki said that the district is reviewing the report and will respond to the report within the 90-day mandated period.

Since the allegations about the Apex system came to light, Sasaki said the district hired a consultant to review the school's practices, and Castlemont has "already instituted changes to the Apex protocols and training. "

And to date, Castlemont has not been allowed to use Apex pending the completion of the investigation and retraining of all staff.

"Castlemont High School serves some of the highest-needs students in Oakland, and we are committed to better supporting our most vulnerable student populations so they are well prepared for college, career and community success," Sasaki said.

Sasaki also noted some errors in the report, specifically pointing out that the  grand jury incorrectly stated that graduation rates at Castlemont increased during the time period in question.

Castlemont High School in East Oakland opened in 1929 and is one of Oakland’s 15 public high schools. Students are among the poorest and test scores are among the worst. Violence surrounds the neighborhood. Its current enrollment is about 830 students, though the campus can hold twice that number.

Castlemont has had the highest unexcused absence rate of the district in three of the last four years and poor test grades.

Between 2016 and 2019, 91―99% of Castlemont students performed below standard in English, and 99―100% performed below standard in math. Two years ago, only 18 of Castlemont seniors completed college preparatory requirements, the worst performance in the district.

State data shows that Castlemont has the second-highest teacher turnover rate in the district: 69% of Castlemont's teachers left the school over a period of six to 10 years.

Yet somehow, the school's graduation rate was "suspiciously increasing," the grand jury noted, as Castlemont's proficiency scores continued to drop.

So, the grand jury launched an investigation after two teachers came forward nearly a year ago to complain about this discrepancy. These teachers noticed oddities in student transcripts and found that students were completing a high number of online Apex courses in very short periods of time at the very end of their senior year, but they weren't showing up in their traditional classrooms in person. 

The grand jury interviewed 11 current or former OUSD staff, and they subpoenaed and examined course, grade, and attendance data along with online course data linked to 29 seniors at Castlemont in 2019.

Among the jurors' findings:

• ·         Three of the Castlemont Apex teachers violated district policy and the course's own best practices by coaching students during exams and quizzes.
• ·         Multiple witnesses testified that many struggling students were not prepared to take high school-level courses.
• ·         While the teacher support was being rendered to individual students, other classmates would look at and play with their phones.
• ·         The Apex teacher wasn't credentialed in some of the courses and to compensate, Castlemont educators would instead list a credentialed teacher's name on the student's grade records.
• ·         Some underperforming students were told by their counselors to take their normal, traditional courseload while simultaneously taking between three and seven Apex courses, enabling them to graduate.
• ·         One student failed traditional economics with 35 absences but enrolled late in Apex online economics and received a final grade of C despite getting  62% or a D-. The student was logged into the Apex course for just 3.3 hours and received a 90% average on teacher-scored quizzes while Apex-calculated quiz scores averaged 28%. Two teachers testified that this student offered to pay money in exchange for Apex answers or better grades and had been reported absent over 323 periods that year. The teachers refused the money.
• ·         The same student also failed World History three times but received B’s on their transcript in Apex World History each semester of the senior year. Yet, the grand jury noted there is no record of the student being enrolled in Apex World History that year.

The grand jury reported that they asked each teacher why they thought this happened. Every teacher answered that too many students arrive at Castlemont unprepared for high school level work.

But helping students succeed when they are not prepared is not only wrong, the grand jury found, it actually ends up hurting them in the long run.

"While some teachers and counselors may have been trying to help struggling students obtain their diplomas or qualify to apply to college, they were instead perpetuating an inequitable and failing system that pushed these students out the door without providing them with a complete education," the jurors found.

At the time the allegations surfaced, the district tried to justify the discrepancies by explaining that Apex-recommended final grades may have been unfairly low because teachers allowed students to skip sections of the course if they had already mastered the subject.

However, the grand jury found problems with those explanations.

A civil grand jury has no authoritative power to make changes or levy fines. Instead, it is convened to serve as a good government watchdog to expose flaws in government and suggest recommendations, which do not have to be followed.

In this case, the grand jury recommended a slate of changes that include having the district develop better practices and then enforce them, limit the number of Apex courses a student can take at one time, and ensure teachers don't coach their students on the tests.

KTVU
Lisa Fernandez
June 25, 2020

[Humboldt County] Grand jury: Humboldt County’s public guardians overworked, under-funded

Humboldt County’s public guardians, or people who care for elderly or disabled residents, are severely under-funded and carry higher caseloads than counties of smaller size, the county’s civil grand jury finds in its latest report.

Released on Wednesday, the report flags large disparities in the average caseload of a public guardian in Humboldt County versus elsewhere. The jury calls for more budgeted funds, additional hiring and more reporting of information to the Patients’ Rights Advocate, which oversees people who come under the care of public guardians.

The jury’s recommendations come with urgency, since, it notes, guardians have had to care for a rapidly increasing number of patients each month since June 2019.

“There is every reason to believe that these disparities in total clients and clients-per-guardian between Humboldt and other counties will continue to grow, particularly because of the inevitable care which will be required for the aging ‘boomer’ generation,” the report states.

The civil grand jury, a citizen-comprised body, investigates different matters affecting Humboldt County’s various practices. The jury issues a number of reports each year; the report released Wednesday is the sixth of eight to be published in 2020.

Among its recommendations, the jury calls on the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services to “hire an additional (fourth) deputy public guardian in order to ensure the office can manage its caseloads.”

Upon receiving a complaint, the jury investigated and found that the county was not giving the Patients Rights’ Advocate full information about patients under guardian care, including an unredacted daily census count.

The complaint to the jury alleged that “new implementations” of the county’s “existing confidentiality policy were adversely affecting, and even potentially obstructing,” the Patients’ Rights Advocate’s state-mandated duties.

“Out of fear for going astray of the administration’s strict enforcement of confidentiality, the (advocate) has been reluctant to perform these duties,” the report states.

The jury calls on the county’s health department and board of supervisors to issue a response to the report within 60 days.

Eureka Times-Standard
Shomik Mukherjee
June 25, 2020

[Santa Barbara] GRAND JURY FINDS STRONGER LEADERSHIP AND FUNDING NEEDED FOR HOMELESS CRISIS

Source: Santa Barbara County Grand Jury

Santa Barbara County is in the midst of a homeless crisis that long predates the challenges of the current COVID-19 pandemic. People are roaming the streets with no home of their own, and there is an increase of people living in their cars, camping in parks, or sleeping on the sofas of friends and relatives. Multiple families are often sharing cramped quarters. Shamefully, Santa Barbara County has one of the highest rates of homeless school-age children and youth in the State.

The 2019-20 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury elected to study this societal problem.

The Jury found that there is a dearth of both affordable and permanent supportive housing, shelters are full, and there is a lack of day centers. The high cost of land, insufficient funding, and neighborhood resistance contribute to the problem. Despite the hard work and dedication of local charities and government workers, homeless rates are increasing. Stronger leadership at the county and city levels, a consistent source of funding, and community support are required to help alleviate the human suffering caused by this situation.

EDHAT.Com
June 25, 2020

[Los Angeles County] Civil Grand Jury Releases Scathing Report On LA County Voting Machines

Blog note: The only media coverage we have seen to date is a video report on CBS Los Angeles

Title of Report: 2019-2020 Civil Grand Jury Interim Report “Maybe I Voted”

Dated: June 22, 2020

Below is a link to the CBS Los Angeles video report.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/4599621-civil-grand-jury-releases-scathing-report-on-la-county-voting-machines/.

The full grand jury report may be found on the Los Angles Civil Grand Jury Website

[Alameda County] Grand jury: Understaffing at 911 center puts first responders at risk

A California county grand jury found that deficiencies at Oakland's 911 center caused thousands of calls to go unanswered for up to two minutes

OAKLAND, Calif. — A grand jury has found that staffing deficiencies at a California 911 center put the public and first responders at risk.

The Alameda County civil grand jury said in a report that 911 calls have gone unanswered for up to two minutes, falling short of the state's standard of 15 seconds, according to the East Bay Times.

In one case from last year, an Oakland police officer who was stabbed two blocks from the police station was unable to get through to a 911 dispatcher, according to the report. A garbage truck driver who noticed the officer calling for help was also unable to reach a dispatcher. The officer was ultimately driven to the hospital in a patrol car after calling a fellow officer who was in a building a mile away, and survived.

The report states that in 2019, nearly 40% of 911 callers in Oakland were unable to reach a dispatcher within 15 seconds and more than 18,000 waited more than two minutes for a dispatcher to respond. The jury also found that about 13,800 people hung up before their call could be answered.

About 59 dispatchers are currently working at the center despite the city's police budget for fiscal year 2019-20 allocating $15.7 million for 74 dispatcher positions, a communications manager and seven supervisors, according to the report. Understaffing has reportedly led some dispatchers to work up to 80 hours of overtime in a month.

The jury called for the Oakland Police Emergency Communications Center to establish a standard to answer 95% of its 911 calls within 15 seconds, recruit dispatchers until its vacancies are filled and publish quarterly reports about the center's performance on the city's website. The report also states the center has been using outdated technology in need of updates.

EMS1.COM
By Laura French
June 24, 2020