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
No comments:
Post a Comment