Thursday, July 30, 2020

Marin County Civil Grand Jury issues 1-year progress report

The Marin County Civil Grand Jury says officials are making progress on its past recommendations to prepare for wildfires, address the youth vaping epidemic and other key issues.

The assessment came in a new grand jury report that updates the results of its 2018-19 session. The panel’s inquiries last year also included topics such as addressing transportation to and from SMART train stations; improving school safety with more resource officers; abolishing the Marin Telecommunications Agency; improving municipal agency transparency and improving career technical education opportunities at high schools.

The grand jury, an investigative arm empowered by the local judiciary, made the recommendation to form a countywide fire prevention agency after the devastating fires that ravaged California in 2017 and 2018. Since that report, fire officials have formed the Marin Wildfire Protection Authority. Tiburon and Belvedere declined to join.

County voters also passed the Measure C parcel tax, which is expected to collect at least $200 million over 10 years, to fund the authority and fire prevention efforts.

“The grand jury report helped to mobilize Marin’s voters and public agencies around the common cause of addressing the wildfire threat,” the watchdog panel said in its new report.

Marin County fire Chief Jason Weber said, “The grand jury certainly highlighted what Marin fire chiefs have been discussing for years.” He called it “a community-driven process.”

Regarding the youth vaping epidemic, the grand jury said nationwide reports of deaths linked to the devices served as a catalyst to move recommendations forward.

Since its report on youth vaping, the Marin County Office of Education made 18 presentations on vaping prevention and cessation and established 17 school site coordinators at county high schools and middle schools, the grand jury reported.

Vaping detectors were also installed at three high schools in the Tamalpais Union High School District, the grand jury said.

“The grand jury certainly gave us a bit of a boost to bring the issues to a priority level,” said Bob Curry, the head of the county’s tobacco-related disease program and a staff liaison for the Smoke-Free Marin Coalition.

In addition, county officials were busy successfully seeking approval for more strict tobacco-related policies, including flavor bans, Curry said.

The grand jury recognized that Fairfax recently updated its flavor ban to include menthol, and Novato is poised to consider a similar ban. All other Marin jurisdictions have already approved the prohibitions.

In its one-year update report, the grand jury said the Marin Telecommunications Agency board voted unanimously to dissolve the agency, a move the jurors had recommended.

When it came to transparency concerns, the grand jury said, the recommendations “were not fully addressed by agency responses.”

The grand jury has recommended that there be a website with a comprehensive list of all Marin jurisdictions, special districts and joint powers along with financial information on salaries for officers and employees.

“The 2019–2020 Grand Jury agrees that this remains an area where public transparency is lacking, and it was not satisfied with the response of Marin’s local agencies to this recommendation,” the report said.

Regarding its recommendations to increase vocational education, the grand jury reported that programs have been enhanced with better opportunities for students and parents, with improved training and counseling.

As for Sonoma-Marin Area Rapid Transit, the grand jury said the service “has made modest progress on recommendations to develop plans for getting passengers to and from its stations and develop a transfer system between its Larkspur station and the Larkspur ferry terminal.”

The Transportation Authority of Marin is using grant money to study the ferry terminal connection, working with the city of Larkspur and Golden Gate Transit, the grand jury reported.

SMART has also developed discounts through the rideshare service Lyft, a pilot program for electric bikes and ticket packages for riders, the jury said.

“We’re very appreciative of the work of the Marin County Civil Grand Jury and the recommendations they bring forward,” Novato Councilman Eric Lucan, who is on the boards of SMART, Marin Transit and TAM.

“When you look at the recommendations, it was really addressed to all of the transportation organizations,” he said. “We are all working together to ensure we are creating a transportation network that works seamlessly to get riders to and from their locations and destinations.”

Marin Independent Journal
July 29, 2020
By Adrian Rodriguez


Oakland Unified to reform online makeup courses after harsh [Alameda County] grand jury report

Castlemont High in Oakland Unified was criticized in a recent county Grand Jury report for its improper use of online credit recovery courses.

Oakland Unified is working to reform an online program designed to help failing students following a scathing civil grand jury report last month that accused the district of awarding some students unearned grades and allowing unqualified students to graduate at one of its high schools.

The district has hired a consultant to review its online credit recovery program before it will allow Castlemont High to use it in the upcoming school year, which starts August 10 with distance learning districtwide. So-called credit recovery programs enable students to make up traditional classes they failed.

In a report called “Castlemont High: Cheating its Students,” an Alameda County Civil grand jury found that the Oakland school and the district had “failed” its students, saying, “There is no excuse for awarding a high school diploma to those who do not earn it.”

Other than in the title, the Grand Jury report did not accuse the school or the district of cheating in the strict sense of the word. Rather, it said that the school had been “perpetuating an inequitable and failing system that pushed these students out the door without providing them with a complete education.”

“Central to the controversy was Castlemont’s disproportionate reliance on Apex Learning, an online educational program used for students who had previously failed traditional core courses,” the report said. The district allows schools to use Apex online courses for credit recovery purposes, but the report cited abuses in the use of the system.

Oakland Unified spokesman John Sasaki said the district would formally respond to the grand jury report by August 21.

A civil grand jury in Alameda County is made up of volunteers who investigate various aspects of local government to ensure greater accountability. A civil grand jury typically does not look into criminal issues, and did not allege any in this case.

The civil grand jury found that:

  • Teachers sometimes assigned a student grades for Apex courses that were higher than those recorded in the online system for that student’s quizzes and tests.
  • Some students made up an entire semester course in a matter of hours using the online courses, which are generally expected to take 70 to 90 hours to complete.
  • A teacher who served as the administrator of the online Apex credit recovery program sometimes taught Apex courses without being credentialed in the subject.
  • A lack of oversight and failure to adhere to the district’s own rules, along with poor communication between staff, contributed to inconsistent practices in the way online credit recovery, independent study and makeup courses were monitored, completed and graded.

The report also criticized the district for misleading the public in response to allegations of grade-changing last September. At the time, the district said it found no evidence of wrongdoing after it investigated two teacher complaints that alleged grades were changed and that students received diplomas without completing required coursework.

The grand jury began its investigation last fall after hearing media reports about the teacher complaints and noticing inconsistencies between the district’s response and the teachers’ allegations. It looked at the records of 29 Castlemont students, interviewed several current and former school and district teachers and administrators, and examined numerous documents.

In February, the district hired Nevada-based i3DigitalPD, which specializes in online instruction training, to review its use of the Apex online credit recovery system over the past three years. It produced a draft report of its findings, recommended improvements last month and plans to train staff in best practices for the system.

Sasaki said that Castlemont High has not been allowed to use the Apex system since the complaints were received and the school will not use it again until the outside evaluation is complete and all staff have been properly trained.

The Apex system is used throughout Oakland Unified and i3DigitalPD’s review applied districtwide.

The grand jury recommended that the district create policies and practices for students to make up work and courses. It also said the district should institute controls such as limiting the number of courses students can take at one time on the Apex system and developing checks and balances to ensure that teachers’ grades reflect the quality of students’ work.

Kim Loomis, CEO of the i3DigitalPD firm, said her organization has provided the district with multiple pages of proposed policies and procedures to improve its credit recovery program, and it is up to the district to finalize them. These include how-to information for using the Apex online credit recovery system that address the problems raised by the grand jury, such as the need to provide qualified teachers, track time spent on the program and proctor tests to ensure that no cheating is allowed.

“The key is having accountability in place so that students and teachers know what’s expected,” she said.

The district’s new policies and procedures, she said, should include standards for how courses are graded. Previously, she said teachers and administrators didn’t have adequate training, so were able to claim they didn’t know they weren’t following best practices and protocols.

“Oftentimes, they would just say, ‘A teacher quit. I had to put someone in there,’” Loomis said. “We’re really trying to get away from, ‘I didn’t know.’”

She plans to create on-demand video trainings that teachers can watch anytime before they use the Apex system.

Sasaki said the district is working to improve its practices, although the school board relaxed its graduation requirements for 2020 due to disruptions of the school year because of the coronavirus. That left students and teachers scrambling to finish up courses through distance learning.

Because some students did not have access to computers or the internet at home, the district gave high school students “credit” or “no credit” instead of grades and the school board agreed to waive the 2.0 GPA requirement for graduation during the pandemic.

In addition, the district allowed students who needed to make up courses to take four classes instead of two during the four-week summer school period that ended July 2.

Editor’s Note: As a special project, EdSource is tracking developments in the Oakland Unified and West Contra Costa Unified School Districts as a way to illustrate some of the challenges facing other urban districts in California. West Contra Costa Unified includes Richmond, El Cerrito and several other East Bay communities.

EdSource


Monday, July 27, 2020

In Santa Barbara Battle Between Cannabis and Wine, [Santa Barbara County] Grand Jury Reprimands County Supervisors

Wineries and cannabis farms have been clashing in Santa Barbara over odor, pesticide drift and land-use policies; a report calls on local officials to fix it

 A battle over wine and cannabis in Santa Barbara County, pitting neighbor against neighbor, is coming to a head. On June 30, a report from a grand jury tasked with monitoring local government issued a scathing report criticizing the county board for its mismanagement of the county's cannabis production.

"The jury believes the Board of Supervisors, in their hubris, failed the people of Santa Barbara County," the report stated. "Now they must amend the cannabis ordinances to regain the people's trust."

Santa Barbara County adopted some of the most lenient regulations for commercial cannabis farming in California and has seen an explosion in production in the past four years—last year, the county was home to 35 percent of the state's licensed cannabis acreage. As a result, locals, particularly vintners, have grappled with cannabis' impact on the area.

In April, a nonprofit made up of more than 200 vintners, farmers and homeowners, dubbed the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis, filed suit against the county's board of supervisors, citing what the coalition considers a lack of ordinances regulating cannabis production and a faulty licensing program which has allowed farmers to stack licenses and create some of the largest cannabis grows in the state. The suit aims to cut down on the number of unpermitted cannabis farms and stop the board from issuing further permits by challenging the environmental reviews that have led to permit approvals.

"Pursuing legal action is not fun, nor is it a place we wanted to go, but it's necessary," Debra Eagle, a board member for the coalition and general manager for Alma Rosa winery, told Wine Spectator. Eagle felt like the board of supervisors was ignoring its citizens.

The grand jury finding is independent of the lawsuit, which has not gone to court yet. But it affirms the vintners' claims, stating that the board must regain the people's trust by enacting extensive modifications. "We're thrilled that the grand jury substantiated what we believed to be true," said Eagle.

Now the county supervisors are considering tighter regulations. But will it be enough to satisfy residents and help the local wine industry?

Misguided approval?

When California's Proposition 64 passed in 2016, the state let local officials decide how to regulate production and sales with temporary licenses. Santa Barbara County supervisors opted to allow farmers that said they were growing medicinal cannabis to add their name to a registry, which would grandfather them in as legal growers and give them temporary cultivation licenses. The growers did not have to provide any evidence, however. In fact, county supervisors rejected a measure recommended by the planning commission to have staff ask for documentation and research the veracity of the statements.

California's temporary licenses expired at the end of 2019. Cannabis farmers now either have to win land-use permit approval from their respective county governments or apply for a provisional permit to continue growing for another year.

According to Michael Benedict, co-founder of Sanford & Benedict Vineyard, the board of supervisors has been playing fast and loose with land-use laws and issuing permits without proper planning. "Plan first and then issue permits," he said. "The [cannabis] farmers are taking advantage of a loophole, but it's not their fault; the board has enabled this."

"I agree with the critique that the rules for medicinal cannabis were loose," said Das Williams, first district supervisor for the county, noting that they were created before he joined the board in early 2017. He said he was unhappy with how much cannabis was established when he took office but is pleased that the permitting process has begun, and noted that those that don't meet standards will be out of business.

But Williams was one of two supervisors called out by the grand jury, though not by name. He and supervisor Steve Lavagnino were the sole members of an ad-hoc committee that devised the current permitting process. Normally, land-use policy starts with large public meetings and county planning staff, who then make recommendations to the board. But in this case, the grand jury wrote, policy recommendations were hashed out by the ad-hoc committee, which then presented it to the full board.

The Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis points to the initial Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Cannabis Land-Use Ordinance and Licensing Program as proof of the flaws in the process.

The supervisors use EIRs as their guide for approvals of any land use application. In February 2018, the board certified the cannabis EIR, despite identifying several environmental impacts of cannabis farms, including effects on agricultural resources, air quality and greenhouse-gas emissions, noise, transportation and traffic, and aesthetic and visual resources, all of which they deemed incapable of being adequately mitigated, and therefore unavoidable. As a result, they adopted a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" to approve the EIR and allow the propagation of cannabis farms throughout Santa Barbara County, despite the impacts.

"Making a Statement of Overriding Considerations is something just about every California jurisdiction does when it does a project," argued Williams, noting that they prevent people from litigating for subjective or spurious reasons. "We have every intention of continuing the fight against odor and peaceful co-existence."

But the grand jury found that during the EIR process, Williams and Lavagnino were working closely with the cannabis industry. "The Board of Supervisors granted nearly unfettered access to cannabis growers and industry lobbyists that was undisclosed to the public during the creation of the cannabis ordinances," the jury wrote. It found that while they listened to cannabis lobbyists, they ignored residents concerned about cannabis growing odors near schools and winery tasting rooms and vintners and avocado farmers who worried about restrictions on pesticide use.

Perhaps the most critical element of cannabis and vineyards sharing land is the potential risk of herbicide or pesticide drift. By law, cannabis may not be commercially sold or used if it tests positive for any inorganic substance. On the flip side, cannabis can release organic compounds called terpenes. The coalition wants research on terpenes to be conducted to determine the potential for wine grapes to absorb and take on the aroma or flavor before any more cannabis grows are planted near vineyards.

The jury questioned why the conflict between traditional agriculture and cannabis grows was omitted in the EIR, stating that it was no secret that conventional agriculture in Santa Barbara County uses insecticides and fungicides.

Impacts

Santa Barbara was not previously known for cannabis, but it has become so in recent years. The county currently has 880 active growing permits. By comparison, Humboldt County, known for its cannabis culture long before legalization, has 1,180. Santa Barbara's concentration of farms has primarily been along the Highway 246 corridor and Santa Rosa Road, which runs parallel.

"Instead of a balanced approach carefully evaluating how the cannabis industry would be compatible, both as to amount of acreage and location, the board simply opened the floodgates," the grand jury report stated.

Blair Pence, proprietor for Pence Ranch, located just off Highway 246, said he's had firsthand experience. Pence said there have been two illegal grows near his 200-acre ranch and vineyard, both of which were busted. In addition to wine grapes, he also grows fruits and vegetables, raises cattle and has an equestrian training facility. Pence said his equestrian clients stopped coming around because they were fearful of the high-level security directly across from his property. "We're not making this stuff up—there are guys toting guns," he said.

Benedict echoed Pence, citing 24-hour surveillance and cannabis farm employees who keep an eye out for both trespassers and inquisitive neighbors snapping photos. Benedict said his presence near a cannabis farm adjacent to the Sanford & Benedict Vineyard led to bullying and fear tactics, including threatening letters after he took photos of the grows from his own property. "Never once have I been threatened in my previous 50 years," he said.

Many, including Benedict and Pence, question why cannabis farms feel they need that level of protection. Pence said he's put up electric gates and alarms on all the houses of his ranch for an added layer of security. "This is how it's changing our neighborhood."

Supervisor Williams said he lives a few blocks away from the biggest cannabis operator (by gross receipts) in the county, but has not seen armed security in his community. "Our local Sheriff's Lt. has been clear that crime has not risen here since legal cannabis came here," he said. "Of the 59 raids we conducted, we've possessed more illegal cannabis in one year than the California Highway Patrol has seized throughout the state. We're not going soft on these guys."

The report recommends that the supervisors require all cannabis growers who have applied for provisional permits, claiming their grows are legal, to prove it. It also calls on the board to suspend all unpermitted cannabis operations until the planning commission accepts proof of odor control. Further, they recommend the county establish an independent ethics oversight commission for the board and its staff, and to direct the county planning and development department director to begin creating new Environmental Impact Reports for each region of the county after holding public hearings to evaluate public concerns, so the EIRs reflect balance between cannabis, traditional agriculture and county residents.

The board has yet to respond publicly. Williams did not respond to a request for comment after the report was released. He and Lavagnino both told local media that they disagree with the report and believe the jury was biased. But on July 14, the board moved to make some adjustments, implementing new restrictions affecting the northern part of the county, including a total ban on commercial cannabis grows in rural neighborhoods, a 50-foot setback from cannabis cultivation areas and that all cannabis processing and drying is to be done in an enclosed building.

Cannabis and vines

One winery trying to bridge the gap between the two industries is Sunstone. The Santa Ynez Valley–based winery is one of a handful of local wineries to have applied for a cannabis cultivation permit. "Look, I'm opposed to massive grows, but if done responsibly and with respect to neighbors, I believe these two crops can be mutually beneficial," said the winery's president, Teddy Cabugos.

Cabugos points to the need for wineries, especially small ones, to diversify and connect with multiple generations, referencing data about younger generations, particularly Millennials, who lack interest in wine. "We're not turning our back on the wine industry," said Cabugos. "But if we can create something new, or connect our cannabis business with a name people are familiar with, we may lose some customers in the process, but we also might gain a lot more."

Cabugos said, if approved, he would go about things very conservatively. "We applied for 8 acres, but we'll start with 2 and then check in with our neighbors before adding more." Sunstone is an organic vineyard, so pesticide is not an issue. Terpenes don't concern Cabugos either. "Lavender and eucalyptus give off more terpenes than cannabis," he said, citing plans to plant cannabis right next to vineyards. He also plans to conduct testing for terpenes in grapes and be a guinea pig to show how the two industries can coexist. To combat odor concerns, he plans to take all of the drying and processing off-site.

The coalition points to the fact that other wine regions throughout California have seemingly found a way to cohabitate and limit cannabis growth to prevent it from becoming intrusive. For example, Sonoma County has limited cannabis cultivation to 1 acre per parcel. To date, 88 growers are farming 88 acres in the county. "We're just asking for Santa Barbara to be in line with what other parts of the state are doing," said Eagle.

The grand jury has given the board 90 days to respond to the report and amend the county's cannabis ordinances to suit the sentiments of its citizens.

Wine Spectator
By Aaron Romano
Jul 27, 2020

Sunday, July 26, 2020

Guest Commentary: The [Santa Cruz County] grand jury needs you now more than ever

We need the grand jury and the grand jury needs you. In this time of political polarization at all levels of government, the need for a neutral grand jury to investigate, report on government performance and offer solutions has never been greater. Despite the pandemic, the 2019-20 Civil Grand Jury recently completed its term successfully. The grand jury completed 10 separate investigations, published reports to explain their work, and made specific findings and recommendations to improve both the quality of our government and the health and safety of all who live here.

The topics the grand jury chose to investigate were compelling, including: homelessness; the horrific fire risk the community faces and the questionable capability the community has to respond to catastrophic fires; the lack of adequate risk management tools in local government; and the loss of trust and accountability in the City of Santa Cruz governance, to name just a few of the investigations. Rather than giving up when the pandemic made completion of the grand jury’s mission monumentally harder, the members of the grand jury rallied and used the technology of the virtual meeting world to finish their work. What is frequently not mentioned in considering the value of the grand jury system, is that more often than not the recommendations of the grand jury are accepted, and very real and significant improvements are made for everyone’s benefit.

By statute the Superior Court is charged with empaneling the new grand jury, which normally begins serving its term on July 1. The pandemic has caused a delay in recruiting, interviewing and selecting the new grand jurors. This year the selection process will begin in September with virtual interviews taking the place of actual physical meetings in order to ensure the health and safety of everyone. The new grand jury is expected to be sworn in during the week of Oct. 5 and will serve a nine-month term rather than a full year. Grand juror training and the actual work of the next grand jury are likely to be completed in the virtual world of electronic communications to keep everyone safe. Travel impediments that oftentimes deterred members of the community with difficult commutes from serving won’t be a problem in the virtual meeting world.

But the challenges the new grand jury will face are even greater than the 2019-20 grand jury faced, as the jurors will not have the full year term to work with and will not have the normal face-to-face meetings at which to bond and develop team work. Nevertheless, the incoming foreperson has been selected and has a core of experienced and dedicated returning grand jurors ready to get to work and bring the new grand jurors up to speed. Prior experience with virtual meeting technology and secure data-sharing for the grand jury members will be more important than ever, but refresher training will be available.

There are so many new challenges facing us today, not to mention just staying alive. But we will not be stopped from protecting our democracy and improving the operations of our government agencies. The work is essential and rewarding. Good people rise to ensure good government. We are good people. We need good grand jurors.

Please apply to join the 2020-21 grand jury at www.santacruzcourt.org.

We need you now more than ever.

SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL.
By Judge John Gallagher, Grand jury supervising judge
 July 26, 2020

Saturday, July 25, 2020

[Alameda County] Oakland Police To Add 911 Operators, Upgrade Technology

OAKLAND (CBS SF) — Amid calls for police budget cuts, Oakland police plan to hire momre dispatchers, improve their dispatch center's technology and seek more funding for the center, all to improve public safety.

The planned changes follow a grand jury's findings that police dispatchers are overworked and the center is short-staffed and underfunded.

Police will seek more resources for the center from the City Council in the next biennial budget, and the department is working now to improve the center's technology, said police spokesman Paul Chambers.

Thousands of 911 callers each year abandon their attempts to reach a dispatcher, and even more wait more than two minutes for help, while the state standard is for callers to reach a dispatcher in 15 seconds, according to the report.

“We certainly agree with and appreciate the report as we agree that the Oakland Police Department communications center, our 911 dispatch center, has been understaffed, under-resourced and underfunded for quite a while,”said interim police Chief Susan Manheimer.

Chambers said the phone system has been upgraded and a new feature coming within months will reroute dropped calls back into the queue, so callers do not have to redial. He said hiring for more dispatchers is expected to start in August or early September.

“We are going fix and address the issues in our communication dispatch center,” Manheimer said Tuesday.

Since the phone system upgrade, more calls are being answered in 15 seconds compared with 2019, Chambers said, but he did not say by how much.

A new system to track emergency calls and to send information to responding police officers will be running next year, according to Chambers.

“911 is our lifeline, our safety net for you the community as well as for our officers responding,” Manheimer said.

From CBS San Francisco
July 24, 2020

 


Friday, July 24, 2020

Clearlake City Council approves response to [Lake County] grand jury report on tax-defaulted properties

CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The Clearlake City Council has approved a lengthy and detailed response to the Lake County Civil Grand Jury’s report on issues the city has raised with the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office and its handling of tax-defaulted property sales.

In its June 29 report, the grand jury leveled criticisms at the city that included alleging that the city was using incorrect information as the basis of its complaint that thousands of properties totaling millions in unpaid taxes hadn’t been put up for tax sale.

The grand jury also faulted the city for what it claimed were “inappropriate” criticisms of Treasurer-Tax Collector Barbara Ringen’s job performance.

At the council’s July 16 meeting, staff and council members discussed the nine-page response letter being sent to the grand jury. The response letter is just one page shorter than the grand jury’s report.

City Manager Alan Flora said the information the city used in addressing the tax-defaulted property matter came from the county, specifically, the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office.

“At this time we have no reason to doubt any of that data,” he said.

In order to let members of the public judge the matter for themselves, Flora said city staff had posted the information the city received from the county on its website. The data can be found on a new page, “Tax Defaulted Properties Information.”

A 2019 map on the site shows thousands of tax-defaulted properties, highlighted in pink, throughout the city.

Mayor Russell Cremer and Vice Mayor Dirk Slooten assisted staff with writing the response letter.

“I felt that we had no choice but to give this long, very detailed responses to the grand jury,” Cremer said, adding that the grand jury report’s many inaccuracies required a strong response.

Slooten said the report was wrong and the information the city used came directly from the county. “There’s no doubt in my mind that our data is correct.”

With regard to the data, the letter explains its source and how it was used. The city pointed out that the grand jury used “inaccurate assumptions to artificially reduce the real numbers” of tax-defaulted properties, including not considering properties without proper road access or utilities.

The response letter added that neither the grand nor the tax collector have the authority to allow certain property owners to be removed from the tax default list based on physical attributes of properties, and doing so is contrary to state law and the charge of the Tax Collector’s Office.

Regarding the grand jury’s criticisms about the city’s statements about Ringen’s job performance, the letter stated, “While it gives the City no pleasure in saying it, the assertion by the Grand Jury that allegations of negligence were inappropriate or that we have no real understanding of the on-going management of the Tax Collector’s Office we believe these claims are accurate and further it is even documented by the Board of Supervisors. The Board has established an ad hoc committee to provide additional support and oversight of the Treasurer Tax Collector’s Office due to a lack of performance. Additionally, the 2019 letter only came after attempts by the ad hoc and City representatives to discuss these issues with the Tax Collector.”

The letter said a meeting between ad hoc committee members Supervisor Bruno Sabatier, Supervisor Moke Simon, County Administrative Officer Carol Hutchinson, Ringen and Flora was scheduled on Oct. 25, 2019. Ringen chose not to attend.

“The Tax Collector’s refusal to engage with the City, or even the Board’s ad hoc committee, necessitated a different approach to resolution of the problem,” the letter stated.

The letter went on to list, in detail, responses to the grand jury’s recommendations and findings.

Councilwoman Joyce Overton agreed with the letter and said it was important that people understand where the information came from.

Slooten moved to approve the response, which was seconded by Councilman Russ Perdock. The council voted 4-0 to pass the motion, with Councilman Phil Harris absent.

Lake County News
ELIZABETH LARSON
23 JULY 2020


Wednesday, July 22, 2020

[Contra Costa County] Walnut Creek residents continue calls to rethink policing

WALNUT CREEK — Residents at a City Council meeting Tuesday continued calls to reallocate funds from the Walnut Creek Police Department to other services, ban tear gas and to fire a police officer who falsified dozens of police reports.

Many of the requests came as the City Council was about to approve its consent calendar — a list of action items that are often considered routine business and typically approved without much discussion. Among the list was a report from the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury that recommended hiring more police officers, and the city’s response to the letter.

The Civil Grand Jury conducts investigations at its discretion and issues recommendations, to which public agencies are compelled to respond. In a summary of its investigation of police staffing in the county, it found that recruiting officers has become challenging for most departments and recommended Walnut Creek — and other city forces — find funding to beef up staffing, which the city rejected in its response letter, noting that the department is fully staffed.

While some residents expressed appreciation for the city’s refusal to hire more police officers, many took the time to urge the city to consider defunding the police department, which totals about $26.7 million for the next fiscal year, even though the council approved the budget earlier in July.

“Not only does our city have a mucher lower crime rate on average,” resident Lukas Carbone told the council during the meeting. “Police can’t prevent crime … they only police crime.”

Others spoke in defense of the police department, including resident Ron Giglio who said based on his own interactions with police, he believes Walnut Creek police “safely protect and serve residents and visitors.”

But some countered this argument, pointing to the police response to the demonstrations on June 1 that ended with police officers firing tear gas and rubber bullets and siccing police dogs on young people near the freeway. An online petition to ban tear gas and use only nonviolent tactics for protests had garnered more than 4,400 signatures by Tuesday night.

“We don’t deserve to be met with militarized force,” said Vivian McHenry, a member of the group Friends of Scott, Alexis and Taun Hall. That group advocates for non-police responses for mental health on behalf of the Hall family after Miles Hall was killed a year ago by Walnut Creek police while he was experiencing a mental health crisis.

Still others called for the firing of Curtis Borman, a police officer in Walnut Creek who, in cases spanning 2015 and 2016, made misleading or false statements in 31 police reports, lied to a superior about throwing drugs away during an arrest, and failed to put photos and videos into evidence, as this news organization reported last year

Walnut Creek Police Chief Thomas Chaplin and Captain Jay Hill did not address the public comments related to Borman in their comments during the meeting.

Residents urged the city council to — instead of maintaining the current level of police funding — expand programs similar to one approved during Tuesday’s meeting: an agreement to partner with the Trinity Center to operate a temporary homeless shelter at the Walnut Creek Armory between October and April, as it has done for several years.

The City Council also approved a plan to allocate certain federal grant funding to programs to help homeless residents or those at risk of homelessness, as well as seniors impacted by COVID-19. The more than $200,000 the city will get in Community Development Block Grant Stimulus Funds will go toward providing emergency utility and rental payments for residents in need through Shelter Inc. and St. Vincent de Paul, a city-run senior support team to help seniors with meals, mental health and other needs during the pandemic, as well as funding for the Trinity Center’s safe parking program to allow unhoused residents sleep safely in their cars.

Mercury News (Bay Area News Group)
By Annie Siacca
July 22, 2020

Saturday, July 18, 2020

[Lake County] Grand Jury: County’s Behavioral Health Services assessed

Editor’s note: This is the sixth in a series of articles recapping the findings and recommendations presented by this year’s Grand Jury report to the county and its various agencies.

LAKE COUNTY— The 2019-2020 Grand Jury, in its report released earlier this month, concluded that some citizen complaints brought to it during their year long investigation of Lake County’s Behavioral Health Services, though meritorious at the time they were made, have already been resolved and also found that the department is unable to recruit as many qualified professionals as it needs, or may be required to have, and has therefore terminated some services to patients.

The watchdog jury also found that Lake County has decided against establishing a Mental Health Court because BHS has been supervising criminal defendants in a new mental health diversion program since last year, among other findings.

The Grand Jury also made numerous recommendations in a segment of this year’s report entitled, “Finding News Solutions to old Problems: County Behavioral Health Services” including suggesting that BHS continue to monitor and evaluate whether it is in danger of incurring future Mental Health Services Act (MHAS) reversion charges and take all steps “to avoid another problem.”

The problematic incident referred to in the report was a complaint that BHS was said to owe the state an estimated $700,000. In the course of doing its work, the Grand Jury discovered yet another state charge that threatened the loss of roughly half of its state funding if BHS did not hire two psychiatrists required by federal law.

Another complaint was that the agency refused to evaluate mentally ill criminal defendants in the county jail resulting in defendants having to remain in the jail for months. It was suggested by the party or parties making the complaint that the county establish a Mental Health Court which the report describes as “a form of collaborative court that provides services and treatment to defendants dealing with mental illness.”

The Grand Jury concluded that both complaints had been resolved to its satisfaction given that BHS has been evaluating the inmates and since BHS had repaid (reverted) the MSHA funding it owed the state. These funds totaling $711,805.42 were not spent on a timely fashion and therefore returned.

In investigating these issues, the Grand Jury interviewed managers at both BHS and the Lake County jail, as well as other county employees and private individuals in addition to reviewing government documents and various legal issues.

Overall, the report notes, jurors were impressed by BHS’ management, services and plans and concluded that BHS is not responsible for delayed release of criminal defendants from the jail.

Pursuant to Penal Code sec. 933 (c) responses from the Board of Supervisors and BHS are leagally required within 90 days of the Grand Jury releasing its report.

Lake County Record-Bee
By ARIEL CARMONA
July 18, 2020


Thursday, July 16, 2020

Clearlake City Council to discuss response to [Lake County] grand jury’s report on tax default sales

CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The city of Clearlake is challenging the Lake County Civil Grand Jury’s conclusions in its recently released report regarding the city’s dispute with the county over the lack of tax-defaulted land sales.

The matter is scheduled to also be taken up as a discussion item at the council’s Thursday evening meeting.

In his memo to the city council on the item, City Manager Alan Flora said the grand jury’s June 29 report is requiring the city respond to its findings within 90 days, however, he added, “after review of the report it is apparent that a more swift response is warranted due to the many inaccuracies in the report.”

He said city staff is working with Mayor Russ Cremer and Vice Mayor Dirk Slooten on a response that the council will be able to review on Thursday.

Last year, the city began to ask the county to consider more frequent tax sales, pointing to thousands of tax-defaulted properties and millions of dollars of uncollected taxes.

In November, the city followed up by sending letters to agencies including the Board of Supervisors, California State Controller, California State Treasurer, California Board of Equalization and the California Attorney General’s Office asking for an investigation into the process and the performance of Lake County Treasurer-Tax Collector Barbara Ringen.

The city also had asked the Lake County Civil Grand Jury in November to consider the matter.

The city reported that the grand jury initially responded in December, saying that it had “long been fully aware of the situation in the Lake County Treasurer/Tax Collector’s Office.”

The grand jury referenced its 2017 report, which had two findings – that the county has not held a tax sale since 2013 and that the then-proposed 2017 sale only included 3 percent of eligible properties.

The 2016-17 report included one recommendation, which was that “The County conduct a tax lien sale on an annual basis including properties form the cities of Clearlake and Lakeport.”

The grand jury at that time summarized the problems created from a lack of tax sales as primarily a strain on local revenues, less community investment, deterioration and blight, and a hampering of municipalities in providing services due to decreased revenues.

Since then, two tax sales have been held – in June 2017 and June 2018, according to county records. No tax sale was held in 2019 and this year’s sale was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Those two tax sales in 2017 and 2018 are the only ones Ringen has held since taking office in 2013.

City seeks grand jury investigation

In January, Flora reported to the council that he had been in contact with the grand jury and it had indicated it was considering another investigation.

Earlier this year, the city also threatened the county with legal action if Ringen’s office didn’t make additional efforts to hold more sales.

In its report, which can be seen here, the grand jury outlines its investigation beginning on page 90.

“It is in the best interest of the entire county to bring clarity to the situation and a realistic look at the facts,” the grand jury report said.

The city of Clearlake, however, said the report didn’t do that. In a statement released in response to the report, the city said the report had “multiple conflicts with previous findings from the Grand Jury,” and it faulted the report for using data that contains “errors and misrepresentations.”

The grand jury said the facts and figures about tax default properties aren’t accurate and came from “a singular secondary source” that wasn’t properly vetted. That source isn’t named.

“The city would like the public to understand that in spite of what is reported by the Grand Jury we believe the information provided to the city is accurate and representative of the problem surrounding tax delinquent and defaulted property throughout Lake County,” said Cremer in a statement issued by the city.

He said the data for delinquent and defaulted properties within the city of Clearlake was provided directly to the city by the Tax Collector’s Office on Aug. 2, 2019. He said the county provided complete data on the delinquent and defaulted properties throughout Lake County on Jan. 13.

“We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the data provided by the county, however, if there is conflicting information within the county database related to tax-delinquent or defaulted properties, we would request that data be provided to the city,” Cremer said.

The grand jury went on to say that the city’s targeting of Ringen as “negligent,” “willfully failing to perform official functions,” and breaching breached fiduciary responsibilities “was inappropriate, lacked any real understanding of the on-going realities of management of that official’s office, and was made without any direct face-to-face contact to try to generate such understanding in the generation of such accusations.”

The report also addressed the Teeter Plan, designed in 1949 to allow counties to cover property tax payment delinquencies through existing fund reserves or short-term borrowing.

In addition, the grand jury referred to the “floated concept of a lawsuit to try to attain certain specific goals.”

“As of this writing, no formal action has been filed with the court. This concept has been advanced to the local media and into social media only. It has made a notable uptick in commentary – and concern – on both platforms. The basis of the concept is ~1,000 city of Clearlake properties to be put on the auction block by November or face the lawsuit. This goal is virtually impossible to achieve and would have limited effect,” the report said.

The report goes on to state, “The Grand Jury believes the elected officials in the City of Clearlake, after being presented with a concept, entered into this with the correct intentions of maximizing the potential funding available for their city. However, the incorrect numbers cited to them and the exaggerated effects of certain programs and possibilities created a belief in financial possibilities that could not, with proper vetting and understanding, be supported. A clearer understanding of the facts can allow them to refocus their talents and efforts into areas that can produce more tangible results across a wide swath of government responsibilities for the citizens that elected them.”

Among its findings, the grand jury found “a sizable ‘backlog’ of property tax default parcels for a number of years,” with that backlog stable at about 4,200 properties for some time but now growing at about 325 parcels a year; higher priority projects have been put ahead of the processing of default properties; and it would take two completely dedicated staff members to handle the year-to-year growth of the number of default parcels and reduce the backlog.

The report’s findings also claim that “Data was transferred from a staff position inside of the County Administration Office to a staff position inside of the City of Clearlake that was not properly vetted for accuracy, applicability to the over-riding issue, and not passed by the appropriate elected official ultimately responsible for that data.”

The grand jury report further states that “a group of elected city officials issued written ‘claims’ against a county-wide elected official and distributed these claims to multiple governmental groups (both inside of Lake County and in Sacramento.) It occurred that there was a ‘leakage’ of these claims to the local press and social media without performing a reasonable set of fact checking nor any sourcing of second and third party independent corroboration of the data and the assumptions upon which those claims were based.”

Regarding the vague allegations about “leakage” to the local press, the grand jury offered no evidence to back that claim.

In its recommendations, the grand jury said the County Administrative Office should “review and enact enhanced controls over data dissemination to departments not normally utilizing such data and to any non-county public or private entities,” and that two dedicated and trained staff members should be added to the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office to focus exclusively on the tax default auction process.

It also recommended that “All elected city officials and elected county officials should exercise extreme prudence in making disparaging claims (be they in public or to other governmental agencies) against the performance or motivations of any other elected official. If such claims are to be made, multiple/independent verifications of information/data supporting such claims should be fully explored.”

The grand jury concluded by suggesting a regular meeting between city and county officials. “The purpose of this meeting will be to bring matters of mutual concern to light and explore proactive and cooperative means of addressing these concerns.”

City disputes findings

Cremer said it was frustrating that the grand jury was not precise in discussing the sourcing of data the city has been relying on for its analysis, “which contrary to their statements was received directly from the county.”

He called it “increasingly perplexing” that the grand jury decided to eliminate properties without access, utilities, etc. from being included on its “tax default” list.

“No detailed information is provided on what methodology was used for this determination. The City understands that there are many ‘paper parcels’ in Lake County that have little value and may be difficult to sell, however, this does not remove the property owner’s obligation to pay taxes on the property, nor does it remove the County Tax Collector’s obligation to offer them at auction if considered in tax default status,” said Cremer.

“We are relying on accurate county data in determining the scope of the problem and working with the county on a mutually beneficial path forward,” said Slooten. “However, the grand jury’s report lacks any discussion around the statutory responsibility of the tax collector to sell tax defaulted properties within certain timelines.”

Slooten said it is one of the key responsibilities of the grand jury to determine if official duties are being lawfully carried out. “Accordingly, the data provided to the city reflect that 4,243 properties countywide have not met the obligation to be offered for sale consistent with state law.”

Cremer said the city intends to provide a detailed response to the grand jury report. He said that, through its website, the city will provide the public access to the raw data that was provided to the city from the county and further relied upon by the city in its analysis.

“This is not an issue that was conjured by the city, we believe it warrants more resources and commitment from both the tax collector and the Board of Supervisors in order to successfully solve this problem,” Cremer said.

He added, “The city of Clearlake has been and remains committed to actively participating in a real solution to Lake County’s tax default quagmire, the county just needs to take it more seriously.”

Lake County News
Elizabeth Larson at elarson@lakeconews.com
July 16, 2020

 


[Orange County] Grand Jury Accuses California Toll Road Agency Of Mismanagement

Scathing Orange County grand jury report accuses California toll road agency of using motorists as a personal cash cow.

The agency in charge of s Scathing Orange County grand jury report accuses California toll road agency of using m everal California toll roads exists primarily to perpetuate itself and enrich its management executives, a grand jury report released last month concluded. The Orange County grand jury opened an investigation into the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), which is responsible for the SR-73, 133, 241 and 261 toll roads in Orange County. While the inquiry was incomplete as a number of interviews were canceled because of the Covid-19 virus scare, jurors nonetheless identified a general pattern of conduct at TCA.

"It is readily apparent that while complying with the state statutes, both Joint Powers Authorities have gone into a 'self-perpetuation' mode (i.e. the grand jury was repeatedly left with the impression that the question, 'What new project or network expansion can we find that will add a new goal for the agency?' was an underlying activity for TCA management and board members)," the report stated. "Projects are added, new ways to expand their authority are being sought, and some elected officials are profiting from their association with the agencies by attending an unusually large number of meetings. All of these activities come at a cost to both the residents of the county and the users of the roads..."

Instead of funding road improvements, tolls are being used to bankroll the constant need for new studies, plans and advertising campaigns for the toll road, with many of its executives enjoying salaries higher than those in comparable positions at the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

"This activity is truly a 'cash cow' for some," the report stated. "The grand jury heard the comment, 'Three or four [TCA] meetings a month... that's a car payment.'"

In addition to charging tolls to motorists, the agency receives a constantly rising "impact fee" tax that is imposed on all new construction near a toll road. When first imposed in 1986, a typical single family home would be assessed a $1305 fee. Today, the fee is $5740. If the toll road's debt is retired as scheduled in 2053, these "fees" will have ballooned ten fold over their initial rate to $12,757. Because the agency is always restructuring its debt to delay repayment, motorists are set to pay three-and-a-half times the amount initially borrowed to repay the construction bonds, at the current rate.

State assemblyman Bill Brough (R-Dana Point) last week introduced a bill to formally audit TCA, but its chances for passage are slim given the legislature's response to bills that would have accelerated repayment of TCA construction bonds.

"The grand jury learned that supporters of both of these pieces of legislation believe that in their opinion, private entities and elected officials who financially benefit from the existence of the TCA lobbied quite extensively in Sacramento to block this legislation that would ultimately benefit the residents of Orange County," the report found. "These statements were backed with substantive documentation obtained by and provided to the grand jury."

Several board members told the grand jury that they believed the toll roads would never be toll free. A copy of the report is available in a 2.4mb PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File Transportation Corridor Agencies: Are They Taking Their Toll On Orange County? (, 7/13/2020)

The Newspaper.com
July 16, 2020

Calaveras County grand jury report delayed by COVID-19

Many grand juries throughout the state are postponing the release of their annual reports due to complications from the coronavirus, and Calaveras County’s grand jury is one of them.

This year is the first in recent history that the Calaveras County Grand Jury has not released its report on its June 30 deadline.

Current Grand Jury Foreperson Larry Abernathy told the Enterprise that the jury was initially “humming along” despite COVID-19, utilizing video conference calls to finish the majority of their 2019-20 report, which has been in the works since July 1, 2019.

 “The reason we didn’t slow down is that the court is an essential service, therefore we are essential,” Abernathy said.

However, getting the report reviewed by county counsel and a judge has been a slower process.

Abernathy said the county superior court and board of supervisors have approved the extension of the grand jury’s term to a calendar year schedule, with the new deadline for the complete report now set for Dec. 31. The jury still plans to release sections of the report throughout the coming months as they are finalized.

“When we made the decision, I heard we were one of two hold-outs (in the state),” said Abernathy, who stressed that the jury was initially determined to get the report finished on time, despite the roadblocks and the extensions granted to many other grand juries during the pandemic.

“There’s a saying that goes, ‘There’s 58 different ways of doing things in California – 58 different counties,” said Marsha Caranci, board member and chair of the training committee for the California Grand Jurors Association (CGJA).

According to Caranci, there are less than a dozen counties in which the 2019-20 grand jury has been dismissed and a new one empaneled, while others are moving to a calendar year schedule or simply delaying the process a few months, effectively shortening the term for the next grand jury.

Caranci said superior courts in each county are providing leeway in the state constitution for handling their grand juries and setting terms.

Calaveras Enterprise
by Dakota Morlan
July 16, 2020


Wednesday, July 15, 2020

Santa Barbara grows a third of California’s pot, thanks to political loopholes

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

Santa Barbara County only has 1.8% of California’s land, but it has 35% of the state’s pot cultivation licenses.

That might be good news for county jobs and revenue. But it has negatively affected avocado and wine industries, which are more traditionally associated with the coastal county. And there’s an uptick in resident complaints about the smell of cannabis.

The meteoric rise of cannabis is thanks to a close relationship between the industry, its lobbyists, and local political leaders.

A scathing grand jury report that came out last week documents what journalist Jerry Roberts calls “a disgraceful political process teeming with influence peddling, secrecy and sleaze.”

Two county supervisors used a political loophole to meet in private and create legislation without public knowledge. The report notes that industry leaders were in contact with county supervisors right before key votes, and provided tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions.

“It’s hard to build a doghouse in Santa Barbara County without 12 years of permits,” says Roberts. “They tried to implant a new industry rather than trying to see if they couldn’t [sic] work it in, in a more compatible way with neighborhoods and other industries.”

County Supervisor Das Williams says the industry has been important for employment and for discouraging black market marijuana sales, but says legalization will inevitably be a bumpy road.

He also says the ad hoc committee, which met behind closed doors, helped accelerate the process of legalizing the industry.

Williams says especially during the coronavirus pandemic, the expedited process saved the county from an even greater economic recession.

“We have hundreds of thousands of people that are slipping into poverty. But we have 5,000 jobs that are not going away that pay an average of 65K/year in farm work,” he says.

Williams also says the industry now brings in more money than sales tax, which is good news for public safety and social services. “If you are having a sheriff respond to an emergency on time, if your neighbor’s abused child has somebody taking care of them, if you have a library that’s open, it’s because of marijuana tax revenue.”

The grand jury report recommends the creation of an ethics commission.

KCRW
Hosted by Steve Chiotakis
July. 13, 2020


[South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County] Council to discuss canceling more events; police facilities at Tuesday’s meeting

Blog note: This article refers to an El Dorado County Grand Jury report.

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. — South Lake Tahoe City Council will decide on whether or not they should extend the event cancellation policy they enacted in May.

The decision in May was to postpone or cancel all city special events for 60 days, and to consider an extension of that policy depending on the state of the coronavirus. Cases have continued to rise in the county and several counties in Calif. have been shut down by the governor. This will likely be part of the discussion.

They will also receive a COVID-19 update from City Manager Joe Irvin.

The council will also discuss the South Lake Tahoe Police Department facilities. A Grand Jury report from El Dorado County found “the South Lake Tahoe Police Department Facility is inadequate for modern police operations and requires funding for extensive renovation or replacement.”

A draft letter included in the council packet suggests the council respond saying they disagree with part of the findings, specifically they believe the renovations currently underway will make the building adequate. However, they would ultimately desire funding for a new police facility.

The Grand Jury report also found, “while not mandated by [Peace Officer Standards and Training], the South Lake Tahoe Police Department does not provide its officers with continuing professional training in crisis intervention training.”

In the staff report, it states 20 of the 39 sworn officers have received training and nine of the remaining 19 recently graduated from California Basic Police Academy where they would’ve received training.

The staff report also states the department will be implementing internal standards for CIT for fiscal year 2020/21. The department has also begun discussions with El Dorado County about expanding the PERT program, which sends mental health professionals on calls with armed officers, into the city.

The council will be voting on approval of those responses.

A possible ballot measure will also be discussed. If approved, a measure asking voters to vote on a one cent sales tax “to maintain fire protection, 911 emergency response, public safety, snow removal; reduce wildfire threats; prevent lake pollution; repair streets/potholes, keep public areas safe/clean; retain local jobs/businesses; protect long-term financial stability; provide other city services” will be added to the November ballot.

The council will also discuss a 60-day deferral for business license fees. The council has discussed this idea in previous meetings but on Aug. 1, license renewals that were sent out in May are considered delinquent, so the council needs to decide soon what to do.

Finally, the council will discuss awarding an architectural and planning services contract for the 56-acre project.

Tahoe Daily Tribune
Staff report
July 14, 2020

Monday, July 13, 2020

Ron Miguel, longtime San Francisco civic watchdog, dies at 88

Blog note: This is the second article we have posted about our beloved colleague, Ron Miguel. We will chronicle his CGJA experience in the next Grand Jurors’ Journal

Ron Miguel, a onetime florist who became one of San Francisco’s most respected civic watchdogs, died on June 28 of heart problems. He was 88.

His time in public service included five years on city’s powerful Planning Commission, but his interests extended far beyond that — serving on numerous advisory committees such as the one that helped steer the transformation of the Central Freeway into Octavia Boulevard, and neighborhood groups not only in the Richmond District, where he and his wife owned a floral shop for 25 years, but in Potrero Hill, where they lived for more than 40 years.

As late as last month, even as he endured health treatments, Miguel was taking part via Zoom in interview panels to help the Port of San Francisco select a developer to restore Piers 38 and 40 along the Embarcadero.

San Francisco Chronicle
John King
July 8, 2020