The 2020-21 Alameda County grand jury issued its final report June 21, offering recommendations to three county organizations.
The
final report seeks to address allegations of misbehavior with the Peralta
Community College Board of Trustees, racial inequities in police responses to
victims’ needs and the need for accuracy and impartiality of ballot measure
questions.
“Those
agencies are required by law to formally respond to the findings and
recommendations within 90 days of the report publications,” said jury
foreperson Susan Frost in an email. “Ultimately, the grand jury is acting on
behalf of Alameda County residents to hold government agencies accountable,
address problems and improve effectiveness.”
The
jury members worked remotely to attend meetings and interview witnesses,
according to a letter from Frost to Tara M. Desautels. The letter also said the
grand jury members interviewed more than 100 witnesses, reviewed hundreds of
documents and performed “countless” hours of research.
Assistant
District Attorney Rob Warren noted that the grand jury received eight formal
complaints regarding the behavior of the Peralta Community College Board of
Trustees, which serves more than 20,000 students each semester, including those
at Berkeley City College. The complaints ranged from interfering with the
authority of the chancellor to general incivility.
After
interviewing 19 witnesses, including current and former trustees,
administrators, faculty and statewide experts in governance best practices, the
grand jury determined the trustees had three violations. First, it interfered
with the chancellor’s authority. Second, the trustees were harsh toward other
trustees and administrators. Lastly, the board had held secret meetings in
violation of the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting laws aimed to protect the
sanctity of participatory governance in California.
In
one particular case of incivility, the grand jury analyzed an email from one
trustee stating, “Let them dare to try to take us over for this weak shit,” and
“Let’s kill them tomorrow.”
In
January 2020, the UC Berkeley School of Law published a study titled “Living
with Impunity: Unsolved Murders in Oakland and the Human Rights Impact on
Victims’ Family Members.” The study found that the Oakland Police Department
was “severely lacking” in policies critical to address crime victims, leading
to racial inequities in compensating victims.
The
grand jury was motivated by the study and sought to understand the levels of
racial disparity in OPD’s victim compensation, the report notes. The grand jury
found that while state law mandates law enforcement agencies to have a crime
liaison officer who provides support services to victims, OPD did not comply
with the law until the grand jury raised the issue in January 2021.
The
grand jury also found that many victims of color, particularly Black victims,
are denied compensation because of a “lack of cooperation with law
enforcement.” The report found that Black applicants for compensation received
42.2% of all denials, whereas white applicants received 10.3%.
In
the report, the jurors said the subjective nature of cooperation increases the
chances that racial biases will enter determinations. Furthermore, the jury
found that determinations of cooperation are made solely by the police, often
without victim input.
Based
on its findings, the jurors recommended that OPD immediately designate a crime
liaison officer and work with the Victim-Witness Assistance Division to
investigate racial inequities with victim compensation.
The
last issue the report offered recommendations for was the need for accurate and
unbiased wordings for local ballot measures.
“Every
election year, Alameda County voters are faced with a plethora of measures on
the ballot that can be confusing and difficult to understand,” Frost said in a
letter to Desautels. “While describing a measure in 75 words or less on the
ballot can be a challenge, providing unbiased and informative descriptions
consistent with Elections Code are imperative.”
During
its investigation, the grand jury analyzed six ballot measures, five from the
2020 elections and one from 2016.
Many
questions used favorable language that was irrelevant or unnecessary to
describe the measure, the report noted. San Leandro’s Measure VV, passed in
November 2020, said its increase of the real estate transfer tax would be used
“supporting seniors … through COVID-19 economic recovery … (and) maintaining
youth violence prevention programs.”
However,
none of those programs exist in the text of the actual ordinance itself,
according to the report.
The
report also found that measures would use language that was relevant to the
ordinance but was argumentative in nature. For instance, Hayward Measure OO
begins with the phrase, “To create more opportunities for residents to
volunteer, and to honor Hayward’s commitment to diversity,” before explaining
what the measure would actually implement.
Based
on its findings, the grand jury recommended that the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors should create an independent advisory committee to review local
ballot questions according to a set of uniform standards and guidelines.
The
Daily Californian
By Christopher Ying
June 28, 2021.
No comments:
Post a Comment