Opinion: Sheriff accusation shows underutilized role of civil grand jury

Our county needs watchdogs to investigate potential acts of wrongdoing

In 2020, something unusual took place before a Santa Clara County criminal grand jury looking into allegations that members of the sheriff’s office might have sought bribes in return for concealed firearms permits. The unusual event was that Sheriff Laurie Smith invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

So, 16 months later that event led to another unusual event: The Santa Clara County civil grand jury formally accused Smith of willful and corrupt misconduct. The accusations, which extend beyond the gun permits issues, are filed as “The People of the State of California vs. Laurie Smith.”

The differences between the state’s criminal and civil grand juries are many, and most folks would be confused. Despite its crucial work and investigative powers, the civil grand jury (CGJ) remains low-profile.

The CGJ is an arm of the Superior Court, but it seldom deals with courtrooms and legal proceedings. Residents volunteer and are selected to serve one-year terms.

A watchdog agency, the CGJ can investigate any local (not state or fed) governmental entity and craft reports highlighted by findings and recommendations. Agencies targeted by a recommendation must respond in writing. Yet, even where an agency agrees with the findings and recommendations, implementation of those recommendations is spotty and not required.

The Smith accusations, however, stem from another unique power of the CGJ, and one with many more teeth. CGJs can investigate elected or appointed officials – compelling testimony using subpoena powers – and decide if they’ve uncovered enough evidence to make an accusation of “willful or corrupt misconduct.” This can lead to a trial that in turn may result in forcing the official from office.

Quite a power, but it’s mostly hidden.

How rare are such accusations? The Mercury News cites retired county prosecutor William Larsen in saying that only about 100 local officials in California have been removed under this process in the past 150 years.

A report by the 2001-02 CGJ found only 37 appellate court decisions in California involving accusations between 1885 and 1999. That report was an adjunct to an accusation that panel leveled against Mountain View Mayor Mario Ambra for violating the city charter by repeatedly going to city staff with his opinions and urging actions instead of going through the city manager. He ended up resigning. The Ambra case is our county’s only CGJ accusation in the last 40 years, according to The Mercury News.

There is a recent Bay Area CGJ case, the 2019 accusation against Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer in 2019. It resulted in a trial, a hung jury and eventual dismissal.

A CGJ conventional report in 2005 targeting former San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales, involving a city garbage contract, led to criminal charges later dismissed by a judge.

The CGJ power to wage such accusations is the law and is prominent in descriptions of CGJ duties. The 2021 CGJ, by any measure, performed yeoman’s work. The CGJ lists 65 witnesses interviewed during its investigation.

Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen called the CGJ’s action “unprecedented,” in an interview with NBC Bay Area.

What sparks such an investigation? The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, led by Supervisors Joe Simitian and Otto Lee, asked the CGJ to investigate Smith. Supervisors already had a number of beefs with the sheriff.

Similarly, Contra Costa County supervisors had a number of beefs with their assessor, and they asked their CGJ to investigate.

The Mayor Gonzales report stemmed from a normal complaint filed with the CGJ. (All complaints are confidential.)

The Ambra case followed a different route. The Mountain View city manager went to the county DA, who empaneled the civil grand jury.

Bravo to the county supervisors for realizing the possibilities of the civil grand jury. Bravo to the 2021 CGJ for having the confidence and drive to tackle the job.

This case hopefully will encourage officials and whistleblowers to consider enlisting the CGJ, and encourage future CGJs to consider accusation investigations when they feel it is warranted. Our county needs watchdogs.

The Mercury News
By Michael Krey
January 29, 2022

Michael Krey is co-president of the Santa Clara County chapter of the California Grand Jurors’ Association.

Grand Jury Investigates Santa Barbara County Jail Suicide, Finds ‘Significant’ Breakdown

Report on 2021 inmate death emphasized lack of communication between transporting officer and nurse conducting intake evaluation

The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury investigated the death of a 30-year-old Main Jail inmate who committed suicide just 18 hours after his arrest in February 2021and found multiple areas requiring improvement in the intake process that “failed to protect (the inmate).”

Michael Anthony Remijio of Isla Vista was arrested the night before on an outstanding misdemeanor warrant from Ventura County after a welfare check from the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department.

Just 18 hours later, he was found hanging from a bed sheet in his cell. While life-saving measures were initiated by deputies and continued while he was transported by American Medical Response ambulance, Remijio was pronounced dead at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital.

An autopsy report concluded that Remijio’s cause of death was hanging, “other significant conditions” and methamphetamine intoxication.

In mid-July, another inmate in the jail died by suicide, marking the fifth suicide at the jail since April 2018. The grand jury report focused solely on Remijio’s death, however.

“The jury’s investigation revealed that process improvements were needed in the areas of communication between deputies and medical professionals, training in the identification of potential suicidal ideation when it’s not openly stated, the application of ‘urgent need for medical care’ as defined in the Intake Screening Implementation Plan, and the availability of appropriate mental health professionals on a 24/7 basis,” the grand jury report stated.

Sheriff’s deputies noted that Remijio appeared agitated and paranoid during the previous day’s welfare check, believing he was being chased by armed individuals.

He later told deputies that he had taken methamphetamine within the last 24 hours and was withdrawing.

A registered nurse with Wellpath, the Sheriff’s Department’s health-care partner, conducted Remijio’s intake evaluation. According to the report, the evaluation “found no evidence of mental illness or past or present drug use and no need for any special accommodation for mental health reasons.”

According to the report, the RN’s suicide risk intake screening needs to consider the “transporting officer’s impressions about risk.”

“In (Remijio’s) case, it is disputed whether this information was shared as required,” the report said, stating that the transporting officer said the RN had been informed of his paranoid behavior, but the RN denied ever being informed.

“The evidence points to the fact that a significant breakdown in communication occurred at that point,” the report said.

The grand jury acknowledged the challenge the Sheriff’s Department has in identifying mental health or substance abuse issues, and in keeping these inmates safe.

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, cited in the report, 41% of inmates in locally run jails have been diagnosed with mental illness, and suicides account for nearly 30% of in-custody deaths.

Locally, the county Department of Behavioral Wellness reported that each year, 60% of inmates in the Main Jail have had past contact with Behavioral Wellness, compared to the 33% national average.

The grand jury also noted the fact that, due to Wellpath’s contract, there are no on-site mental health professionals in the jail between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., which “can allow for urgent medical needs to go untreated in a timely manner.”

Some of the grand jury’s recommendations include establishing and improving joint training with sheriff’s deputies and Wellpath health professionals, proposing around-the-clock coverage by mental health professionals, and reducing the time between identification and initiation of medical and mental health protocols.

“The best defense against errors in judgment affecting inmate safety are targeted processes and procedures, in-depth training, specified communication requirements, and application of lessons learned from any failures that occur,” the report stated.

“Work has already begun in several areas that could help reduce future suicides within the Santa Barbara County jail system. ... While significant progress has been made, the 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury believes that further changes and improvements are needed.”

The grand jury has requested responses to its findings and recommendations from the Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, which have 60 days and 90 days to respond, respectively.

Noozhawk.com
By Serena Guentz
January 9, 2022

[Alameda and Contra Costa County] Civil Grand Juries

Frustrated with government? You can do something about it

If you’ve found cause to complain about our government recently, congratulations, you’re like most Americans. But how great would it be if you could be one of the few who could do something about it?

You could simply by volunteering to serve on your county’s civil grand jury. Alameda and Contra Costa counties are seeking grand jury members for the 2022-23 fiscal year, which begins July 1. The deadline for applications is March 18 for Contra Costa and April 15 for Alameda County.

Serving on a civil grand jury is nothing like being a trial juror or serving on a criminal grand jury, which brings indictments in cases referred to it by the local district attorney or state attorney general.

Civil grand juries investigate the operations of city and county government agencies, school districts and other regional authorities responsible for such activities as fire protection, water supplies, public transportation and health care. Grand jurors conduct independent research, visit work locations and interview government workers and the people they serve.

Civil grand juries publish reports on their findings, including recommendations for improving operating practices and efficiency. Jurors have complete autonomy to decide what they investigate, and the agencies they probe are legally required to respond in writing to their findings and recommendations.

And they get results. Some recent civil grand jury investigations in the Bay Area have produced these outcomes:

• The Contra Costa Health Department agreed to work toward expanding and improving its delivery of psychiatric emergency service to county residents.

• The Oakland Unified School District agreed to take steps to modernize its financial management practices and realign its spending priorities to focus more on student needs and less on administration.

• The cities of Richmond, El Cerrito and Pinole agreed to update their wildfire evacuation plans and seek funding for new fire-detection technology.

• City fire departments in San Jose, Palo Alto and Mountain View agreed to take steps to improve recruitment and accommodations for female firefighters.

There are benefits to grand jury service beyond the impact of the investigations. Grand jurors learn about the inner workings of their local governments.

They spend quality time discussing and analyzing critical issues with other concerned citizens. They learn to collaborate and work productively with individuals whose perspective and opinions might differ from their own.

And when their work is done, grand jurors tend to come away from the experience proud of what they were able to accomplish, frustrated that they couldn’t do more, and good friends with people they might otherwise never have met. Some even volunteer for another year of service.

Every county in California has a civil grand jury,

which functions as an arm of the Superior Court. Grand jurors must be U.S. citizens, at least 18 years old, residents of their county for at least one year and able to devote about 20-30 hours a week to grand jury service during their one-year term.

If you’re a concerned citizen interested in pursuing this unique opportunity to help your local government improve the way it supports us all, you can get an application at the following sites:

• For Alameda County residents: https://grandjury.acgov.org/join-us.page?

• For Contra Costa County residents: www.cc-courts.org/civil/grand-jury.aspx This is an opportunity to not just grumble about your local government but also effect change. 

East Bay Times
By Jim Fiedler and Scott Law

January 27, 2022

Jim Fiedler served on the Contra Costa civil grand jury of 2018-19 and currently chairs the Contra Costa chapter of the California Grand Jurors Association. Scott Law served on the Alameda County grand jury from 201517 and currently chairs the Alameda County chapter of the association.

 

Tricks California local officials use to deceive voters per Alameda County Grand Jury

Grand Jury explains how those writing ballot measures have vested interests and fail to provide impartial summaries

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

We will soon enter election season, when many California city, county and school officials try to trick voters with deceptive tax and spending measures.

The complex proposals are often well-intentioned and good policy. The problem is that local officials are so vested in the outcome that they are frequently incapable of providing voters the impartial descriptions they deserve.

Most significantly, local officials skew the 75-word ballot summaries to mislead voters into supporting the measures. In a 2020 editorial, we detailed some of the deceitful tactics.

The Alameda County Civil Grand Jury took it a step further, conducting a detailed analysis of ballot wording for five measures from prior elections. The takeaway for voters: Don’t trust the summaries to fairly tell you what the measures do. The wording, often the only thing many read, is supposed to be impartial. It isn’t.

That’s because it suffers from what the Grand Jury aptly calls “proponent bias.” It’s usually written by the same people who craft the measures, often with assistance from consultants hired at taxpayer expense to help ensure success at the polls.

As a result, “Ballot questions too often fall short of what voters have a right to expect in terms of transparency and impartiality, even when satisfying minimum legal standards,” the 2020-21 Grand Jury concluded.

The problem is not unique to Alameda County. Rather, misleading ballot wording is common for local government measures throughout the Bay Area and California.

The Grand Jury did not consider the merits of the measures it reviewed. The only issue was whether the ballot summary was accurate and impartial.

What the jurors found matches our experience: Local officials complain that the state’s 75-word limit is too restrictive for them to fairly portray the measures, yet they use precious space for politically slanted appeals rather than providing useful information.

For example, the ballot wording for general tax measures, for which the money can be spent on any legal purpose, often deceptively implies that funds will go to specific programs perceived to be more popular with voters.

The money will go to provide “essential services,” homeless housing, quality education, mental health programs, job training, pothole repairs, 911 emergency response, youth violence prevention programs … the list goes on. Yet, in the cases examined by the Grand Jury, the ballot measures contained no requirements that the money would be spent for those purposes.

One common deceit identified by the Grand Jury is the ballot-wording claim that a tax measure will remain in effect “until repealed by voters.” What nonsense. That suggests that there is some sort of repeal mechanism in the measure. There isn’t. Those taxes are permanent. (And, by the way, “permanent” is only one word.)

Local tax-measure ballot wording usually emphasizes that the money cannot be “taken by the state.” Of course it can’t. It’s a local measure. Meanwhile, the measures, which usually identify the amount of the proposed tax increases, often fail to state the current levels so voters know the total they would pay.

The Grand Jury found that glaring omission in a sales tax measure and in a real estate transfer tax they examined. And they found similar deception in a measure raising council salaries by what turned out to be 75% — a number conveniently missing from the ballot wording.

So how is this abuse possible when state law requires the ballot wording to be “true and impartial”?

First, as the Grand Jury noted, the city attorney or county counsel reviewing a measure is also “duty bound to represent the government entities proposing the measures involved. Hence, they also act, by necessity, as advocates for the proponents of a measure.”

Second, when ballot language is challenged in court, legal precedent gives officials who drafted the wording “considerable latitude,” and changes can only be ordered “upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading or inconsistent with (legal) requirements.”

Bay Area News Group
By DANIEL BORENSTEIN
January 21, 2022 

Santa Clara County housing bond on track despite roadblocks, civil grand jury says

A Civil Grand Jury says Santa Clara County’s $950 million housing bond is working as promised, giving it an “A” rating in a recent report—despite the small number of low-income homes built since its approval.

Measure A, passed by 68% of voters in 2016, will provide funding to build 4,800 affordable homes across the county over approximately a decade amid an exploding homelessness crisis.

Six years into the initiative, Santa Clara County has finished 289 affordable units—about 6% of the ultimate goal. As of last September, 1,246 homes are in construction, with 1,302 still in the pipeline. That leaves about 41% of the county’s housing goal to be determined.

The nearly $1 billion commitment drew the ire of residents last year when accounting firm MGO said in an audit that Measure A “has not been effective in accomplishing its mission,” citing the slow rate of construction and delivery of projects as threats to providing housing for those most in need. An oversight committee also sounded the alarm in 2020 about the slow construction rates.

Measure A progress tracker.

Slow construction

The grand jury set out to investigate a complaint submitted last year about the small number of homes actually completed through Measure A. Its December report, called “Measure A earns an A,” found the county isn’t obligated to move construction ahead, as many roadblocks—such as oppositions and delays at the city level and difficulty securing matching state funds—are beyond the county’s authority.

The report also found that construction costs and potential inflation have not affected Measure A developments. The county has committed $108 million to buy 16 properties to avoid land cost increases.

Santa Clara County has had success in meeting its funding goal for permanent supportive housing and units for very low to extremely low-income populations, but the report shows it’s way behind schedule in funding rapid rehousing—a rent-subsidized program that provides residents a temporary place to stay. The grand jury urged the county to continue exploring the state’s Project Homekey program or reconsider its rapid rehousing goal by June.

Measure A housing not moving fast enough, oversight committee says

It also notes the county and the bond oversight committee are working on new incentives to encourage more development and streamline the planning process. For the county’s responsibility, the housing bond is being spent appropriately and in a timely manner, the report says.

Local housing advocates said the county could always do more to address the housing crisis, but they acknowledge officials have done “tremendous” work with Measure A.

“There have been numerous articles that have talked about whether Measure A is too slow or too fast,” Mathew Reed, director of policy of SV@Home, told San José Spotlight. “We feel like the grand jury report did a very good job of assessing and understanding the multiple factors (in building affordable housing).”

Affordable housing projects in Silicon Valley take four to five years of planning and construction before residents can move in—even before the pandemic, Reed added.

Layers of obstacles

One of the biggest roadblocks for affordable housing developers in the area is the ability to secure all funding sources, especially tax credits and bond allocations at the state level, the report notes.

San Jose, also shy of its housing goal, has made efforts to encourage more affordable housing, including removing a decades-old policy that requires some developments to dedicate the ground floor to commercial spaces.

Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone, who also chairs the bond oversight committee, said the slow construction rate is a serious concern.

“We talk about it in every meeting,” Stone told San José Spotlight. “We are not getting housing built as fast as we would like… but Measure A funds only provide a portion of the financing for the housing units.”

The 100-unit La Avenida housing project in Mountain View, for example, received $19 million through Measure A. But it still needed $15 million from the city and another $25 million from the state’s tax credit program to move forward, the grand jury report notes. The project would have remained dormant without the combined funding sources.

Stone said the pandemic has also slowed down numerous developments, as many workers in city housing and planning departments pivoted from their jobs to respond to COVID-19 needs. This has created a backlog across the county, he said.

According to Stone, local governments also need to take drastic steps to increase density in their cities, which would allow more housing to come in.

“You can’t build affordable housing in market conditions,” he said. “It’s impossible.”

Office of Supportive Housing Director Consuelo Hernandez, who oversees Measure A funding for the county, didn’t respond to an inquiry about the report. She has previously defended the county’s approach to the housing bond.

Since the oversight committee raised concerns about the slow progress, the county has used its influence to help affordable housing developers however it can.

“We’re putting as much pressure as we can on local governments and cities to approve projects,” Stone said.

San Jose Spotlight
by Tran Nguyen
January 4, 2022

Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report Finds Limited Government Oversight of Idle Oil Wells

Concerns include fiscal liabilities to the county and state, and that there are currently only one supervisor and one employee to conduct inspections

A Santa Barbara County Grand Jury report has found limited county government oversight of idle oil wells, with a lack of adequate staffing in the Petroleum Unit of the county’s Planning and Development Department and the failure to enforce Santa Barbara County Code provisions regarding removal of drilling equipment following oil well abandonment.

According to the California Geologic Energy Management Division’s most recent idle oil well inventory cited in the Grand Jury report, there are 6,618 oil wells in Santa Barbara County, of which 5,590 are idle and have not been used in at least two years.

About 1,374 of those idle oil wells throughout the county have been abandoned but remain uncapped, posing a greater risk of seepage.

“Such idle oil wells pose special health and environmental hazards because their seepage can go undetected without monitoring by trained professionals,” the report states. “Should there be seepage, causing toxic emissions or pollution from an idle well, the cleanup, remediation and lost income costs could fall on Santa Barbara County. … Seepage from active and idle wells can contaminate groundwater, and methane gas emitted from wells can pollute the air, while harming animal and plant biodiversity.”

A recent example of that kind of oil seepage was the natural seepage in Toro Canyon Creek in August. It was the result of an uncapped 19th-century oil well, which had been retrofitted to prevent seepage but that was damaged in the Thomas Fire and heavy rain events.

In 2019, 80 to 125 gallons of crude oil spilled at Haskell’s Beach in Goleta, when crews were working to abandon wells at the beach’s piers.

The Grand Jury report also stated that the Petroleum Unit within the county Planning and Development Department has one supervisor and two employees who conduct inspections of oil wells. One of the employees recently has been on leave, leaving only one to complete inspections of all of Santa Barbara County’s oil wells.

“It is a challenge to inspect all oil wells in the field, and the Jury believes that the number of staff is currently insufficient to complete inspections of all idle wells,” the report stated.

Noozhawk
By Serena Guentz
December 31, 2021