11:13 PM PDT on Sunday, April 24, 2011
By DUANE W. GANG
The Press-Enterprise
Riverside County supervisors failed to follow their own policies when awarding a new criminal defense contract earlier this year, a newly released grand jury report concludes.
The report, made public this month and set to go before supervisors Tuesday, asserts the board's action circumvented the recommendations of three Northern California public defenders brought on to evaluate competing bids.
As a result, the grand jury is recommending that supervisors construct a bidding process that ensures transparency on future criminal defense contracts.
"Lack of oversight invites potential abuse in the use of county funds," the grand jury states.
When a conflict of interest is declared in a court case, which could occur when there are multiple defendants in a single case, the county public defender must use an outside law firm to provide legal representation to those who cannot pay.
In March 2010, two firms -- Riverside-based Blumenthal Law Office and Criminal Defense Lawyers run by attorneys Steve Harmon and Paul Grech -- bid on the work for western and southwest Riverside County.
But Virginia Blumenthal, the runner-up in that first round of competition, raised accusations of favoritism and collusion after her bid came in $100 higher than that of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Because of the controversy, supervisors sent the work out for bid again in September with a revamped search committee made up of public defenders from Northern California.
In the second round, Blumenthal came out on top, not only for western and southwest but for all of Riverside County, a contract valued at $8.8 million. Still, that outcome didn't sit well with some supervisors, since the evaluation committee did not conduct face-to-face interviews.
Ultimately, the board opted to split the contract three ways with Blumenthal and Criminal Defense Lawyers taking the western and southwest areas, respectively, and the Law Offices of Barbara Brand retaining its contract for the eastern county.
The three firms negotiated the specifics of the arrangement among themselves.
PROCEDURES IGNORED
The grand jury in its report said the Board of Supervisors "completely circumvented" the evaluation committee's work and disregarded the intent of the county's "Bid Review Under Transparent Environment" policy, also known as B.R.U.T.E.
"Non-adherence to the Board of Supervisor's own directives in this situation led competitors to negotiate amongst themselves rather than in the open environment as outlined in B.R.U.T.E.," the grand jury report states.
The grand jury also criticized the lack of outside auditing of a trust account used to pay for services such as outside investigators. The grand jury said annual audits are required but found only five in the past nine years.
Supervisor John Tavaglione, who proposed splitting the contracts, said the bid process was flawed and face-to-face interviews should have been done.
"While we always appreciate the input and review of the grand jury, that doesn't mean they're always right in their assessments or conclusions," Tavaglione said by email Sunday. "In this case, I believe they are wrong."
Supervisor Jeff Stone, who first proposed the transparency policy, said Friday he'll push to add more teeth to the rules as a result of the grand jury report.
"Everybody was held to the same standard," Stone said. "We really watered down the B.R.U.T.E. process."
Supervisors will have 60 days to approve a formal response to the grand jury.
"At this point, we will assess the findings and recommendations and report back to the board and grand jury within the time required by law," county spokesman Ray Smith said.
Reach Duane W. Gang at 951-368-9547 or dgang@PE.com
Monday, April 25, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Pot wars: Private land new frontier in California
Robert Townsend, California Watch
Sunday, April 24, 2011
A little-spoken-of war is taking place behind California's fences and property lines: Trespassing marijuana growers are setting booby traps, resorting to violence and vandalism, and spoiling the land by stealing water and spraying dangerous chemicals that leach into streams.
As the federal government focuses on stopping illegal marijuana crops in public parklands and U.S. forests, sheriff's and state drug enforcement officials face the persistent and potentially dangerous problem of pot growers commandeering private land for their crops.
While some land owners fear violence, others face environmental havoc.
Last year, the Mendocino County grand jury found that trespassing growers had clear-cut trees and destroyed vegetation, diverted streams and littered the landscape with animal carcasses, garbage, human waste, herbicides and animal poisons.
The report found toxic compounds used as fertilizer and pesticides were being mixed in dammed streambeds, and "toxins have devastated bird and aquatic life and pose a threat to human habitat."
Anyone who wants physical proof of the potential for violence can visit Lake County Supervisor Rob Brown's office at the courthouse in Lakeport, where Brown keeps a souvenir booby trap on display that he removed from his property. It looks like a giant wooden flyswatter with about 20 to 30 punji sticks - sharpened sticks frequently encountered during the Vietnam War - pressed through it.
Brown found the trap attached to a heavy block and trip wire. It was designed to swing out, the weight of the block adding momentum and force, so that the sharpened sticks would strike the victim's face.
In July 2008, Brown discovered about 1,000 young marijuana plants on his 300-acre property where he grazed a herd of about 80 bison.
Two days after he'd called the sheriff's department about the find, a narcotics team, along with members from the state's Campaign Against Marijuana Planting, assisted in the cleanup. While flying over Brown's property in a helicopter, they discovered many more marijuana gardens planted throughout the area.
7,500 plants on land
Nearly one-third of Brown's land was covered with the crop. The teams eradicated nearly 5,000 plants that day. A couple of days later, Brown discovered 2,500 more. Brown, who also works as a bail bondsman, acted on his instinct to go after whoever planted the illegal crop.
"I actually sat at that grow for three days, off and on, waiting for whoever it was that was going to tend them to come back, so I could catch them," Brown said. "I had my rifle, so I wasn't alone."
After the eradication of the gardens, someone cut the border fences, which allowed some of Brown's bison to escape the property. In two separate incidents, a passing vehicle struck a bison that had wandered out of an opening in the fence and onto the road. As the owner of the bison, Brown was liable for damages to the vehicles involved in the accidents.
"I had to buy two new cars," said Brown, who suspects the vandalism was retribution from the growers for destroying their crop, estimated to be worth $15 million - a conservative number assuming that each plant would yield about one pound of usable drug at an average rate of $2,000 per pound.
Brown has since opened his land to law enforcement for the purposes of training field agents. The officers and deputies come during growing season and use the land to practice tracking techniques and eradication methods. Brown hasn't found evidence of trespassers since he allowed the training operations on his property.
According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, more than 10.3 million marijuana plants were eradicated or seized in the United States in 2008 under the agency's Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program. More than 7.5 million plants were seized in California that year.
Lake, Tulare, Shasta, Los Angeles and Mendocino counties were the highest-producing areas of outdoor marijuana cultivation in California in 2009, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. The five counties account for 35 percent of outdoor eradications in the state, officials say.
Despite the eradication efforts, some county law enforcement officials complain that budget cuts are hampering their efforts, just as the illegal grows are burgeoning.
Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman estimates that 30 percent of his department's resources and staffing are dedicated to marijuana issues during the growing months. He said the department would usually only pursue gardens that have 100 plants or more, unless there is a public safety or environmental concern.
Some landowners have attempted to remove the marijuana gardens themselves, an action that is discouraged by law enforcement.
Sonoma County case
Santa Rosa resident and retired teacher Carol Vellutini was tending her 300-acre property in Sonoma County when she noticed an unusual trail leading up the hill. Vellutini, knowing the reputation of the area, was certain of what she would find there.
She and a friend hiked for nearly an hour until they stumbled upon drip lines. Following the lines, they found a grow site. There was a nursery, with many marijuana seedlings growing out of starter cups, and a large adult crop with plants more than 6 feet tall.
Furious, she began yanking the plants. She collected garbage, pesticides and fertilizer that she found at the scene, and plans to bring what she found to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors to show them.
Vellutini said she has had mixed results with Sonoma County law enforcement. Since she discovered the garden in 2005, sheriff's deputies and Department of Justice agents do annual flyovers and attempt to seize any plants they see.
'I've had it,' landowner says
But Vellutini said she has had no help in permanently removing the growers from her property or removing the garbage and contaminants left behind.
"They fly over every year and pull the plants when they see them," she said. "But they never go in to find the growers, arrest them, make them leave, or prevent them from coming back. Every year they come back, and you have the same trash and pollution and damage. I've had it."
Patrick Foy, a warden with the state Department of Fish and Game, said the agency is concerned about poaching, pollution and habitat destruction. The growers will kill any animals they see, either as food or to prevent them from damaging the crop.
Because water is the No. 1 factor for growers when choosing their sites, chemicals used on illegal grow sites end up in creeks and rivers, Foy said. Habitat destruction is apparent as soon as you walk onto one of the grow sites, he said.
Trees cut away
Trees and brush get cut away to make room for the crop. Foy said poachers often flatten a large section of land, tossing the trees, branches and vegetation on the ground to create a makeshift wall to conceal the grow site.
Roundup and other herbicides are used to kill competing flora. Water diversion denies areas of vital fluids, destroying fish and wildlife habitats. The areas around grow sites become dead zones.
The unregulated marijuana crop is sold to consumers with all the grow-site chemicals included. Landowner Vellutini said she doesn't smoke marijuana but is concerned about the health of people who do.
"They don't know what they're smoking," Vellutini said. "I've seen the stuff that's going on them. That stuff is sprayed with so many herbicides and pesticides. It's awful. And I don't know what effect that's having on a person, but it's got to be something. It's toxic pot."
California Watch, the state's largest investigative reporting team, is part of the independent, nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting. Visit www.californiawatch.org.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/24/MNO41J376E.DTL
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday, April 24, 2011
A little-spoken-of war is taking place behind California's fences and property lines: Trespassing marijuana growers are setting booby traps, resorting to violence and vandalism, and spoiling the land by stealing water and spraying dangerous chemicals that leach into streams.
As the federal government focuses on stopping illegal marijuana crops in public parklands and U.S. forests, sheriff's and state drug enforcement officials face the persistent and potentially dangerous problem of pot growers commandeering private land for their crops.
While some land owners fear violence, others face environmental havoc.
Last year, the Mendocino County grand jury found that trespassing growers had clear-cut trees and destroyed vegetation, diverted streams and littered the landscape with animal carcasses, garbage, human waste, herbicides and animal poisons.
The report found toxic compounds used as fertilizer and pesticides were being mixed in dammed streambeds, and "toxins have devastated bird and aquatic life and pose a threat to human habitat."
Anyone who wants physical proof of the potential for violence can visit Lake County Supervisor Rob Brown's office at the courthouse in Lakeport, where Brown keeps a souvenir booby trap on display that he removed from his property. It looks like a giant wooden flyswatter with about 20 to 30 punji sticks - sharpened sticks frequently encountered during the Vietnam War - pressed through it.
Brown found the trap attached to a heavy block and trip wire. It was designed to swing out, the weight of the block adding momentum and force, so that the sharpened sticks would strike the victim's face.
In July 2008, Brown discovered about 1,000 young marijuana plants on his 300-acre property where he grazed a herd of about 80 bison.
Two days after he'd called the sheriff's department about the find, a narcotics team, along with members from the state's Campaign Against Marijuana Planting, assisted in the cleanup. While flying over Brown's property in a helicopter, they discovered many more marijuana gardens planted throughout the area.
7,500 plants on land
Nearly one-third of Brown's land was covered with the crop. The teams eradicated nearly 5,000 plants that day. A couple of days later, Brown discovered 2,500 more. Brown, who also works as a bail bondsman, acted on his instinct to go after whoever planted the illegal crop.
"I actually sat at that grow for three days, off and on, waiting for whoever it was that was going to tend them to come back, so I could catch them," Brown said. "I had my rifle, so I wasn't alone."
After the eradication of the gardens, someone cut the border fences, which allowed some of Brown's bison to escape the property. In two separate incidents, a passing vehicle struck a bison that had wandered out of an opening in the fence and onto the road. As the owner of the bison, Brown was liable for damages to the vehicles involved in the accidents.
"I had to buy two new cars," said Brown, who suspects the vandalism was retribution from the growers for destroying their crop, estimated to be worth $15 million - a conservative number assuming that each plant would yield about one pound of usable drug at an average rate of $2,000 per pound.
Brown has since opened his land to law enforcement for the purposes of training field agents. The officers and deputies come during growing season and use the land to practice tracking techniques and eradication methods. Brown hasn't found evidence of trespassers since he allowed the training operations on his property.
According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, more than 10.3 million marijuana plants were eradicated or seized in the United States in 2008 under the agency's Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program. More than 7.5 million plants were seized in California that year.
Lake, Tulare, Shasta, Los Angeles and Mendocino counties were the highest-producing areas of outdoor marijuana cultivation in California in 2009, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. The five counties account for 35 percent of outdoor eradications in the state, officials say.
Despite the eradication efforts, some county law enforcement officials complain that budget cuts are hampering their efforts, just as the illegal grows are burgeoning.
Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman estimates that 30 percent of his department's resources and staffing are dedicated to marijuana issues during the growing months. He said the department would usually only pursue gardens that have 100 plants or more, unless there is a public safety or environmental concern.
Some landowners have attempted to remove the marijuana gardens themselves, an action that is discouraged by law enforcement.
Sonoma County case
Santa Rosa resident and retired teacher Carol Vellutini was tending her 300-acre property in Sonoma County when she noticed an unusual trail leading up the hill. Vellutini, knowing the reputation of the area, was certain of what she would find there.
She and a friend hiked for nearly an hour until they stumbled upon drip lines. Following the lines, they found a grow site. There was a nursery, with many marijuana seedlings growing out of starter cups, and a large adult crop with plants more than 6 feet tall.
Furious, she began yanking the plants. She collected garbage, pesticides and fertilizer that she found at the scene, and plans to bring what she found to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors to show them.
Vellutini said she has had mixed results with Sonoma County law enforcement. Since she discovered the garden in 2005, sheriff's deputies and Department of Justice agents do annual flyovers and attempt to seize any plants they see.
'I've had it,' landowner says
But Vellutini said she has had no help in permanently removing the growers from her property or removing the garbage and contaminants left behind.
"They fly over every year and pull the plants when they see them," she said. "But they never go in to find the growers, arrest them, make them leave, or prevent them from coming back. Every year they come back, and you have the same trash and pollution and damage. I've had it."
Patrick Foy, a warden with the state Department of Fish and Game, said the agency is concerned about poaching, pollution and habitat destruction. The growers will kill any animals they see, either as food or to prevent them from damaging the crop.
Because water is the No. 1 factor for growers when choosing their sites, chemicals used on illegal grow sites end up in creeks and rivers, Foy said. Habitat destruction is apparent as soon as you walk onto one of the grow sites, he said.
Trees cut away
Trees and brush get cut away to make room for the crop. Foy said poachers often flatten a large section of land, tossing the trees, branches and vegetation on the ground to create a makeshift wall to conceal the grow site.
Roundup and other herbicides are used to kill competing flora. Water diversion denies areas of vital fluids, destroying fish and wildlife habitats. The areas around grow sites become dead zones.
The unregulated marijuana crop is sold to consumers with all the grow-site chemicals included. Landowner Vellutini said she doesn't smoke marijuana but is concerned about the health of people who do.
"They don't know what they're smoking," Vellutini said. "I've seen the stuff that's going on them. That stuff is sprayed with so many herbicides and pesticides. It's awful. And I don't know what effect that's having on a person, but it's got to be something. It's toxic pot."
California Watch, the state's largest investigative reporting team, is part of the independent, nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting. Visit www.californiawatch.org.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/24/MNO41J376E.DTL
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Solano grand jury airs food stamp concerns
Report details potential problems
By Richard Bammer / The Reporter
Posted: 04/23/2011 01:09:54 AM PDT
Updated: 04/23/2011 07:10:07 AM PDT
For the Solano County grand jury, it is something like a small perfect storm at the county Department of Health and Social Services, where, among other benefits, food stamp are doled out.
In a report released Friday, grand jury members noted that a 33 percent increase in the number of people getting food stamps between 2008 and 2010 comes at a time when HSS staffing and management levels have been reduced due to budget cutbacks.
Thus, the increase and "severe" budget cuts, the report noted, "translates into reduced personnel with heavier workloads and less time available" to make sure those applying for the benefits are actually eligible.
While application and verification rules have remained the same over the years, there appears "to be a greater opportunity for a noneligible person to receive ongoing benefits," the report's authors wrote in their summary.
In a second finding, grand jury members noted that income re-verification is done every three months, but state officials are considering a twice-yearly re-verification instead.
The grand jury urged county leaders to tell state officials about "the potential financial risk involved, whether intentional or unintentional, with changing the income re-verification process to six months."
Two attachments to the report indicate sharp rises in the number of county residents seeking food stamp benefits, a sort of commentary on the legacy of the Great Recession.
In the first, county HSS noted 26,275 people in its food stamps data base in 2008. By 2010, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the number had risen to 34,869, a 33 percent increase, and rise from 6 percent to 8 percent, respectively, of the total number of county residents who receive the benefit.
The second attachment indicated that 12,000 people received food stamps in 2003, compared to nearly 35,000 last year, "a three-fold increase" in recipients, the report's authors pointed out.
Those numbers, accompanied by budget cuts, mean heavier workloads for food stamp processors and less time available for each interview, they said.
"These limitations increase the risk of incorrect issuances of the food stamp program," the report's authors wrote.
County HSS offers a wide variety of temporary services to the needy. They include, besides food stamps, Medi-Cal, general assistance, CalWORKS and welfare-to-work.
The full report is available online at www.solano.courts.ca.gov/GrandJury/GrandJuryReports20102011.html.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_17914246?nclick_check=1
By Richard Bammer / The Reporter
Posted: 04/23/2011 01:09:54 AM PDT
Updated: 04/23/2011 07:10:07 AM PDT
For the Solano County grand jury, it is something like a small perfect storm at the county Department of Health and Social Services, where, among other benefits, food stamp are doled out.
In a report released Friday, grand jury members noted that a 33 percent increase in the number of people getting food stamps between 2008 and 2010 comes at a time when HSS staffing and management levels have been reduced due to budget cutbacks.
Thus, the increase and "severe" budget cuts, the report noted, "translates into reduced personnel with heavier workloads and less time available" to make sure those applying for the benefits are actually eligible.
While application and verification rules have remained the same over the years, there appears "to be a greater opportunity for a noneligible person to receive ongoing benefits," the report's authors wrote in their summary.
In a second finding, grand jury members noted that income re-verification is done every three months, but state officials are considering a twice-yearly re-verification instead.
The grand jury urged county leaders to tell state officials about "the potential financial risk involved, whether intentional or unintentional, with changing the income re-verification process to six months."
Two attachments to the report indicate sharp rises in the number of county residents seeking food stamp benefits, a sort of commentary on the legacy of the Great Recession.
In the first, county HSS noted 26,275 people in its food stamps data base in 2008. By 2010, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the number had risen to 34,869, a 33 percent increase, and rise from 6 percent to 8 percent, respectively, of the total number of county residents who receive the benefit.
The second attachment indicated that 12,000 people received food stamps in 2003, compared to nearly 35,000 last year, "a three-fold increase" in recipients, the report's authors pointed out.
Those numbers, accompanied by budget cuts, mean heavier workloads for food stamp processors and less time available for each interview, they said.
"These limitations increase the risk of incorrect issuances of the food stamp program," the report's authors wrote.
County HSS offers a wide variety of temporary services to the needy. They include, besides food stamps, Medi-Cal, general assistance, CalWORKS and welfare-to-work.
The full report is available online at www.solano.courts.ca.gov/GrandJury/GrandJuryReports20102011.html.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_17914246?nclick_check=1
Friday, April 22, 2011
Grand jury: San Diego caregiver program flawed
The Associated Press
Posted: 04/20/2011 08:48:29 AM PDT
SAN DIEGO—A grand jury report says the San Diego County system that provides caregivers for the elderly and disabled is inefficient and open to fraud and abuse.
The county grand jury report released Tuesday says the program known as in-home supportive services lacks oversight. It says the grand jury learned of many incidents where people receiving care were physically or emotionally abused or financially ruined.
The report notes that many of the 22,000 caregivers in the government-mandated program actually are friends or relatives of the 25,000 people receiving care. And family members aren't required to receive county training.
Ellen Schmeding of the county's Aging and Independence Services tells the North County Times that the report provides an opportunity to improve the caregiver program.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17891267?nclick_check=1
Posted: 04/20/2011 08:48:29 AM PDT
SAN DIEGO—A grand jury report says the San Diego County system that provides caregivers for the elderly and disabled is inefficient and open to fraud and abuse.
The county grand jury report released Tuesday says the program known as in-home supportive services lacks oversight. It says the grand jury learned of many incidents where people receiving care were physically or emotionally abused or financially ruined.
The report notes that many of the 22,000 caregivers in the government-mandated program actually are friends or relatives of the 25,000 people receiving care. And family members aren't required to receive county training.
Ellen Schmeding of the county's Aging and Independence Services tells the North County Times that the report provides an opportunity to improve the caregiver program.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17891267?nclick_check=1
Editorial: Protect Grand Jury System
Posted at 12:09 AM on Sunday, Apr. 10, 2011
It was with dismay that I read the April 7 Fresno Bee editorial on proposed legislation to change the civil grand jury system.
Often referred to as the people's "watchdog" over government affairs, the grand jury, composed of 19 citizen volunteers, is the constitutionally mandated body charged with the responsibility of investigating and monitoring local government operations to make them more transparent, efficient and effective.
As a member of the 2003-2004 Fresno County grand jury, I agree with the editorial that eliminating the element of confidentiality can only hamper the effectiveness of grand juries.
It is confidentiality that allows for the candid exchange between grand juries and those that testify before them, and it accords those that appear before grand juries a reassuring layer of protection. Loss of confidentiality would result in fact gathering that is inhibited, sanitized, and worst, incomplete.
Grand juries already function under safeguards. There is a policy and procedures manual. All reports clear three layers of review: the issuing committee, the editing committee, and the whole grand jury. Grand juries operate under the supervision of the presiding judge.
AB 622 will not enhance the grand jury system; it will diminish it.
Robert Gutierrez
Selma
Read more: http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/04/10/2342874/protect-grand-jury-system.html#ixzz1KGV90GWa
It was with dismay that I read the April 7 Fresno Bee editorial on proposed legislation to change the civil grand jury system.
Often referred to as the people's "watchdog" over government affairs, the grand jury, composed of 19 citizen volunteers, is the constitutionally mandated body charged with the responsibility of investigating and monitoring local government operations to make them more transparent, efficient and effective.
As a member of the 2003-2004 Fresno County grand jury, I agree with the editorial that eliminating the element of confidentiality can only hamper the effectiveness of grand juries.
It is confidentiality that allows for the candid exchange between grand juries and those that testify before them, and it accords those that appear before grand juries a reassuring layer of protection. Loss of confidentiality would result in fact gathering that is inhibited, sanitized, and worst, incomplete.
Grand juries already function under safeguards. There is a policy and procedures manual. All reports clear three layers of review: the issuing committee, the editing committee, and the whole grand jury. Grand juries operate under the supervision of the presiding judge.
AB 622 will not enhance the grand jury system; it will diminish it.
Robert Gutierrez
Selma
Read more: http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/04/10/2342874/protect-grand-jury-system.html#ixzz1KGV90GWa
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
San Diego Grand Jury Critical of County's In-Home Program Lessen Need for Nursing Home Care
SAN DIEGO - San Diego County residents are paying a high price for a state and federally mandated in-home service program that is inefficient and an easy target for abuse and fraud, according to a county grand jury report released Tuesday.
The purposed of the In-Home Supportive Services program is to provide non-medical services -- domestic and personal care services -- to low-income, blind and disabled people so they can remain safely in their homes rather than being placed in a nursing home or similar facility.
According to the grand jury, the program is a good idea in principle, but riddled with flaws in its implementation.
The grand jury said that among the program's problems, county officials are prohibited from making unannounced home visits to check on a participant's continuing need for services or validating that the hours on a caregiver's time card were actually worked.
Other problems include the fact that it is legal for a convicted felon to serve as a caregiver in the program, and only about 20 percent of those receiving IHSS benefits are actually considered severely impaired and unable to care for themselves, according to the grand jury report.
According to the grand jury, efforts to reform the program have been met with little success.
Last year, San Diego County contributed about $53 million of the $300 million total price tag for local residents, with the remainder coming from state and federal coffers.
The cost of the program in California last year was $5.5 billion, and growing at an unsustainable rate, according to the grand jury.
http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/story/Grand-Jury-Critical-of-Countys-In-Home-Program/TijjA0AhmU2PG-_zghJzrA.cspx
The purposed of the In-Home Supportive Services program is to provide non-medical services -- domestic and personal care services -- to low-income, blind and disabled people so they can remain safely in their homes rather than being placed in a nursing home or similar facility.
According to the grand jury, the program is a good idea in principle, but riddled with flaws in its implementation.
The grand jury said that among the program's problems, county officials are prohibited from making unannounced home visits to check on a participant's continuing need for services or validating that the hours on a caregiver's time card were actually worked.
Other problems include the fact that it is legal for a convicted felon to serve as a caregiver in the program, and only about 20 percent of those receiving IHSS benefits are actually considered severely impaired and unable to care for themselves, according to the grand jury report.
According to the grand jury, efforts to reform the program have been met with little success.
Last year, San Diego County contributed about $53 million of the $300 million total price tag for local residents, with the remainder coming from state and federal coffers.
The cost of the program in California last year was $5.5 billion, and growing at an unsustainable rate, according to the grand jury.
http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/story/Grand-Jury-Critical-of-Countys-In-Home-Program/TijjA0AhmU2PG-_zghJzrA.cspx
Monday, April 18, 2011
Mendocino County GJ: Animal Control officers needed on the weekends
Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 04/17/2011 07:49:49 PM PDT
Services for abandoned or abused animals in the county have diminished, but the Mendocino Grand Jury recently found that county personnel are performing admirably with limited resources.
"The Grand Jury, after reviewing the new structures for Animal Care Services (ACS) and Animal Control (AC), finds that the services provided to citizens and the animals have diminished," the report titled "Won't you please adopt one of us?" and released April 15 states. "(But) the GJ believes the AC and ACS are doing the very best they can with such limited resources, both monetary and staffing."
According to the GJ, AC and ACS became separate entities in February of 2009 "in an effort to provide better field enforcement service to the public."
AC is a division of the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office, and ACS is a division of the Mendocino County Public Health and Human Resources Agency.
The ACS facility is located on Plant Road in Ukiah and is the only county-run animal shelter since the Fort Bragg animal shelter closed on July 31, 2010.
The shelter is responsible for housing "stray, abused and unwanted animals" in the county, and its public hours of operation are limited due to budget constraints.
At the time that the GJ visited the shelter, "it housed 132 cats and 61 dogs (and) was found to be neat and clean."
The shelter also utilizes a CARE-A-VAN, which the GJ describes as a "state-of-the-art" surgery on wheels' that can spay and/or neuter up to 25 pets a days."
Currently, the van travels to remote areas of the county such as Covelo, Laytonville and Point Arena twice a month to provide services.
The van also occasionally provides free services to homeless individuals with animals.
Animal Control operates under the MCSO, which dispatches all calls for service. Priority is given to calls for loose vicious dogs, livestock or dogs on the highway, dogs in livestock or a risk of rabies exposure.
The lowest priority is given to calls about barking dogs or loose dogs not in the highway or around livestock.
Two AC officers work full-time, Monday through Friday, one in Willits and one in Ukiah. Weekend duties are handled by the MCSO.
While the GJ found that both entities are "doing the very best they can with such limited resources," it did recommend that AC adjust its schedule to "provide weekend coverage," and that ACS expands its CARE-A-VAN services to visit outlying areas "more than twice a month."
Read the report online at www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_17869454
Updated: 04/17/2011 07:49:49 PM PDT
Services for abandoned or abused animals in the county have diminished, but the Mendocino Grand Jury recently found that county personnel are performing admirably with limited resources.
"The Grand Jury, after reviewing the new structures for Animal Care Services (ACS) and Animal Control (AC), finds that the services provided to citizens and the animals have diminished," the report titled "Won't you please adopt one of us?" and released April 15 states. "(But) the GJ believes the AC and ACS are doing the very best they can with such limited resources, both monetary and staffing."
According to the GJ, AC and ACS became separate entities in February of 2009 "in an effort to provide better field enforcement service to the public."
AC is a division of the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office, and ACS is a division of the Mendocino County Public Health and Human Resources Agency.
The ACS facility is located on Plant Road in Ukiah and is the only county-run animal shelter since the Fort Bragg animal shelter closed on July 31, 2010.
The shelter is responsible for housing "stray, abused and unwanted animals" in the county, and its public hours of operation are limited due to budget constraints.
At the time that the GJ visited the shelter, "it housed 132 cats and 61 dogs (and) was found to be neat and clean."
The shelter also utilizes a CARE-A-VAN, which the GJ describes as a "state-of-the-art" surgery on wheels' that can spay and/or neuter up to 25 pets a days."
Currently, the van travels to remote areas of the county such as Covelo, Laytonville and Point Arena twice a month to provide services.
The van also occasionally provides free services to homeless individuals with animals.
Animal Control operates under the MCSO, which dispatches all calls for service. Priority is given to calls for loose vicious dogs, livestock or dogs on the highway, dogs in livestock or a risk of rabies exposure.
The lowest priority is given to calls about barking dogs or loose dogs not in the highway or around livestock.
Two AC officers work full-time, Monday through Friday, one in Willits and one in Ukiah. Weekend duties are handled by the MCSO.
While the GJ found that both entities are "doing the very best they can with such limited resources," it did recommend that AC adjust its schedule to "provide weekend coverage," and that ACS expands its CARE-A-VAN services to visit outlying areas "more than twice a month."
Read the report online at www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_17869454
Mendocino County GJ report expresses concern over ricochet bullets at Gun Club
Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 04/17/2011 12:20:53 AM PDT
Recommends city, county determine who has jurisdiction over the facility
The Ukiah Gun Club (UGC) needs closer supervision and more safety provisions to prevent dangers such as ricocheting bullets, the Mendocino County Grand Jury reported Friday.
According to the report titled: "Ricochet Bullets -- No Problem!" the GJ investigated the Ukiah Rifle and Pistol Club on Vichy Springs Road to determine if there was any "possible danger to the public or liability to public agencies."
The GJ found that metal targets and metal-framed targets are used at the UGC, which leases nearly 97 acres on property that is owned by the city of Ukiah, but which is outside the city limits in Mendocino County.
The GJ describes the UGC as a "private, non-profit organization" that was "grandfathered in" as a non-comforming use in 1982. It has 80 members and is used by law enforcement agencies, including the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office, for training.
The GJ notes that it was denied access to UGC facilities to conduct its investigation.
The GJ report states that "ricochets have been reported and a gunshot wound from a richochet bullet has been reported in the press," and that "a UGC internal newsletter verified that a richochet problem exists."
According to the GJ, the UGC's October 2010 newsletter "addressed the construction of a new pistol range, a second pistol range and re-terracing the shotgun range," and that all three "would be violations of the
Advertisement
lease" the UGC currently has with the city.
The GJ claims that both the county and city "disclaim responsibility as to who has planning/zoning jurisdiction over the property," and both entities "are content with the status quo unless there is a nuisance complaint.
"That is not acceptable since there are real safety issues," the report continues. "There is also concern about the county's failure to regulate this gun range, which potentially creates a liability for the county."
The GJ reports that outdoor gun ranges in other areas have been shut down "because of liability concerns including stray bullets and ricochets."
The GJ recommends that "the city and county resolve the disagreement over planning/zoning jurisdiction," and that the city "designate a department to oversee and enforce provisions of the lease."
The report also recommends that the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors enact ordinances "barring the use of metal targets and metal-framed targets, requiring (the use) of hay bales or sand berms behind targets to alleviate possibility of ricochets, and requiring use of bullets other than metal-jacketed rounds for target practice."
The GJ also recommends that the city or county planning commissions "ensure all buildings modified or built after 1982 be inspected for compliance," and that other issues that may be substantial such as "lead contamination, air quality, traffic and others" were not addressed in this report.
Read the report online at www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_17867183
Updated: 04/17/2011 12:20:53 AM PDT
Recommends city, county determine who has jurisdiction over the facility
The Ukiah Gun Club (UGC) needs closer supervision and more safety provisions to prevent dangers such as ricocheting bullets, the Mendocino County Grand Jury reported Friday.
According to the report titled: "Ricochet Bullets -- No Problem!" the GJ investigated the Ukiah Rifle and Pistol Club on Vichy Springs Road to determine if there was any "possible danger to the public or liability to public agencies."
The GJ found that metal targets and metal-framed targets are used at the UGC, which leases nearly 97 acres on property that is owned by the city of Ukiah, but which is outside the city limits in Mendocino County.
The GJ describes the UGC as a "private, non-profit organization" that was "grandfathered in" as a non-comforming use in 1982. It has 80 members and is used by law enforcement agencies, including the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office, for training.
The GJ notes that it was denied access to UGC facilities to conduct its investigation.
The GJ report states that "ricochets have been reported and a gunshot wound from a richochet bullet has been reported in the press," and that "a UGC internal newsletter verified that a richochet problem exists."
According to the GJ, the UGC's October 2010 newsletter "addressed the construction of a new pistol range, a second pistol range and re-terracing the shotgun range," and that all three "would be violations of the
Advertisement
lease" the UGC currently has with the city.
The GJ claims that both the county and city "disclaim responsibility as to who has planning/zoning jurisdiction over the property," and both entities "are content with the status quo unless there is a nuisance complaint.
"That is not acceptable since there are real safety issues," the report continues. "There is also concern about the county's failure to regulate this gun range, which potentially creates a liability for the county."
The GJ reports that outdoor gun ranges in other areas have been shut down "because of liability concerns including stray bullets and ricochets."
The GJ recommends that "the city and county resolve the disagreement over planning/zoning jurisdiction," and that the city "designate a department to oversee and enforce provisions of the lease."
The report also recommends that the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors enact ordinances "barring the use of metal targets and metal-framed targets, requiring (the use) of hay bales or sand berms behind targets to alleviate possibility of ricochets, and requiring use of bullets other than metal-jacketed rounds for target practice."
The GJ also recommends that the city or county planning commissions "ensure all buildings modified or built after 1982 be inspected for compliance," and that other issues that may be substantial such as "lead contamination, air quality, traffic and others" were not addressed in this report.
Read the report online at www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_17867183
Editorial: Contracting fiasco can't be repeated by Sacramento county
Published: Sunday, Apr. 17, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 6E
With some common-sense safeguards, Sacramento County could have avoided having egg on its face and being on the hook for millions in back taxes.
That's the gist of a new Sacramento County grand jury report that confirms articles by The Bee's Robert Lewis on the shocking lack of oversight of a payroll services contract with a company whose top officials are now confessed criminals.
For taxpayers' sake, it is essential that the lessons of this fiasco be learned well, not just in Sacramento but across California, as cash-strapped local governments increasingly trust outside contractors to do important work.
Interim County Executive Steve Szalay says the grand jury's findings and recommendations are "reasonable" and will be used as a guide going forward. "I'm pushing hard for reform," he said in a telephone interview.
This cautionary tale began in 2004, when in a bid to save money, Sacramento County decided to outsource payroll processing for parks and other special districts.
There was a major flaw from the very start, says the grand jury report, released Friday. The county used its typical contracting procedures, though this was a far more complicated and potentially costly item. "Safeguards were available that might have reduced the county's risk, but they were not recognized and put in place," the report's cover letter states.
For instance, the county did not perform credit and lawsuit checks on bidders, or require adequate insurance.
No one, the grand jury says, "identified a fundamental problem, the potential theft of money entrusted to the contractor," or asked, "What is the worst thing that can go wrong?"
The county chose Ingentra HR Services, a small New York firm, over a much larger company with a national reputation. It renewed the contract four times, and the final extension was for longer than should have been allowed without county supervisors' approval, the grand jury found.
Each time, county officials failed to do audits or check for lawsuits or even do quick Internet searches that likely would have raised red flags.
During the entire contract, the county neglected to follow up with the Internal Revenue Service or California tax authorities to make sure that Ingentra actually made the payments. The county didn't know anything was amiss until last May, when the IRS said that it was missing millions of dollars of payroll taxes from the special districts.
There was one sliver of good news for the county in the grand jury report. While it found an appalling lack of curiosity, it found no criminal activity by county employees. Szalay said he was "very pleased" by that, as well he should be.
Still, the other shoe is yet to drop. The county is still waiting to hear from the IRS how much of the remaining $17 million in taxes owed it will have to cough up. Szalay says the county is hoping to spread payments over several years.
Restoring public confidence and trust could take even longer.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/17/3556863/contracting-fiasco-cant-be-repeated.html#ixzz1JsnaTqJe
With some common-sense safeguards, Sacramento County could have avoided having egg on its face and being on the hook for millions in back taxes.
That's the gist of a new Sacramento County grand jury report that confirms articles by The Bee's Robert Lewis on the shocking lack of oversight of a payroll services contract with a company whose top officials are now confessed criminals.
For taxpayers' sake, it is essential that the lessons of this fiasco be learned well, not just in Sacramento but across California, as cash-strapped local governments increasingly trust outside contractors to do important work.
Interim County Executive Steve Szalay says the grand jury's findings and recommendations are "reasonable" and will be used as a guide going forward. "I'm pushing hard for reform," he said in a telephone interview.
This cautionary tale began in 2004, when in a bid to save money, Sacramento County decided to outsource payroll processing for parks and other special districts.
There was a major flaw from the very start, says the grand jury report, released Friday. The county used its typical contracting procedures, though this was a far more complicated and potentially costly item. "Safeguards were available that might have reduced the county's risk, but they were not recognized and put in place," the report's cover letter states.
For instance, the county did not perform credit and lawsuit checks on bidders, or require adequate insurance.
No one, the grand jury says, "identified a fundamental problem, the potential theft of money entrusted to the contractor," or asked, "What is the worst thing that can go wrong?"
The county chose Ingentra HR Services, a small New York firm, over a much larger company with a national reputation. It renewed the contract four times, and the final extension was for longer than should have been allowed without county supervisors' approval, the grand jury found.
Each time, county officials failed to do audits or check for lawsuits or even do quick Internet searches that likely would have raised red flags.
During the entire contract, the county neglected to follow up with the Internal Revenue Service or California tax authorities to make sure that Ingentra actually made the payments. The county didn't know anything was amiss until last May, when the IRS said that it was missing millions of dollars of payroll taxes from the special districts.
There was one sliver of good news for the county in the grand jury report. While it found an appalling lack of curiosity, it found no criminal activity by county employees. Szalay said he was "very pleased" by that, as well he should be.
Still, the other shoe is yet to drop. The county is still waiting to hear from the IRS how much of the remaining $17 million in taxes owed it will have to cough up. Szalay says the county is hoping to spread payments over several years.
Restoring public confidence and trust could take even longer.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/17/3556863/contracting-fiasco-cant-be-repeated.html#ixzz1JsnaTqJe
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Medical Pot Farm Puts Isleton officials on Grand Jury Hot Seat -- Again
By Sam Stanton
sstanton@sacbee.com
Published: Friday, Apr. 15, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
When word comes in Isleton that officials are the subject of a grand jury probe, it hardly seems shocking.
Seven times since 1995, a grand jury has probed the tiny Delta town's fiscal woes, administrative weaknesses or its police department.
Make that eight.
A flurry of grand jury subpoenas were delivered to city officials at a council meeting Wednesday night, ordering them to appear April 27 for secret testimony before the Sacramento County grand jury.
District Attorney Jan Scully's office would not comment on the probe Thursday.
But, as is common for this town of just more than 800 residents, people are talking.
This latest investigation is aimed at an ambitious medical marijuana growing operation the city approved last September in exchange for promises of monthly payments of at least $25,000.
"There was plenty of concern, but it's a legal business and we treated it as such," said Councilman Robert Jankovitz, who supported the plan and, as a reward, received a subpoena.
"We tried to do everything right and aboveboard in the development agreement," he added. "They were required to do everything in a legal manner; otherwise, according to the agreement, we can shut them down."
The planned pot farm has hardly been a surreptitious effort. The first thing you see entering town from the north is the framework of six "hoop houses" that will be covered in plastic sheeting to create greenhouses.
The greenhouses sit in the middle of a failed housing development of four brightly colored model homes and 14 houses that fell victim to the housing collapse in 2007.
The marijuana operation, a nonprofit called Delta Allied Growers, is leasing the 50- acre parcel with plans to buy it and create a permanent – and legal – pot-growing center.
"There's no cash on premises, no sales happening on premises," said Dan Holland, the company design director who was overseeing construction at the site Thursday.
"The misperception is the weed is going to be flowing on the streets of Isleton, that you can get it and everybody's going to get high. Really, that's not us."
Holland says his company hopes to have plants growing at the site – under strict watch and behind secure fencing – within two to three weeks. Delta Allied has been paying Isleton, which is perpetually broke, $25,000 monthly since October, Holland said.
Once the growing operation begins to generate revenue, he said, Delta Allied will follow through on installing "military-grade" surveillance cameras for the site, as well as the entire town, allowing police to monitor the streets from an office or a squad car.
Isleton's current police force consists of its chief, Rick Sullivan, who also got a subpoena.
Holland said the grand jury probe may delay the nonprofit's progress, and people in town are speculating openly about what's behind the investigation.
Holland and some council members say rumors are rampant that a disgruntled citizen called Scully's office claiming the development deal was tainted by Delta Allied building new homes for someone in power.
Councilwoman Elizabeth Samano said she was handed a subpoena over rumors that investigators believe "that somebody was rubbing somebody's back."
City Manager Bruce Pope said the subpoenas were issued simply because "Jan Scully just got in the writing mood."
Pope said he and the city attorney met with Scully a month ago and offered their full cooperation, but "basically their whole attitude has been nasty."
"We're a city," Pope said. "Everything we do is public, with some small exceptions.
"Nobody built a house for anyone, no one's palms were greased. It may be that the DA doesn't understand land use planning law."
Holland also said the premise of under-the-table payments is nuts. "Nobody in the city's gotten kickbacks, nobody's gotten a car," he said.
City officials plan to meet tonight to discuss the matter, but it seemed to have caused barely a ripple on Main Street, where only a handful of shops and restaurants are hanging on.
"I hear different things from people that live here," said Maria Vasquez, who runs the Hair Loom salon and notes that the marijuana site is "obvious" to anyone driving by.
"Of course, the older people don't want any of that. They just want Isleton to stay the way it is.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/15/3554549/medical-pot-farm-puts-isleton.html#ixzz1JiwL6Nh7
sstanton@sacbee.com
Published: Friday, Apr. 15, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
When word comes in Isleton that officials are the subject of a grand jury probe, it hardly seems shocking.
Seven times since 1995, a grand jury has probed the tiny Delta town's fiscal woes, administrative weaknesses or its police department.
Make that eight.
A flurry of grand jury subpoenas were delivered to city officials at a council meeting Wednesday night, ordering them to appear April 27 for secret testimony before the Sacramento County grand jury.
District Attorney Jan Scully's office would not comment on the probe Thursday.
But, as is common for this town of just more than 800 residents, people are talking.
This latest investigation is aimed at an ambitious medical marijuana growing operation the city approved last September in exchange for promises of monthly payments of at least $25,000.
"There was plenty of concern, but it's a legal business and we treated it as such," said Councilman Robert Jankovitz, who supported the plan and, as a reward, received a subpoena.
"We tried to do everything right and aboveboard in the development agreement," he added. "They were required to do everything in a legal manner; otherwise, according to the agreement, we can shut them down."
The planned pot farm has hardly been a surreptitious effort. The first thing you see entering town from the north is the framework of six "hoop houses" that will be covered in plastic sheeting to create greenhouses.
The greenhouses sit in the middle of a failed housing development of four brightly colored model homes and 14 houses that fell victim to the housing collapse in 2007.
The marijuana operation, a nonprofit called Delta Allied Growers, is leasing the 50- acre parcel with plans to buy it and create a permanent – and legal – pot-growing center.
"There's no cash on premises, no sales happening on premises," said Dan Holland, the company design director who was overseeing construction at the site Thursday.
"The misperception is the weed is going to be flowing on the streets of Isleton, that you can get it and everybody's going to get high. Really, that's not us."
Holland says his company hopes to have plants growing at the site – under strict watch and behind secure fencing – within two to three weeks. Delta Allied has been paying Isleton, which is perpetually broke, $25,000 monthly since October, Holland said.
Once the growing operation begins to generate revenue, he said, Delta Allied will follow through on installing "military-grade" surveillance cameras for the site, as well as the entire town, allowing police to monitor the streets from an office or a squad car.
Isleton's current police force consists of its chief, Rick Sullivan, who also got a subpoena.
Holland said the grand jury probe may delay the nonprofit's progress, and people in town are speculating openly about what's behind the investigation.
Holland and some council members say rumors are rampant that a disgruntled citizen called Scully's office claiming the development deal was tainted by Delta Allied building new homes for someone in power.
Councilwoman Elizabeth Samano said she was handed a subpoena over rumors that investigators believe "that somebody was rubbing somebody's back."
City Manager Bruce Pope said the subpoenas were issued simply because "Jan Scully just got in the writing mood."
Pope said he and the city attorney met with Scully a month ago and offered their full cooperation, but "basically their whole attitude has been nasty."
"We're a city," Pope said. "Everything we do is public, with some small exceptions.
"Nobody built a house for anyone, no one's palms were greased. It may be that the DA doesn't understand land use planning law."
Holland also said the premise of under-the-table payments is nuts. "Nobody in the city's gotten kickbacks, nobody's gotten a car," he said.
City officials plan to meet tonight to discuss the matter, but it seemed to have caused barely a ripple on Main Street, where only a handful of shops and restaurants are hanging on.
"I hear different things from people that live here," said Maria Vasquez, who runs the Hair Loom salon and notes that the marijuana site is "obvious" to anyone driving by.
"Of course, the older people don't want any of that. They just want Isleton to stay the way it is.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/15/3554549/medical-pot-farm-puts-isleton.html#ixzz1JiwL6Nh7
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)