Megan Hansen/The Times-Standard
Posted: 05/20/2012 02:15:34 AM PDT
Grizzly Creek Redwoods State Park might be saved from closure if the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors votes Tuesday to enter into an operating agreement with the state.
The county's public works department has developed a plan to operate the park for a year, starting next week, in partnership with the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the Save the Redwoods League. The park comprises 459 acres of land along State Route 36 between Fortuna and Bridgeville.
According to a staff report, the Save the Redwoods League would provide the funding for the county to operate the park and its campground. The county already operates the Van Duzen County Park, which is adjacent to Grizzly Creek. The report states the goal is to make taking on the management of the state park a cost-neutral endeavor.
Public works is proposing the county charge a $25-a-day camping fee and a $5 day-use fee. It's estimated the cost of running the park will run about $95,000 for one year. Staff have estimated the park could generate about $55,000 to $65,000 in revenue. The Save the Redwoods League would bridge the gap.
In addition to discussing park management, the supervisors will review and possibly modify responses from county departments to the 2011-2012 grand jury report. The jury made recommendations in regard to water sampling techniques, building improvements to public safety departments and problems with the former community development services department. The various county departments have replied to these responses in written form, as mandated by the jury.
During the afternoon session, the supervisors will hold a continued public hearing on the proposed formation of the Humboldt County Tourism Business Improvement District.
In March, the supervisors passed a resolution declaring their intent to form such a district. The district would collect a 2 percent tax from hotel and lodging businesses. The tax would be charged to a customer's bill for each night spent in a local hotel, and the funds would be used to promote tourism in the county.
The activities of the proposed district would be conducted by the Humboldt Lodging Alliance -- a special interest group aimed at creating a unified voice for hoteliers, innkeepers and property managers.
In addition to conducting a public hearing, the supervisors will receive an update from the county administrative officer on the development of an ordinance aimed at outlining the proper uses of county property as it relates to protests and assemblies.
The board directed the CAO in January to work with the city of Eureka, law enforcement officials, members of the Occupy Movement, the Humboldt County Human Rights Commission and historical users of the courthouse in developing regulations.
For the complete board of supervisors meeting agenda and supporting documents, go online to www.co.humboldt.ca.us/board/agenda/questys/.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_20667047/supervisors-consider-operating-grizzly-creek-park-county-inspect
Monday, May 21, 2012
Sunday, May 20, 2012
(San Luis Obispo) Grand jury says water rate ideas snubbed - Current jurors examined the fate of past jury suggestions with mixed results
By Bob Cuddy - The Tribune
Public water providers throughout San Luis Obispo County largely rejected recommendations from a previous county civil grand jury regarding rate structures, billing and water conservation, the current grand jury said.
“The grand jury encountered total rejection of the idea that cities and districts, which base sewage fees on water usage, should inform users of that practice,” the current grand jury wrote.
“A recommendation that individual apartment water usage should also be metered was also rejected across the board,” it added in a chapter called “rate setting as a water conservation tool.”
In all, 17 of 31 recommendations on water usage were rejected out of hand and eight more are yet to be implemented.
Conversely, 16 of 24 recommendations made by the previous grand jury to improve restaurant inspections have been implemented, the current grand jury said.
The information was contained in an analysis by current grand jurors seeking to find out how much weight their institution carries with those it investigates as part of its efforts to improve local government.
The current grand jury released the analysis last week under a headline that said “Responding to the Grand Jury: Some Agencies Implement Recommendations Effectively, Others Obfuscate and Delay.”
The 2010-2011 grand jury issued 10 reports, which called for 83 responses to recommendations made by the previous grand jury to seven agencies.
Of the 83, 34 have been implemented and 16 have yet to be implemented.
Thirty-three were rejected by the agencies being scrutinized.
The county Environmental Health Agency made substantial changes to its food inspection system, following the recommendations of the previous grand jury. Those included revised inspection forms.
The grand jury said restaurants still need to post inspection notices in prominent places, and the county should make its inspection website more user friendly.
The grand jury also looked at recommendations made by the previous grand jury to the city of Atascadero regarding its police chief; emergency medical helicopters; the South County Sanitation District; e-called for 83 responses to recommendations made by the previous grand jury to seven agencies.
Of the 83, 34 have been implemented and 16 have yet to be implemented.
Thirty-three were rejected by the agencies being scrutinized.
The county Environmental Health Agency made substantial changes to its food inspection system, following the recommendations of the previous grand jury. Those included revised inspection forms.
The grand jury said restaurants still need to post inspection notices in prominent places, and the county should make its inspection website more user friendly.
The grand jury also looked at recommendations made by the previous grand jury to the city of Atascadero regarding its police chief; emergency medical helicopters; the South County Sanitation District; e-government at the county; and the Paso Robles Bearcats.
The report can be found on the county website.
Public water providers throughout San Luis Obispo County largely rejected recommendations from a previous county civil grand jury regarding rate structures, billing and water conservation, the current grand jury said.
“The grand jury encountered total rejection of the idea that cities and districts, which base sewage fees on water usage, should inform users of that practice,” the current grand jury wrote.
“A recommendation that individual apartment water usage should also be metered was also rejected across the board,” it added in a chapter called “rate setting as a water conservation tool.”
In all, 17 of 31 recommendations on water usage were rejected out of hand and eight more are yet to be implemented.
Conversely, 16 of 24 recommendations made by the previous grand jury to improve restaurant inspections have been implemented, the current grand jury said.
The information was contained in an analysis by current grand jurors seeking to find out how much weight their institution carries with those it investigates as part of its efforts to improve local government.
The current grand jury released the analysis last week under a headline that said “Responding to the Grand Jury: Some Agencies Implement Recommendations Effectively, Others Obfuscate and Delay.”
The 2010-2011 grand jury issued 10 reports, which called for 83 responses to recommendations made by the previous grand jury to seven agencies.
Of the 83, 34 have been implemented and 16 have yet to be implemented.
Thirty-three were rejected by the agencies being scrutinized.
The county Environmental Health Agency made substantial changes to its food inspection system, following the recommendations of the previous grand jury. Those included revised inspection forms.
The grand jury said restaurants still need to post inspection notices in prominent places, and the county should make its inspection website more user friendly.
The grand jury also looked at recommendations made by the previous grand jury to the city of Atascadero regarding its police chief; emergency medical helicopters; the South County Sanitation District; e-called for 83 responses to recommendations made by the previous grand jury to seven agencies.
Of the 83, 34 have been implemented and 16 have yet to be implemented.
Thirty-three were rejected by the agencies being scrutinized.
The county Environmental Health Agency made substantial changes to its food inspection system, following the recommendations of the previous grand jury. Those included revised inspection forms.
The grand jury said restaurants still need to post inspection notices in prominent places, and the county should make its inspection website more user friendly.
The grand jury also looked at recommendations made by the previous grand jury to the city of Atascadero regarding its police chief; emergency medical helicopters; the South County Sanitation District; e-government at the county; and the Paso Robles Bearcats.
The report can be found on the county website.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
(Kern) County Supes respond to Grand Jury report
By Stephanie Forshee - Daily Independent
The Kern County Board of Supervisors (BOS) responded this week to a Grand Jury report filed in February.
The Administration and Audit Committee received two written complaints and numerous verbal questions and comments from citizens regarding activities and expenses incurred by members of the BOS - regarding questionable discretionary fund carryover, travel expenses, transportation and safety.
With the exception of four items, the BOS said that the Grand Jury’s findings are substantially correct.
The BOS disagreed on a statement regarding the FY 2009-2010, which read: “Oversight exercised over the SDF [Supervisors’ Discretionary Funds] is lax or non-existent’ is inaccurate.” The BOS argued that “expenditure of the SDF is in compliance with all County policies and procedures related to accounting or procurement processes.”
While the Grand Jury stated the opposite, the BOS stands that the Grand Jury was provided a detailed listing of expenditures from the SDF. The report was also corrected on two factual errors such as the location of the BOS’ official meeting place and that the Second District Supervisor does not currently maintain an office in Tehachapi.
In its response to the recommendations, the BOS replied: “The first recommendation is to appropriate 50 percent of each Supervisor’s discretionary fund allocation as a contingency fund and the remaining 50 percent be allocated to the Supervisor who would then submit a written request stipulating the purpose, cost and estimated date of completion for a project to the Board for approval, and to institute an annual formal review of long term programs/project identified by the Supervisors. For budgeting purposes, appropriating the Supervisors’ allocations in any percentage to either a contingency fund or a budget unit achieves the same result as the status quo, restricting funds for the Supervisors’ projects. Funds that are not used in any given year roll over in the General Fund carryover balance and still require Board approval during the budget process to appropriate for the next fiscal year.
“In complying with all County policies and procedures, many of the expenditures from the discretionary funds are presented to the Board for approval with notification of the funding source. The remaining expenditures are accomplished through established and audited interdepartmental charging procedures. The Supervisors’ allocations and potential projects are reviewed frequently as priorities change and allocations are redirected. The County has provided information on these projects upon request and will consider preparing an annual recap.”
The BOS also stated that it is in the process of developing a policy for “office bases” - Supervisors’ remote office locations.
In response to concern over mileage accrued for committee members and that some accrue more than others, the BOS explained how the Chairman assigns supervisors to committees: “The incumbent supervisor should be reappointed unless that supervisor provides notification to the chairman that his/her option for reappointment will not be exercised...In the event that the incumbent supervisor has relinquished his/her right to reappointment, the most senior supervisor requesting to serve on the committee, commission or board should be appointed...Should the chairman choose to deviate from the recommended procedure provided...a majority vote of the Board is required to confirm the appointment.”
The Kern County Board of Supervisors (BOS) responded this week to a Grand Jury report filed in February.
The Administration and Audit Committee received two written complaints and numerous verbal questions and comments from citizens regarding activities and expenses incurred by members of the BOS - regarding questionable discretionary fund carryover, travel expenses, transportation and safety.
With the exception of four items, the BOS said that the Grand Jury’s findings are substantially correct.
The BOS disagreed on a statement regarding the FY 2009-2010, which read: “Oversight exercised over the SDF [Supervisors’ Discretionary Funds] is lax or non-existent’ is inaccurate.” The BOS argued that “expenditure of the SDF is in compliance with all County policies and procedures related to accounting or procurement processes.”
While the Grand Jury stated the opposite, the BOS stands that the Grand Jury was provided a detailed listing of expenditures from the SDF. The report was also corrected on two factual errors such as the location of the BOS’ official meeting place and that the Second District Supervisor does not currently maintain an office in Tehachapi.
In its response to the recommendations, the BOS replied: “The first recommendation is to appropriate 50 percent of each Supervisor’s discretionary fund allocation as a contingency fund and the remaining 50 percent be allocated to the Supervisor who would then submit a written request stipulating the purpose, cost and estimated date of completion for a project to the Board for approval, and to institute an annual formal review of long term programs/project identified by the Supervisors. For budgeting purposes, appropriating the Supervisors’ allocations in any percentage to either a contingency fund or a budget unit achieves the same result as the status quo, restricting funds for the Supervisors’ projects. Funds that are not used in any given year roll over in the General Fund carryover balance and still require Board approval during the budget process to appropriate for the next fiscal year.
“In complying with all County policies and procedures, many of the expenditures from the discretionary funds are presented to the Board for approval with notification of the funding source. The remaining expenditures are accomplished through established and audited interdepartmental charging procedures. The Supervisors’ allocations and potential projects are reviewed frequently as priorities change and allocations are redirected. The County has provided information on these projects upon request and will consider preparing an annual recap.”
The BOS also stated that it is in the process of developing a policy for “office bases” - Supervisors’ remote office locations.
In response to concern over mileage accrued for committee members and that some accrue more than others, the BOS explained how the Chairman assigns supervisors to committees: “The incumbent supervisor should be reappointed unless that supervisor provides notification to the chairman that his/her option for reappointment will not be exercised...In the event that the incumbent supervisor has relinquished his/her right to reappointment, the most senior supervisor requesting to serve on the committee, commission or board should be appointed...Should the chairman choose to deviate from the recommended procedure provided...a majority vote of the Board is required to confirm the appointment.”
Friday, May 18, 2012
(San Diego) Grand jury says county should adopt uniform fee guidelines for schools
By GARY WARTH - North County Times
The San Diego County grand jury is recommending, in a report released Thursday, that all area school districts follow uniform regulations and training guidelines to ensure that no illegal fees are charged to students.
The report comes more than a year after a lawsuit against the state was settled, with California officials vowing that schools should do more to prevent students from being charged for activities and equipment that should be free.
According to the grand jury's findings, school districts throughout the county have a clear understanding of what should be included in a free education, but part-time coaches and volunteers sometimes remain uncertain about the rules regarding when fees can be charged and what should be free.
"In this report, there isn't anything really out of line," foreman John Lewis said Thursday. "We're just asking for continuity and streamlining throughout the county."
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the state in 2010 accusing California of letting public schools charge fees for activities and materials in violation of the state constitution, which mandates a free public education.
The ACLU cited cases of schools charging for athletic and cheerleading uniforms, summer school programs, transcripts and other items or activities that should be free.
In an agreement to the lawsuit, the state said officials must do more to make sure schools aren't charging students for "educational activities," and legislators must define exactly what that term means.
The ACLU lawsuit named Temecula Valley Unified in Riverside County as an example of a school district charging fees for activities that should be free. An ACLU report released in 2010 also named the Vista Unified and San Dieguito Union districts in San Diego County as examples of districts that violated the law.
The San Dieguito district was accused of charging students to take advanced placement tests to receive college credit for high-level courses, and the Vista district was accused of charging transportation fees to high school students who participate in extracurricular sports.
Lewis said the grand jury investigation included interviews with officials from Carlsbad Unified, but he did not recall if other North County districts were contacted.
"Overall, all teachers and administrators understand what needs to be done, but sometimes people slip through the cracks," Lewis said.
Problems occur because schools often have a high turnover in their parent volunteers and part-time coaches, and the new people often do not understand the rules, he said.
San Diego County Superintendent of Schools Randolph Ward has 90 days from Thursday to respond to the jury's recommendation to develop and administer countywide uniform regulations and training guidelines regarding fee structures. Lewis said the superintendent can agree or disagree with the recommendation; the grand jury has no enforcement power.
Copies of grand jury reports can be found at the grand jury website, www.sdcounty.ca.gov/grandjury.
The San Diego County grand jury is recommending, in a report released Thursday, that all area school districts follow uniform regulations and training guidelines to ensure that no illegal fees are charged to students.
The report comes more than a year after a lawsuit against the state was settled, with California officials vowing that schools should do more to prevent students from being charged for activities and equipment that should be free.
According to the grand jury's findings, school districts throughout the county have a clear understanding of what should be included in a free education, but part-time coaches and volunteers sometimes remain uncertain about the rules regarding when fees can be charged and what should be free.
"In this report, there isn't anything really out of line," foreman John Lewis said Thursday. "We're just asking for continuity and streamlining throughout the county."
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the state in 2010 accusing California of letting public schools charge fees for activities and materials in violation of the state constitution, which mandates a free public education.
The ACLU cited cases of schools charging for athletic and cheerleading uniforms, summer school programs, transcripts and other items or activities that should be free.
In an agreement to the lawsuit, the state said officials must do more to make sure schools aren't charging students for "educational activities," and legislators must define exactly what that term means.
The ACLU lawsuit named Temecula Valley Unified in Riverside County as an example of a school district charging fees for activities that should be free. An ACLU report released in 2010 also named the Vista Unified and San Dieguito Union districts in San Diego County as examples of districts that violated the law.
The San Dieguito district was accused of charging students to take advanced placement tests to receive college credit for high-level courses, and the Vista district was accused of charging transportation fees to high school students who participate in extracurricular sports.
Lewis said the grand jury investigation included interviews with officials from Carlsbad Unified, but he did not recall if other North County districts were contacted.
"Overall, all teachers and administrators understand what needs to be done, but sometimes people slip through the cracks," Lewis said.
Problems occur because schools often have a high turnover in their parent volunteers and part-time coaches, and the new people often do not understand the rules, he said.
San Diego County Superintendent of Schools Randolph Ward has 90 days from Thursday to respond to the jury's recommendation to develop and administer countywide uniform regulations and training guidelines regarding fee structures. Lewis said the superintendent can agree or disagree with the recommendation; the grand jury has no enforcement power.
Copies of grand jury reports can be found at the grand jury website, www.sdcounty.ca.gov/grandjury.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Marin grand jury supportive of San Rafael's red-light cameras
By Jessica Bernstein-Wax (Marin Independent Journal)
San Rafael's red-light cameras have increased traffic safety and motorist awareness downtown, according to the Marin County civil grand jury.
In a report released this week titled "Red Light Cameras: Big Money, Big Brother or Big Safety?," the grand jury found the number of traffic accidents decreased at northbound Irwin Street at Third Street and on westbound Third at Irwin, where the cameras are mounted, and that criticism of the cameras is largely unfounded.
"The Marin County Civil Grand Jury concludes that red-light cameras constitute a viable safety option for the reduction of red-light intersection accidents, but only when they are used in conjunction with creative city planning, constant reviews of traffic flow and continued use of other innovative traffic distribution options," the report said.
It cited San Rafael police statistics indicating that accidents decreased 12 percent in the program's first fiscal year of operation at the intersections with cameras. In addition, the grand jury said pedestrians, bicyclists and dog walkers interviewed for the report "almost universally perceived that red-light cameras at dangerous intersections provide a significant increase in safety for themselves" and their animals.
The report also discounted critics' arguments that right-turn violations should carry a lesser penalty and that cities are aggressively ticketing motorists simply to boost their revenues, among other allegations.
"A national economic analysis showed that red-light cameras saved society $39,000 to $50,000 annually at each intersection where they were installed," the report said. "That number may not be monumental but neither is it trivial — especially to those drivers and pedestrians not injured as a result of adequate enforcement."
Grand jury foreman and Novato resident Michael Chernock noted that, when issuing citations, San Rafael calculates violators' speed based on 85 percent of their actual speed.
"They've gone out of their way to make this thing as clean as it can be," Chernock said.
San Rafael City Manager Nancy Mackle said city officials wouldn't comment on the report outside of the formal response process.
In January the San Rafael Police Department reported that the cameras were used to issue 3,075 citations from Jan. 1 through Dec. 15, 2011. In 2010 that number was 4,188 for the entire calendar year.
Arizona-based Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. set up the system for free and charges the city a monthly fee of $5,900 per intersection approach. However, if the program doesn't draw enough revenue on tickets to cover those costs in a given month, Redflex rolls over the deficit to the next pay period, the police department said.
Red-light cameras around the state and country have garnered criticism on a range of issues. In California, critics have focused on the price of tickets, which cost violators about $450 apiece in San Rafael, with about $140 going to the city; the large number of motorists cited for "rolling" right turns, which many consider less dangerous than other red-light violations; the questionable reliability of evidence from a camera rather than a police officer; and that private companies benefit financially from citations.
San Rafael's five-year contract allows for up to 10 cameras, and Mayor Gary Phillips said earlier this year that the council will be discussing whether to expand the program in coming months. City officials said the item may come before the council as soon as July.
"We have the two (cameras) so we should have some sense of effectiveness and receptivity so we can make a decision as to whether that's the right number and maybe it's none, maybe it's 10," Phillips said Wednesday, noting that he hadn't reviewed the grand jury report yet.
Gary Kauffman, a San Rafael attorney who has represented a number of clients in red-light camera cases including retired KGO Radio and ABC7 personality Dr. Dean Edell, said the report fails to address "the basic unfairness in denying a person the right to confront their accusers in these photo red light cases.
"A Phoenix, Arizona corporation called Redflex just gives a police officer who did not witness anything a video and digital photos of a person driving through an intersection, and he testifies that he thinks they show a violation," Kauffman said in an email. "The average person does not know that this evidence is objectionable and should not be used against them at their trial."
San Rafael's red-light cameras have increased traffic safety and motorist awareness downtown, according to the Marin County civil grand jury.
In a report released this week titled "Red Light Cameras: Big Money, Big Brother or Big Safety?," the grand jury found the number of traffic accidents decreased at northbound Irwin Street at Third Street and on westbound Third at Irwin, where the cameras are mounted, and that criticism of the cameras is largely unfounded.
"The Marin County Civil Grand Jury concludes that red-light cameras constitute a viable safety option for the reduction of red-light intersection accidents, but only when they are used in conjunction with creative city planning, constant reviews of traffic flow and continued use of other innovative traffic distribution options," the report said.
It cited San Rafael police statistics indicating that accidents decreased 12 percent in the program's first fiscal year of operation at the intersections with cameras. In addition, the grand jury said pedestrians, bicyclists and dog walkers interviewed for the report "almost universally perceived that red-light cameras at dangerous intersections provide a significant increase in safety for themselves" and their animals.
The report also discounted critics' arguments that right-turn violations should carry a lesser penalty and that cities are aggressively ticketing motorists simply to boost their revenues, among other allegations.
"A national economic analysis showed that red-light cameras saved society $39,000 to $50,000 annually at each intersection where they were installed," the report said. "That number may not be monumental but neither is it trivial — especially to those drivers and pedestrians not injured as a result of adequate enforcement."
Grand jury foreman and Novato resident Michael Chernock noted that, when issuing citations, San Rafael calculates violators' speed based on 85 percent of their actual speed.
"They've gone out of their way to make this thing as clean as it can be," Chernock said.
San Rafael City Manager Nancy Mackle said city officials wouldn't comment on the report outside of the formal response process.
In January the San Rafael Police Department reported that the cameras were used to issue 3,075 citations from Jan. 1 through Dec. 15, 2011. In 2010 that number was 4,188 for the entire calendar year.
Arizona-based Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. set up the system for free and charges the city a monthly fee of $5,900 per intersection approach. However, if the program doesn't draw enough revenue on tickets to cover those costs in a given month, Redflex rolls over the deficit to the next pay period, the police department said.
Red-light cameras around the state and country have garnered criticism on a range of issues. In California, critics have focused on the price of tickets, which cost violators about $450 apiece in San Rafael, with about $140 going to the city; the large number of motorists cited for "rolling" right turns, which many consider less dangerous than other red-light violations; the questionable reliability of evidence from a camera rather than a police officer; and that private companies benefit financially from citations.
San Rafael's five-year contract allows for up to 10 cameras, and Mayor Gary Phillips said earlier this year that the council will be discussing whether to expand the program in coming months. City officials said the item may come before the council as soon as July.
"We have the two (cameras) so we should have some sense of effectiveness and receptivity so we can make a decision as to whether that's the right number and maybe it's none, maybe it's 10," Phillips said Wednesday, noting that he hadn't reviewed the grand jury report yet.
Gary Kauffman, a San Rafael attorney who has represented a number of clients in red-light camera cases including retired KGO Radio and ABC7 personality Dr. Dean Edell, said the report fails to address "the basic unfairness in denying a person the right to confront their accusers in these photo red light cases.
"A Phoenix, Arizona corporation called Redflex just gives a police officer who did not witness anything a video and digital photos of a person driving through an intersection, and he testifies that he thinks they show a violation," Kauffman said in an email. "The average person does not know that this evidence is objectionable and should not be used against them at their trial."
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
(Contra Costa County) Knightsen, Byron school districts draw grand jury's attention
By Rowena Coetsee - Contra Costa Times
In a recent countywide report on school boards' compensation, Knightsen and Byron stood out for reasons that district officials say could be misunderstood.
The school districts were among 18 that the 2011-12 Contra Costa County grand jury examined in its analysis of what school members received in stipends, health benefits and other perquisites the previous year. The report also included the county Office of Education and the Contra Costa Community College District.
Byron Union School District was mentioned in the grand jury report for the $8,067 it spent on board members' travel and training last year -- the highest by far of any school district. It does not, however, pay any other compensation.
Knightsen School District, meanwhile, doesn't pay its five board members for attending meetings and the $9,326 it spent on them overall in 2010-11 was the least among all districts. But Knightsen is the county's second smallest district with an average daily attendance of 477 students last year, which means that its board compensation amounted to $19.55 per student.
Calculated that way, the per-capita expense places the K-8 district squarely at the top of the list; Walnut Creek School District ranks a distant second with its board compensation equating to $10.66 per student.
"It makes Knightsen look like we spend a lot of money on our board," Superintendent Theresa Estrada said.
By comparison, the collective compensation of Mt. Diablo Unified's school board members works out to $2.86 per student -- but the district is also the largest in the county with an average daily attendance of 32,293.
Grand jury foreman Lloyd Bell says he and his colleagues broke out the data this way simply to provide another basis for comparison.
If one looks only at total board compensation, "West Contra Costa (Unified) would look way out of proportion," he said of the $86,502 that district spent on its trustees.
Bell reiterated the report's summary, which notes that the grand jury's intention wasn't to criticize or condone any district but merely to let the public know how much its elected school officials are receiving.
"We weren't trying to present the data to highlight any one thing, but ... so that a comparison could be made and discussion could start from there," he said.
School districts were a logical focus given that the previous grand jury had examined city councils' compensation, Bell added.
Nonetheless, government agency watchdogs might question the expense considering that Knightsen School District is deficit spending, has eliminated music instruction, and hasn't given teachers or classified employees raises this year or last.
Moreover, the number of people on the payroll has remained the same since 2008-09 and it's not going to change in the coming fiscal year, said Business Manager Teresa Sidrian.
"We're pretty tight -- we've just been hanging on," she said.
The district's board-related expenses last year were limited to health benefits, which only two of its five trustees receive: Dorothy Walter had vision and dental coverage that cost $941, and Franklin Dell's medical and dental premiums totaled $8,385.
Walter did not respond to requests for comment.
Dell, however, said he accepted the insurance when he joined the school board eight years ago so he could take advantage of a board policy allowing him to add his wife to the plan. She pays the district $600 per month for the coverage, according to district officials.
Dell believes that the additional health insurance he has through Medicare is adequate for his needs, so he says he'd be perfectly happy to opt out of the school district's insurance plan as long as his wife can find an alternative safety net.
Serving on the school board was never about the money, he added.
"I didn't join it to get benefits," Dell said. "I got voted in not realizing there were any benefits other than the kids. I didn't expect anything."
In Byron, the $8,067 it spent on board members' travel and training last year, was $2,762 more than the next highest district, the much-larger Liberty Union High School District. The report noted that the board average was $2,601 for such expenses.
Although it doesn't compensate them for attending meetings or offer health, retirement and life insurance benefits, all five board Byron board members attended a California School Boards Association training conference in San Francisco in December 2010 on the agency's dime.
One trustee also received additional CSBA training at a cost of $1,600.
By contrast, the board has incurred $341.93 to date this year in the training-and-travel category, said Bev Nicolaisen, assistant to the superintendent.
Byron School board President Elaine Landro doesn't have a problem with the report, but also noted that she and fellow trustees already follow the grand jury's recommendation to confirm that their travel and training costs are necessary.
In fact, they do this before incurring these expenses, Landro said, adding that newcomers to the board need to know the basics of administering a school district that such conferences provide.
The grand jury report also advised districts, Byron and Knightsen included, to conduct an annual public review of everything they spend on school board members and discuss whether changes are warranted.
In addition, the grand jury concluded that as part of this discussion Knightsen and the seven other districts that provide health care benefits should decide whether these costs are justified.
In a recent countywide report on school boards' compensation, Knightsen and Byron stood out for reasons that district officials say could be misunderstood.
The school districts were among 18 that the 2011-12 Contra Costa County grand jury examined in its analysis of what school members received in stipends, health benefits and other perquisites the previous year. The report also included the county Office of Education and the Contra Costa Community College District.
Byron Union School District was mentioned in the grand jury report for the $8,067 it spent on board members' travel and training last year -- the highest by far of any school district. It does not, however, pay any other compensation.
Knightsen School District, meanwhile, doesn't pay its five board members for attending meetings and the $9,326 it spent on them overall in 2010-11 was the least among all districts. But Knightsen is the county's second smallest district with an average daily attendance of 477 students last year, which means that its board compensation amounted to $19.55 per student.
Calculated that way, the per-capita expense places the K-8 district squarely at the top of the list; Walnut Creek School District ranks a distant second with its board compensation equating to $10.66 per student.
"It makes Knightsen look like we spend a lot of money on our board," Superintendent Theresa Estrada said.
By comparison, the collective compensation of Mt. Diablo Unified's school board members works out to $2.86 per student -- but the district is also the largest in the county with an average daily attendance of 32,293.
Grand jury foreman Lloyd Bell says he and his colleagues broke out the data this way simply to provide another basis for comparison.
If one looks only at total board compensation, "West Contra Costa (Unified) would look way out of proportion," he said of the $86,502 that district spent on its trustees.
Bell reiterated the report's summary, which notes that the grand jury's intention wasn't to criticize or condone any district but merely to let the public know how much its elected school officials are receiving.
"We weren't trying to present the data to highlight any one thing, but ... so that a comparison could be made and discussion could start from there," he said.
School districts were a logical focus given that the previous grand jury had examined city councils' compensation, Bell added.
Nonetheless, government agency watchdogs might question the expense considering that Knightsen School District is deficit spending, has eliminated music instruction, and hasn't given teachers or classified employees raises this year or last.
Moreover, the number of people on the payroll has remained the same since 2008-09 and it's not going to change in the coming fiscal year, said Business Manager Teresa Sidrian.
"We're pretty tight -- we've just been hanging on," she said.
The district's board-related expenses last year were limited to health benefits, which only two of its five trustees receive: Dorothy Walter had vision and dental coverage that cost $941, and Franklin Dell's medical and dental premiums totaled $8,385.
Walter did not respond to requests for comment.
Dell, however, said he accepted the insurance when he joined the school board eight years ago so he could take advantage of a board policy allowing him to add his wife to the plan. She pays the district $600 per month for the coverage, according to district officials.
Dell believes that the additional health insurance he has through Medicare is adequate for his needs, so he says he'd be perfectly happy to opt out of the school district's insurance plan as long as his wife can find an alternative safety net.
Serving on the school board was never about the money, he added.
"I didn't join it to get benefits," Dell said. "I got voted in not realizing there were any benefits other than the kids. I didn't expect anything."
In Byron, the $8,067 it spent on board members' travel and training last year, was $2,762 more than the next highest district, the much-larger Liberty Union High School District. The report noted that the board average was $2,601 for such expenses.
Although it doesn't compensate them for attending meetings or offer health, retirement and life insurance benefits, all five board Byron board members attended a California School Boards Association training conference in San Francisco in December 2010 on the agency's dime.
One trustee also received additional CSBA training at a cost of $1,600.
By contrast, the board has incurred $341.93 to date this year in the training-and-travel category, said Bev Nicolaisen, assistant to the superintendent.
Byron School board President Elaine Landro doesn't have a problem with the report, but also noted that she and fellow trustees already follow the grand jury's recommendation to confirm that their travel and training costs are necessary.
In fact, they do this before incurring these expenses, Landro said, adding that newcomers to the board need to know the basics of administering a school district that such conferences provide.
The grand jury report also advised districts, Byron and Knightsen included, to conduct an annual public review of everything they spend on school board members and discuss whether changes are warranted.
In addition, the grand jury concluded that as part of this discussion Knightsen and the seven other districts that provide health care benefits should decide whether these costs are justified.
Monday, May 14, 2012
(Santa Barbara) Grand Jury must investigate LHCDC
Carol Benham/Common Sense and Candor | Posted: Sunday, May 13, 2012 12:00 am
After more than 16 months of researching Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corp. —its missing audits, its deteriorating, unsanitary housing for low-income residents and its failure to abide by regulations governing the use of public funds —I’ve come to the conclusion that only the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury can thoroughly investigate the many questions that remain unanswered.
The city of Lompoc, the County of Santa Barbara, and even the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development —the source for millions of dollars of federal funds LHCDC received —have something at stake if a comprehensive investigation is undertaken into why the oversight and monitoring of this public benefit nonprofit was so faulty. You could say they each have skin in the game.
It will take an entity with the authority and power of subpoena to force facts out of the shadows LHCDC has been allowed to operate in for far too long. It will take the power of subpoena to penetrate the protective shield still preventing a serious inspection of its financial records, and investigate the reasons it was permitted to fail to comply with regulations and contractual obligations for so long. It will take the power of subpoena, and the independence of the Grand Jury, to obtain the testimony of current and former city and county employees, elected officials and LHCDC Board of Directors to uncover the truth.
There is much that needs to be uncovered:
n Why did the nonprofit continue to receive funds after it failed to submit required annual audits? Was it lax oversight, incompetence, or was pressure applied to ignore the missing audits?
n Why did the city approve a loan to refinance an LHCDC low-income housing property in 2005 that allowed LHCDC to pull out $500,000 in cash for its own use when it was two years behind in audits at the time, a fact a city councilwoman noted for the record when she voted no?
n Why did the county approve a refinancing of a low-income housing property in 2008 that had failed to achieve its mandatory affordability certification required by law because LHCDC failed to provide the necessary data? Were county supervisors informed the housing property was noncompliant with federal regulations before they were asked to allow LHCDC to take $472,000 from the refinancing? If not, why not? Was it lax oversight, incompetence or was pressure applied to ignore the noncompliance?
n Why did the city and county allow LHCDC to stop complying with mandatory requirements to provide annual data on its rental rolls and tenant income eligibility for rent-restricted housing? Was it lax oversight or was there pressure to look the other way?
n Why did the city allow LHCDC to ignore repeated requests to improve conditions at its low-income housing properties that were observed during city inspections? Why were funds intended to remove blight allowed to create blight?
n Did LHCDC’s Board of Directors fail their fiduciary responsibility to oversee the use of public funds by the organization and monitor the performance of LHCDC staff? Did they know conditions at some properties were in violation of state building, health and safety codes? Did they know tenants complained of having no heat, no working oven, inoperable smoke detectors, mold, sewage problems and other unhealthy and unsanitary conditions?
n Did a county employee inappropriately mix her dual positions as assistant to the 4th District Supervisor and as president and vice president of LHCDC Board of Directors for many years? There is documented evidence that the employee conducted LHCDC business on county property, during workday hours, while using her county title. Did the mixing of roles contribute to the failure to enforce compliance with regulations by county staff?
All these questions, and many more, need answers. Accountability for using public funds designated for a community purpose — to provide decent housing for low-income residents, shelter the homeless, reduce blight and expand economic opportunities — is not a trivial matter. Nor is it a matter of politics, or personalities or campaigns.
Our community has been ill-served by LHCDC and by those who looked the other way when regulations and requirements and missing audits were ignored. We’re still being ill-served by those who seek to sweep LHCDC and issues of oversight and accountability under the rug.
For our community’s sake, we need the members of the Grand Jury to provide the independence, perseverance and authority to unravel the facts of this tangled, convoluted mess that is still shrouded in too much secrecy. It could happen again if we don’t seek accountability and answers in our own back yard.
Lompoc resident Carol Benham is a former reporter and news editor for the Lompoc Record and the Santa Maria Times. She can be reached at cjbenhamscribe@gmail.com.
http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/opinion/editorial/commentary/grand-jury-must-investigate-lhcdc/article_cd138ecc-9c9e-11e1-95a4-0019bb2963f4.html
After more than 16 months of researching Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corp. —its missing audits, its deteriorating, unsanitary housing for low-income residents and its failure to abide by regulations governing the use of public funds —I’ve come to the conclusion that only the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury can thoroughly investigate the many questions that remain unanswered.
The city of Lompoc, the County of Santa Barbara, and even the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development —the source for millions of dollars of federal funds LHCDC received —have something at stake if a comprehensive investigation is undertaken into why the oversight and monitoring of this public benefit nonprofit was so faulty. You could say they each have skin in the game.
It will take an entity with the authority and power of subpoena to force facts out of the shadows LHCDC has been allowed to operate in for far too long. It will take the power of subpoena to penetrate the protective shield still preventing a serious inspection of its financial records, and investigate the reasons it was permitted to fail to comply with regulations and contractual obligations for so long. It will take the power of subpoena, and the independence of the Grand Jury, to obtain the testimony of current and former city and county employees, elected officials and LHCDC Board of Directors to uncover the truth.
There is much that needs to be uncovered:
n Why did the nonprofit continue to receive funds after it failed to submit required annual audits? Was it lax oversight, incompetence, or was pressure applied to ignore the missing audits?
n Why did the city approve a loan to refinance an LHCDC low-income housing property in 2005 that allowed LHCDC to pull out $500,000 in cash for its own use when it was two years behind in audits at the time, a fact a city councilwoman noted for the record when she voted no?
n Why did the county approve a refinancing of a low-income housing property in 2008 that had failed to achieve its mandatory affordability certification required by law because LHCDC failed to provide the necessary data? Were county supervisors informed the housing property was noncompliant with federal regulations before they were asked to allow LHCDC to take $472,000 from the refinancing? If not, why not? Was it lax oversight, incompetence or was pressure applied to ignore the noncompliance?
n Why did the city and county allow LHCDC to stop complying with mandatory requirements to provide annual data on its rental rolls and tenant income eligibility for rent-restricted housing? Was it lax oversight or was there pressure to look the other way?
n Why did the city allow LHCDC to ignore repeated requests to improve conditions at its low-income housing properties that were observed during city inspections? Why were funds intended to remove blight allowed to create blight?
n Did LHCDC’s Board of Directors fail their fiduciary responsibility to oversee the use of public funds by the organization and monitor the performance of LHCDC staff? Did they know conditions at some properties were in violation of state building, health and safety codes? Did they know tenants complained of having no heat, no working oven, inoperable smoke detectors, mold, sewage problems and other unhealthy and unsanitary conditions?
n Did a county employee inappropriately mix her dual positions as assistant to the 4th District Supervisor and as president and vice president of LHCDC Board of Directors for many years? There is documented evidence that the employee conducted LHCDC business on county property, during workday hours, while using her county title. Did the mixing of roles contribute to the failure to enforce compliance with regulations by county staff?
All these questions, and many more, need answers. Accountability for using public funds designated for a community purpose — to provide decent housing for low-income residents, shelter the homeless, reduce blight and expand economic opportunities — is not a trivial matter. Nor is it a matter of politics, or personalities or campaigns.
Our community has been ill-served by LHCDC and by those who looked the other way when regulations and requirements and missing audits were ignored. We’re still being ill-served by those who seek to sweep LHCDC and issues of oversight and accountability under the rug.
For our community’s sake, we need the members of the Grand Jury to provide the independence, perseverance and authority to unravel the facts of this tangled, convoluted mess that is still shrouded in too much secrecy. It could happen again if we don’t seek accountability and answers in our own back yard.
Lompoc resident Carol Benham is a former reporter and news editor for the Lompoc Record and the Santa Maria Times. She can be reached at cjbenhamscribe@gmail.com.
http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/opinion/editorial/commentary/grand-jury-must-investigate-lhcdc/article_cd138ecc-9c9e-11e1-95a4-0019bb2963f4.html
Friday, May 11, 2012
Thousand Oaks City Council decreases impound fees
Report by Ventura County grand jury leads to change
Individuals who’ve had their cars impounded in Thousand Oaks in the past three years for driving without a license or driving on a suspended license are entitled to an $80 refund, the City Council decided Tuesday.
In response to a report by the Ventura County grand jury, the council voted 4-0 to decrease its non-DUI vehicle release charge from $300 to $220, removing an $80 administrative fee that went to support the Smart Start youth driving program offered by the California Highway Patrol and the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office. The report found that the administrative fee Thousand Oaks was charging to support Smart Start and other traffic safety programs in the city was not allowed under the state vehicle code. Thousand Oaks is the only city in the county to collect such a fee.
The council also agreed to provide a refund to anyone who was charged the fee since it was instituted on July 1, 2009.
“As soon as it was pointed out that it was inaccurate to do, we changed it to $220,” TOPD Cmdr. Randy Pentis told the council.
Those who have been charged the fee will receive a letter offering a refund, he said. The city owes about $40,000 in refunds, Pentis said.
The grand jury is made up of county residents and is responsible for investigating the various departments and special districts of the county and city government. In a report that came out in March titled “Vehicle Impound Fees in Ventura County,” the grand jury found that Thousand Oaks had the highest non-DUI vehicle release fee in the county. The average fee for the county is $137, according to the report.
“While (Smart Start) is an excellent program, the law doesn’t allow them to charge a fee for that item,” said David Gale, grand jury foreman. “Cities can’t charge for anything that’s not related to the release of the vehicle.”
The Smart Start fee was intended to provide the program with help in preventing future and new drivers from having their driver’s licenses suspended or revoked.
"I think (the city) is to be commended,” he said. “They didn’t realize what they were doing was against the law. Now they realize it and they’re making the correction, so good for them.”
Gale added that Thousand Oaks officials were cooperative throughout the course of the grand jury’s investigation, which lasted several months.
“They . . . answered all our questions,” said the foreman.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Trinity grand jury wants answers in timely manner
Posted: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 6:15 am
By Sally Morris The Trinity Journal
In a report just released entitled “Over Due Under Done” the Trinity County grand jury is seeking more complete and more timely responses from county department heads, the Board of Supervisors and other entities when they’ve been subject to grand jury investigations.
The report notes that California penal code clearly states what the content of responses is to be and sets forth the time limits: 60 days from the report filing date for departments/agencies and 90 days for governing bodies. Once all responses are received, they are compiled into a final report for publication and made available to the public.
A standing continuity committee of the 2011-12 grand jury found that of 20 responses required in the past year, 11 were done in a timely manner and two of those were asked to be resubmitted. Of the remainder, two responses were more than 90 days late; two were 280 days past due and five have not been received at all.
The grand jury attributes the violation to the absence of a tracking system between the primary entities involved in the process, including Court Services, the Board of Supervisors chairman and the County Administrative Officer.
Its recommendation is to identify and correct the reasons reports are not being responded to within the mandated time frame, claiming the lack of compliance impedes the grand jury process.
The grand jury also found that copies of responses are not being provided to the grand jury at the same time they are provided to the Superior Court as required by county policy.
In conclusion, the grand jury recommends that Court Services, the Board of Supervisors chairman and the CAO work in conjunction to create an interconnected tracking system that will facilitate the timeframe requirements being met. All three are required to submit responses to the latest report.
The Board of Supervisors last week appointed Sup. Judy Pflueger to draft the board’s response. She commented that the report is lacking in specifics and it will be difficult for the board to respond to insufficient information that requires further analysis.
http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/local/article_2d22fb04-9993-11e1-ab3f-0019bb30f31a.html
By Sally Morris The Trinity Journal
In a report just released entitled “Over Due Under Done” the Trinity County grand jury is seeking more complete and more timely responses from county department heads, the Board of Supervisors and other entities when they’ve been subject to grand jury investigations.
The report notes that California penal code clearly states what the content of responses is to be and sets forth the time limits: 60 days from the report filing date for departments/agencies and 90 days for governing bodies. Once all responses are received, they are compiled into a final report for publication and made available to the public.
A standing continuity committee of the 2011-12 grand jury found that of 20 responses required in the past year, 11 were done in a timely manner and two of those were asked to be resubmitted. Of the remainder, two responses were more than 90 days late; two were 280 days past due and five have not been received at all.
The grand jury attributes the violation to the absence of a tracking system between the primary entities involved in the process, including Court Services, the Board of Supervisors chairman and the County Administrative Officer.
Its recommendation is to identify and correct the reasons reports are not being responded to within the mandated time frame, claiming the lack of compliance impedes the grand jury process.
The grand jury also found that copies of responses are not being provided to the grand jury at the same time they are provided to the Superior Court as required by county policy.
In conclusion, the grand jury recommends that Court Services, the Board of Supervisors chairman and the CAO work in conjunction to create an interconnected tracking system that will facilitate the timeframe requirements being met. All three are required to submit responses to the latest report.
The Board of Supervisors last week appointed Sup. Judy Pflueger to draft the board’s response. She commented that the report is lacking in specifics and it will be difficult for the board to respond to insufficient information that requires further analysis.
http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/local/article_2d22fb04-9993-11e1-ab3f-0019bb30f31a.html
Fire board considers (San Mateo) grand jury report
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:49 am
by Mark Noack
Like night and day, board members for the Coastside Fire Protection District offer starkly different interpretations of a damning San Mateo County civil grand jury report released last month.
At a special meeting this evening, Coastside fire board directors will discuss how to respond to the report and its conclusions admonishing the district to end consideration of dumping CalFire. The state fire agency has managed local fire services since a contract was adopted in 2008.
The question of whether CalFire has saved money and improved service levels goes to the heart of a long-simmering and often bitter debate within the district leadership. A three-man board majority began pushing in December to investigate how to return the district to a stand-alone department.
Board member Gary Riddell is adamant that service levels have deteriorated while costs have risen under CalFire. He dismisses the grand jury report, which reached the opposite conclusion, saying it wasn’t put together by firefighting professionals and didn’t include data he delivered to them. The only thing the report got right was “the page numbers,” he said.
“The reality is we got ripped off, ripped off for years,” he said. “This report is more muddying the water than it is truth, and no one knows right now what the truth is.”
The grand jury report largely praised CalFire for meeting and exceeding response time, staff training and productivity while lowering costs. The report chastised the fire board for making accusations against CalFire that were “unfounded, outdated or of relatively minor significance.”
Another skeptic of CalFire, board president Doug Mackintosh, also disagreed with the conclusions of the report, but said he respected its intent. He agreed that CalFire generated cost savings for the district, but he said other factors should be considered.
“There are things under the surface that are not necessarily aired that are important for the decisions,” he said. “The concept we have to work with is what’s best for the coast and what’s best for the people who live here.”
Board members Gary Burke and Ginny McShane voted against hiring a consultant team. At the last board meeting, the pair tried to delay hiring consultants charged with considering a stand-alone department until the board had time to consider the grand jury report. Both are on record supporting CalFire as the least expensive, most appropriate management choice for the coast.
The board’s consultants are expected to report back on operational and cost issues as early as later this month. CalFire exercised an option in the contract that guarantees service through June of 2013, but officials are planning for a possible pullout from Coastside stations after that.
The district turned to Calfire about five years ago after a series of lawsuits and defections left low morale and other problems at Coastside stations.
http://www.hmbreview.com/news/fire-board-considers-grand-jury-report/article_8d6c835a-9ac8-11e1-a8a9-0019bb2963f4.html
by Mark Noack
Like night and day, board members for the Coastside Fire Protection District offer starkly different interpretations of a damning San Mateo County civil grand jury report released last month.
At a special meeting this evening, Coastside fire board directors will discuss how to respond to the report and its conclusions admonishing the district to end consideration of dumping CalFire. The state fire agency has managed local fire services since a contract was adopted in 2008.
The question of whether CalFire has saved money and improved service levels goes to the heart of a long-simmering and often bitter debate within the district leadership. A three-man board majority began pushing in December to investigate how to return the district to a stand-alone department.
Board member Gary Riddell is adamant that service levels have deteriorated while costs have risen under CalFire. He dismisses the grand jury report, which reached the opposite conclusion, saying it wasn’t put together by firefighting professionals and didn’t include data he delivered to them. The only thing the report got right was “the page numbers,” he said.
“The reality is we got ripped off, ripped off for years,” he said. “This report is more muddying the water than it is truth, and no one knows right now what the truth is.”
The grand jury report largely praised CalFire for meeting and exceeding response time, staff training and productivity while lowering costs. The report chastised the fire board for making accusations against CalFire that were “unfounded, outdated or of relatively minor significance.”
Another skeptic of CalFire, board president Doug Mackintosh, also disagreed with the conclusions of the report, but said he respected its intent. He agreed that CalFire generated cost savings for the district, but he said other factors should be considered.
“There are things under the surface that are not necessarily aired that are important for the decisions,” he said. “The concept we have to work with is what’s best for the coast and what’s best for the people who live here.”
Board members Gary Burke and Ginny McShane voted against hiring a consultant team. At the last board meeting, the pair tried to delay hiring consultants charged with considering a stand-alone department until the board had time to consider the grand jury report. Both are on record supporting CalFire as the least expensive, most appropriate management choice for the coast.
The board’s consultants are expected to report back on operational and cost issues as early as later this month. CalFire exercised an option in the contract that guarantees service through June of 2013, but officials are planning for a possible pullout from Coastside stations after that.
The district turned to Calfire about five years ago after a series of lawsuits and defections left low morale and other problems at Coastside stations.
http://www.hmbreview.com/news/fire-board-considers-grand-jury-report/article_8d6c835a-9ac8-11e1-a8a9-0019bb2963f4.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)