by Bill Trautman, CGJA President -
Once again, the constitutionally mandated annual ritual has begun: the courts are selecting and impanelling grand juries in each of California’s 58 counties for the 2013-2014 term. So we ask: who should they be looking for and what is needed to perpetuate and preserve the
grand jury institution, an institution that epitomizes democracy in action – truly government “by the people”? Where else can citizens take a close look at their local government and make recommendations to improve it?
What kind of jurors can be successful with this entirely new experience? Our grand juries need people committed to, and capable of, embracing the concept of self-government - people who believe that civic responsibility to one’s community is imperative in a democracy. Grand jurors must think independently, be open-minded, have the ability to rise above divisiveness and self-interest and must not be afraid to be assertive, though not antagonistic, to serve as citizen “watchdogs”. This is an experience that also requires one to have certain expectations of their government: expectations that look at local governmental entities and officials and ask are they operating legally, effectively, economically, openly and for the good of the people? In short, are these entities and officials accountable to their citizens?
Grand juries must understand why their credibility is so important. Pursuing inconsequential investigations; misusing the grand jury’s power; venturing outside its jurisdiction and intruding on policy-matters will bring criticism and disrespect for the grand jury institution. Grand juries need to work hard, make good choices and do significant work to be lauded and respected by their citizens, by the media and, particularly by local public officials. This respect does not just come with the territory, but rather, it must be earned. The most effective way to do this is for grand juries to undertake meaningful, useful investigations; to make factually supported findings; and to offer needed, feasible recommendations for improvements to their local government. If that is accomplished, it will make implementation of their recommendations more likely and most certainly will perpetuate and preserve the grand jury institution.
A closing thought: Trivial is not a pursuit for grand juries! Those that perform effectively will successfully fulfill their responsibility not only to their citizens, but also to the grand jury institution. Good luck to all 58 grand juries in the 2013-2014 term. Make us proud!
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
San Joaquin grand jury report finds agencies largely in step
By Zachary K. Johnson, Record Staff Writer -
The San Joaquin County 2012-13 grand jury released a report Thursday finding that local government agencies, for the most part, complied with 36 recommendations laid out in investigations from last year's watchdog panel.
Each year, a civil grand jury issues dozens of recommendations and findings after investigating local government agencies in San Joaquin County. The law requires the agencies to respond to the reports from the grand jury, reconvened each year from a new batch of citizens.
Last year, the 2011-12 grand jury reports included 37 findings and 36 recommendations.
This kind of report follow-up on previous findings and recommendations holds government accountable to make changes often called for in grand jury investigations, said Gary Spaugh, foreman of this year's grand jury.
"Almost all of the recommendations are respected and implemented," said Spaugh, adding it showed the effectiveness of the process overseeing the public agencies.
The only agency that did not comply with all the recommendations was the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, which did not provide documentation that all of the district's board members had completed training in ethics and the state law for providing transparency in government meetings.
The district received a scathing report last year that it had been "thrust to the brink of failure" by its leadership. This year's report verified steps taken to improve its finances and acknowledged changes in leadership.
"Everything is pretty much under control now," said Joe Valente, president of the district's governing board. He also said the remaining two directors had completed the training recommended by the grand jury.
Last year's grand jury also reported that social workers at Child Welfare Services were holding high caseloads that put children at risk; found fault with training of Stockton Unified police; found a relative of an employee at the San Joaquin Housing Authority received special treatment receiving subsidized-housing vouchers; and reported on other investigations into the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Deuel Vocational Institution.
Thursday's report wasn't the first from the grand jury this year. Last month it investigated uncollected property tax revenue.
And it won't be the last.
Spaugh said the public can expect reports soon from the new investigations the grand jury conducted over the past year.
The San Joaquin County 2012-13 grand jury released a report Thursday finding that local government agencies, for the most part, complied with 36 recommendations laid out in investigations from last year's watchdog panel.
Each year, a civil grand jury issues dozens of recommendations and findings after investigating local government agencies in San Joaquin County. The law requires the agencies to respond to the reports from the grand jury, reconvened each year from a new batch of citizens.
Last year, the 2011-12 grand jury reports included 37 findings and 36 recommendations.
This kind of report follow-up on previous findings and recommendations holds government accountable to make changes often called for in grand jury investigations, said Gary Spaugh, foreman of this year's grand jury.
"Almost all of the recommendations are respected and implemented," said Spaugh, adding it showed the effectiveness of the process overseeing the public agencies.
The only agency that did not comply with all the recommendations was the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, which did not provide documentation that all of the district's board members had completed training in ethics and the state law for providing transparency in government meetings.
The district received a scathing report last year that it had been "thrust to the brink of failure" by its leadership. This year's report verified steps taken to improve its finances and acknowledged changes in leadership.
"Everything is pretty much under control now," said Joe Valente, president of the district's governing board. He also said the remaining two directors had completed the training recommended by the grand jury.
Last year's grand jury also reported that social workers at Child Welfare Services were holding high caseloads that put children at risk; found fault with training of Stockton Unified police; found a relative of an employee at the San Joaquin Housing Authority received special treatment receiving subsidized-housing vouchers; and reported on other investigations into the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Deuel Vocational Institution.
Thursday's report wasn't the first from the grand jury this year. Last month it investigated uncollected property tax revenue.
And it won't be the last.
Spaugh said the public can expect reports soon from the new investigations the grand jury conducted over the past year.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Grand jury: Mendocino County should curtail ad-hoc committee use
Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 05/12/2013 04:01:38 PM PDT
Ukiah Daily Journal
The Mendocino County civil grand jury urged the Board of Supervisors in a recent report to end its tendency over the past two years to assign important issues to ad-hoc committees while leaving dormant the more publicly accessible standing committees.
The March 20 report, titled "Board of Supervisors - Standing Committees Public Access - Public Interest'" makes five findings and four recommendations, and claims that ad-hoc committees "circumvent" California's Brown Act, which is designed to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public.
"Numerous labor contracts will be renegotiated this year. Mental health services may be contracted to non-County service providers. Changes in sentencing, probation, parole and County Jail populations continue to affect the courts and criminal justice system," the grand jury report says. "These and other pressing issues deserve and demand the opportunity for an informed public to access an open, formal forum for information and public expression."
The board in 2011 and 2012 appointed members to the county's four standing committees -- Health and Human Services, Criminal Justice, Public Resources and General Government/Personnel-Legislative -- but kept them dormant, saying they would only convene on an as-needed basis. County CEO Carmel Angelo noted that the committees hadn't met for two years when the board followed her recommendation in January to continue the practice.
"The exclusive use of ad-hoc committees is not consistent with the intent of the Brown Act," the grand jury report says among its five findings. The report notes that while standing committees are required under the Brown Act to notify the public of their meetings, post agendas and keep minutes, ad hocs are not subject to the act, meaning "opportunities for long-term planning, continuity and documentation are minimized or eliminated."
The grand jury report gives two examples of the problems with using ad hocs instead of standing committees, with the first being the board's October decision to form an ad-hoc committee to help plan Mental Health Court.
The two supervisors appointed to the ad-hoc updated the full, five-member Board of Supervisors frequently on the group's efforts during the portion of the meeting reserved for supervisors' reports, but "the update portion of the ... meeting is usually scheduled near the end of the open meeting, precluding easy accessibility for the public to know of the supervisors' participation, opinions or recommendations," according to the grand jury report.
The Mental Health Court ad-hoc committee was never added to the county's official list of ad hocs, according to the report.
"Therefore, the average citizen is almost completely unaware of the supervisors' interest and participation in Mental Health Court planning, further limiting the ability to provide public comment," the grand jury report says.
Follow-up on ad-hoc committee matters is also a concern, the grand jury reported, giving as an example the two supervisors appointed to an ad hoc to study efficiency in the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office.
"The study was completed, the report received and the (ad hoc) dissolved," the report says. "Neither the public nor the (Board of Supervisors) currently has a venue to address the status of the responses to the recommendations and the sheriff's efforts to improve departmental efficiency."
The grand jury also found that the ad hocs weren't reporting at every scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting under the county's rules of procedure, and that Mendocino County's exclusive use of ad hocs doesn't match the practices of other counties.
"Ad-hoc committees should be investigative, issue-specific and of short-term duration," according to the report.
The grand jury recommends that the board reactivate its four standing committees, assign appropriate issues to them and use them "as the primary vehicle for policy guidance and direction to the (board);" that the committees report at each regular board meeting; that the committees finish their business within the calendar year as a rule and that the county Executive Office update its list of ad-hoc committees on the county's website, www.co.mendocino.ca.us.
The Board of Supervisors was required to respond within 90 days, and Angelo had 60 days to respond.
http://www.advocate-news.com/ci_23227798/grand-jury-mendocino-county-should-curtail-ad-hoc
The board in 2011 and 2012 appointed members to the county's four standing committees -- Health and Human Services, Criminal Justice, Public Resources and General Government/Personnel-Legislative -- but kept them dormant, saying they would only convene on an as-needed basis. County CEO Carmel Angelo noted that the committees hadn't met for two years when the board followed her recommendation in January to continue the practice.
"The exclusive use of ad-hoc committees is not consistent with the intent of the Brown Act," the grand jury report says among its five findings. The report notes that while standing committees are required under the Brown Act to notify the public of their meetings, post agendas and keep minutes, ad hocs are not subject to the act, meaning "opportunities for long-term planning, continuity and documentation are minimized or eliminated."
The grand jury report gives two examples of the problems with using ad hocs instead of standing committees, with the first being the board's October decision to form an ad-hoc committee to help plan Mental Health Court.
The two supervisors appointed to the ad-hoc updated the full, five-member Board of Supervisors frequently on the group's efforts during the portion of the meeting reserved for supervisors' reports, but "the update portion of the ... meeting is usually scheduled near the end of the open meeting, precluding easy accessibility for the public to know of the supervisors' participation, opinions or recommendations," according to the grand jury report.
The Mental Health Court ad-hoc committee was never added to the county's official list of ad hocs, according to the report.
"Therefore, the average citizen is almost completely unaware of the supervisors' interest and participation in Mental Health Court planning, further limiting the ability to provide public comment," the grand jury report says.
Follow-up on ad-hoc committee matters is also a concern, the grand jury reported, giving as an example the two supervisors appointed to an ad hoc to study efficiency in the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office.
"The study was completed, the report received and the (ad hoc) dissolved," the report says. "Neither the public nor the (Board of Supervisors) currently has a venue to address the status of the responses to the recommendations and the sheriff's efforts to improve departmental efficiency."
The grand jury also found that the ad hocs weren't reporting at every scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting under the county's rules of procedure, and that Mendocino County's exclusive use of ad hocs doesn't match the practices of other counties.
"Ad-hoc committees should be investigative, issue-specific and of short-term duration," according to the report.
The grand jury recommends that the board reactivate its four standing committees, assign appropriate issues to them and use them "as the primary vehicle for policy guidance and direction to the (board);" that the committees report at each regular board meeting; that the committees finish their business within the calendar year as a rule and that the county Executive Office update its list of ad-hoc committees on the county's website, www.co.mendocino.ca.us.
The Board of Supervisors was required to respond within 90 days, and Angelo had 60 days to respond.
http://www.advocate-news.com/ci_23227798/grand-jury-mendocino-county-should-curtail-ad-hoc
Saturday, May 11, 2013
(Madera) Grand Jury critical of DA's Office
-Staff report, Sierra Star -
The Madera County Grand Jury recently criticized the Madera County District Attorney's Office, stating the office has not prosecuted a majority of alleged crimes committed within the Madera County jail, resulting in a "safety issue for officers and inmates."
In its recent reports, the Grand Jury also stated that the Madera County Department of Corrections (county jail) "might not refer a crime to the District Attorney's Office because they perceive the DA's Office will not prosecute the case."
The Grand Jury recommended that the DA's office review internal jail crime reports and increase the number of prosecutions.
The DA Office's response was that the recommendation "will not be implemented."
"The district attorney has and will continue to review crime reports submitted by the jail. However, the District Attorney's Office can not ethically file cases that cannot be proven at trial beyond a reasonable doubt just to increase prosecutions," stated District Attorney Michael Keitz in a letter to Judge Lynn Jones of Madera Superior Court, in response to the Grand Jury's recommendations.
"The District Attorney's Office will again review with the jail management their investigation process, the proof necessary for conviction at trial, the availability of pre-filing forum and the appeal process for rejected cases."
Keitz added that his office is "sympathetic to the safety concerns of the jail staff" and is therefore requesting a budget increase for additional staff to support investigation of crimes committed in the jail.
Keitz said due to budgetary constraints, his office has been "chronically short of prosecutors, investigators and clerical staff for a number of years."
However, the Grand Jury reported that "The District Attorney's Office has three funded supervisory positions currently unfilled" and that there is a "lack of liaison and communication (feedback between the District Attorney's Office and the county jail" -- what they also recommended be remedied.
In Keitz's letter, he said his office disagrees that there is any lack of communication and that a liaison already exists.
The Grand Jury reported that the county jail also has "no MOU (memorandum of understanding) or guidelines in effect to refer criminal cases occurring in the facility for prosecution" -- unlike the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla, and Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla (now Valley State Prison) -- and that an MOU for the county jail needs to be established.
The MOU in place, as of January, between the state prisons in Chowchilla and the DA's Office is an agreement to establish guidelines for prosecution of serious crimes committed in state institutions, investigation of criminal activity, release of inmate records to the DA's office, and notification of inmate death or other major incidents, according to the Grand Jury reports.
Keitz's office said they do not plan to create any MOU for the county jail.
"An MOU (a contract) with the state prisons is necessary because the State of California reimburses the District Attorney's Office for prosecution and investigation services," stated Keitz in the letter. "An MOU cannot require the district attorney to file a case. Neither can it affect the evidentiary burden the district attorney is constitutionally required to prove in court. For these reasons, an MOU is not required, nor utilized, by nearly all the other numerous law enforcement agencies operating within Madera County."
The Grand Jury reported that they have "concerns about the lack of filing criminal complaints of crimes committed within the facilities" after an annual inspection and tour of the county jail in October, and after a September inspection and tour of Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla, and Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla (now Valley State Prison).
The Madera County Grand Jury recently criticized the Madera County District Attorney's Office, stating the office has not prosecuted a majority of alleged crimes committed within the Madera County jail, resulting in a "safety issue for officers and inmates."
In its recent reports, the Grand Jury also stated that the Madera County Department of Corrections (county jail) "might not refer a crime to the District Attorney's Office because they perceive the DA's Office will not prosecute the case."
The Grand Jury recommended that the DA's office review internal jail crime reports and increase the number of prosecutions.
The DA Office's response was that the recommendation "will not be implemented."
"The district attorney has and will continue to review crime reports submitted by the jail. However, the District Attorney's Office can not ethically file cases that cannot be proven at trial beyond a reasonable doubt just to increase prosecutions," stated District Attorney Michael Keitz in a letter to Judge Lynn Jones of Madera Superior Court, in response to the Grand Jury's recommendations.
"The District Attorney's Office will again review with the jail management their investigation process, the proof necessary for conviction at trial, the availability of pre-filing forum and the appeal process for rejected cases."
Keitz added that his office is "sympathetic to the safety concerns of the jail staff" and is therefore requesting a budget increase for additional staff to support investigation of crimes committed in the jail.
Keitz said due to budgetary constraints, his office has been "chronically short of prosecutors, investigators and clerical staff for a number of years."
However, the Grand Jury reported that "The District Attorney's Office has three funded supervisory positions currently unfilled" and that there is a "lack of liaison and communication (feedback between the District Attorney's Office and the county jail" -- what they also recommended be remedied.
In Keitz's letter, he said his office disagrees that there is any lack of communication and that a liaison already exists.
The Grand Jury reported that the county jail also has "no MOU (memorandum of understanding) or guidelines in effect to refer criminal cases occurring in the facility for prosecution" -- unlike the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla, and Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla (now Valley State Prison) -- and that an MOU for the county jail needs to be established.
The MOU in place, as of January, between the state prisons in Chowchilla and the DA's Office is an agreement to establish guidelines for prosecution of serious crimes committed in state institutions, investigation of criminal activity, release of inmate records to the DA's office, and notification of inmate death or other major incidents, according to the Grand Jury reports.
Keitz's office said they do not plan to create any MOU for the county jail.
"An MOU (a contract) with the state prisons is necessary because the State of California reimburses the District Attorney's Office for prosecution and investigation services," stated Keitz in the letter. "An MOU cannot require the district attorney to file a case. Neither can it affect the evidentiary burden the district attorney is constitutionally required to prove in court. For these reasons, an MOU is not required, nor utilized, by nearly all the other numerous law enforcement agencies operating within Madera County."
The Grand Jury reported that they have "concerns about the lack of filing criminal complaints of crimes committed within the facilities" after an annual inspection and tour of the county jail in October, and after a September inspection and tour of Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla, and Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla (now Valley State Prison).
Friday, May 10, 2013
Grand Jury Describes 'Atmosphere of Fear' in County Agencies
By TRACY WOOD(AP), Kitsap Sun -
The Orange County Grand Jury, in the latest in a series of reports severely critical of county government leadership, said Wednesday that an “atmosphere of fear” hinders county employees from reporting sexual harassment, among other issues.
“This atmosphere of fear seemed to come from the very top of County government,” according to the 16-page grand jury report titled The Culture of Harassment: Change on the Horizon.
“Many witnesses who testified and persons interviewed by the Grand Jury expressed an aversion to presenting the progress or results of their work product to County elected officials and executive management because they had experienced severe criticism on a personal basis,” the grand jurors reported.
In their report, the grand jurors urged county government leaders, both elected officials and top managers, to take responsibility for changing the “culture,” including concrete steps like requiring human resources employees to be well-trained and hold basic job qualifications.
Board of Supervisors Chairman Shawn Nelson responded with the following statement in a news release:
While the Grand Jury does acknowledge that positive change is occurring, we feel that the significance of the County’s forward progress in this area was downplayed. The Board has consistently demonstrated its commitment to self-examination, transparency, and accountability, not only in response to the results of internal investigations but also through structural changes, such as the creation of the Office of the Performance Audit Director and the recentralization of Human Resources.
The grand jury gave the county credit for taking human resources responsibilities away from the individual agencies and applauded the hiring of an equal employment opportunity manager.
But the report described a dysfunctional reality that has existed for the past 18 years. Each agency had its own human resources department and therefore its own interpretations of state and federal laws. The departments were “staffed by many managers who had little or no training and little or no experience in human resource matters,” the report said.
And issues remain. As of April, according to the report, it is “unclear to employees how they can report sexual harassment anonymously and without fear of retribution.”
This report comes just a day after supervisors turned down a grand jury request to augment its budget by $20,000 so it could finish the work of its one-year term, which ends June 30.
Supervisor Todd Spitzer said Tuesday that grand jury reports seem to be more about “grabbing headlines” than helping supervisors improve services.
Earlier grand jury reports critical of the supervisors were titled CalOptima Burns While Majority of Supervisors Fiddle and A Call for Ethical Standards: Corruption in Orange County.
Sexual harassment of county workers became public in 2012 when District Attorney Tony Rackauckas charged former OC Public Works executive Carlos Bustamante on a dozen felony sex charges.
The charges against Bustamante, who was also a Santa Ana city councilman and rising star in the local Republican Party, included false imprisonment, assault with intent to commit a sexual offense, stalking and attempted sexual battery by restraint.
In the fallout from the Bustamante case, county CEO Tom Mauk and Public Works Director Jess Carbajal resigned and deputy CEO Alisa Drakodaidis left county government.
The grand jury based its findings on information it learned as part of the Bustamante criminal case and from 21 witnesses who, the report said, painted a “disturbing pattern of sexual harassment claims being overlooked, ignored, poorly investigated and even surpressed.” It said the witnesses came from all levels of county government.
“The Grand Jury found a severe lack of understanding of what constitutes sexual harassment,” the report said. “Also distressing was a strong tolerance for inappropriate behavior, especially when it concerned high-ranking elected officials and executives.”
The report went on to say that the jurors “heard that many think the culture in the County has changed and inappropriate behavior will never be tolerated, or ignored, as it was in the past. However, the Grand Jury does not find this to be true after hearing testimony and reviewing a series of fairly recent emails that shows the County may not have learned its lesson.”
Without naming names, the report described a troubling chain of events when an elected official from an Orange County city was under consideration for a management position at a county agency.
The report said:
This person had worked for this County agency in years prior and had sexually harassed multiple female employees in the department. When this person’s name surfaced as a candidate, one of the females brought this to the attention of executive management. The harassment was confirmed by many others in this department. The hiring process for this person did not stop and continued for another two months. The female who had been harassed and frustrated by the continuation of the hiring process within the agency where she worked, contacted the new Human Resource Services Department. Within one day, the hiring process for this person was stopped. The full exchange in the emails that the Grand Jury read showed fear from many in the department that the political alliances of this candidate would outweigh the fact that he had previously sexually harassed County employees. The disregard, by an agency executive, of confirmed sexual harassment clearly showed an ongoing tolerance for inappropriate behavior for elected officials and potential County managers at the expense of safe and equitable working environment.
"This event," the report went on to say, "shows the continuation of a culture in their agencies that officials and executive managers have loudly denied was still in existence.”
It called on county executives to openly and clearly lead a change in attitude.
“The culture will be changed by actions and examples and no elected official or County executive, manager, or supervisor should feel they are exempt from leading by example,” the report said.
The Orange County Grand Jury, in the latest in a series of reports severely critical of county government leadership, said Wednesday that an “atmosphere of fear” hinders county employees from reporting sexual harassment, among other issues.
“This atmosphere of fear seemed to come from the very top of County government,” according to the 16-page grand jury report titled The Culture of Harassment: Change on the Horizon.
“Many witnesses who testified and persons interviewed by the Grand Jury expressed an aversion to presenting the progress or results of their work product to County elected officials and executive management because they had experienced severe criticism on a personal basis,” the grand jurors reported.
In their report, the grand jurors urged county government leaders, both elected officials and top managers, to take responsibility for changing the “culture,” including concrete steps like requiring human resources employees to be well-trained and hold basic job qualifications.
Board of Supervisors Chairman Shawn Nelson responded with the following statement in a news release:
While the Grand Jury does acknowledge that positive change is occurring, we feel that the significance of the County’s forward progress in this area was downplayed. The Board has consistently demonstrated its commitment to self-examination, transparency, and accountability, not only in response to the results of internal investigations but also through structural changes, such as the creation of the Office of the Performance Audit Director and the recentralization of Human Resources.
The grand jury gave the county credit for taking human resources responsibilities away from the individual agencies and applauded the hiring of an equal employment opportunity manager.
But the report described a dysfunctional reality that has existed for the past 18 years. Each agency had its own human resources department and therefore its own interpretations of state and federal laws. The departments were “staffed by many managers who had little or no training and little or no experience in human resource matters,” the report said.
And issues remain. As of April, according to the report, it is “unclear to employees how they can report sexual harassment anonymously and without fear of retribution.”
This report comes just a day after supervisors turned down a grand jury request to augment its budget by $20,000 so it could finish the work of its one-year term, which ends June 30.
Supervisor Todd Spitzer said Tuesday that grand jury reports seem to be more about “grabbing headlines” than helping supervisors improve services.
Earlier grand jury reports critical of the supervisors were titled CalOptima Burns While Majority of Supervisors Fiddle and A Call for Ethical Standards: Corruption in Orange County.
Sexual harassment of county workers became public in 2012 when District Attorney Tony Rackauckas charged former OC Public Works executive Carlos Bustamante on a dozen felony sex charges.
The charges against Bustamante, who was also a Santa Ana city councilman and rising star in the local Republican Party, included false imprisonment, assault with intent to commit a sexual offense, stalking and attempted sexual battery by restraint.
In the fallout from the Bustamante case, county CEO Tom Mauk and Public Works Director Jess Carbajal resigned and deputy CEO Alisa Drakodaidis left county government.
The grand jury based its findings on information it learned as part of the Bustamante criminal case and from 21 witnesses who, the report said, painted a “disturbing pattern of sexual harassment claims being overlooked, ignored, poorly investigated and even surpressed.” It said the witnesses came from all levels of county government.
“The Grand Jury found a severe lack of understanding of what constitutes sexual harassment,” the report said. “Also distressing was a strong tolerance for inappropriate behavior, especially when it concerned high-ranking elected officials and executives.”
The report went on to say that the jurors “heard that many think the culture in the County has changed and inappropriate behavior will never be tolerated, or ignored, as it was in the past. However, the Grand Jury does not find this to be true after hearing testimony and reviewing a series of fairly recent emails that shows the County may not have learned its lesson.”
Without naming names, the report described a troubling chain of events when an elected official from an Orange County city was under consideration for a management position at a county agency.
The report said:
This person had worked for this County agency in years prior and had sexually harassed multiple female employees in the department. When this person’s name surfaced as a candidate, one of the females brought this to the attention of executive management. The harassment was confirmed by many others in this department. The hiring process for this person did not stop and continued for another two months. The female who had been harassed and frustrated by the continuation of the hiring process within the agency where she worked, contacted the new Human Resource Services Department. Within one day, the hiring process for this person was stopped. The full exchange in the emails that the Grand Jury read showed fear from many in the department that the political alliances of this candidate would outweigh the fact that he had previously sexually harassed County employees. The disregard, by an agency executive, of confirmed sexual harassment clearly showed an ongoing tolerance for inappropriate behavior for elected officials and potential County managers at the expense of safe and equitable working environment.
"This event," the report went on to say, "shows the continuation of a culture in their agencies that officials and executive managers have loudly denied was still in existence.”
It called on county executives to openly and clearly lead a change in attitude.
“The culture will be changed by actions and examples and no elected official or County executive, manager, or supervisor should feel they are exempt from leading by example,” the report said.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
OC Supervisors Reject $20,000 Funding Request from Grand Jury
By NICK GERDA(AP), Kitsap Sun -
After issuing several scathing reports that took direct aim at county supervisors, Orange County's grand jury saw its proposed $20,000 mid-year budget increase rejected Tuesday by the board of supervisors.
“Apparently they cannot live within their means,” said county Supervisor Todd Spitzer.
Spitzer added that the grand jury reports seem to be more about “grabbing headlines” than helping supervisors improve services.
County Supervisor John Moorlach seconded Spitzer's sentiment and motion.
The panel has issued scathing reports critical of supervisors this year, including one titled “CalOptima Burns While Majority of Supervisors Fiddle” and "A Call for Ethical Standards: Corruption in Orange County."
Grand jury foreman Ray Garcia didn’t return a message seeking comment.
Asked about Spitzer’s criticisms and the importance of the funds, Orange County Superior Court spokeswoman Gwen Vieau referred questions back to county supervisors.
“Your questions would best be addressed to the Board of Supervisors,” said Vieau.
In an interview Wednesday, Spitzer said the grand jury also didn’t explain to him why they were making the request.
“They didn’t come to me and explain why they needed more money,” said Spitzer. “There was no rationale for why they needed more money.”
He noted that relations with the panel have reached a sour point.
“I don’t think this board has any love lost for this year’s grand jury,” said Spitzer, adding that the panel didn’t consider any of the suggestions he made for their report on political corruption.
“I think they’re very concerned and they’re trying to have an impact on the county. I just think the way they’re going about it is long on dramatics and short on substance,” said Spitzer.
County documents said the grand jury’s $20,000 request was “for administrative support to the grand jurors, and court reporter services.”
The grand jury is expected to issue two more reports on CalOptima this session, with the health plan’s CEO Michael Schrader reminding its board members of that just last week.
The Orange County Superior Court budgeted $209,000 for the grand jury this year, with $180,000 of that going to salaries and benefits and $29,000 spent on services and supplies.
Spending is down about 20 percent from fiscal year 2011’s actual expenses of $259,000.
Orange County’s grand jury has produced five reports so far this year, including examinations of bus service for the disabled and challenges in collecting child support.
After issuing several scathing reports that took direct aim at county supervisors, Orange County's grand jury saw its proposed $20,000 mid-year budget increase rejected Tuesday by the board of supervisors.
“Apparently they cannot live within their means,” said county Supervisor Todd Spitzer.
Spitzer added that the grand jury reports seem to be more about “grabbing headlines” than helping supervisors improve services.
County Supervisor John Moorlach seconded Spitzer's sentiment and motion.
The panel has issued scathing reports critical of supervisors this year, including one titled “CalOptima Burns While Majority of Supervisors Fiddle” and "A Call for Ethical Standards: Corruption in Orange County."
Grand jury foreman Ray Garcia didn’t return a message seeking comment.
Asked about Spitzer’s criticisms and the importance of the funds, Orange County Superior Court spokeswoman Gwen Vieau referred questions back to county supervisors.
“Your questions would best be addressed to the Board of Supervisors,” said Vieau.
In an interview Wednesday, Spitzer said the grand jury also didn’t explain to him why they were making the request.
“They didn’t come to me and explain why they needed more money,” said Spitzer. “There was no rationale for why they needed more money.”
He noted that relations with the panel have reached a sour point.
“I don’t think this board has any love lost for this year’s grand jury,” said Spitzer, adding that the panel didn’t consider any of the suggestions he made for their report on political corruption.
“I think they’re very concerned and they’re trying to have an impact on the county. I just think the way they’re going about it is long on dramatics and short on substance,” said Spitzer.
County documents said the grand jury’s $20,000 request was “for administrative support to the grand jurors, and court reporter services.”
The grand jury is expected to issue two more reports on CalOptima this session, with the health plan’s CEO Michael Schrader reminding its board members of that just last week.
The Orange County Superior Court budgeted $209,000 for the grand jury this year, with $180,000 of that going to salaries and benefits and $29,000 spent on services and supplies.
Spending is down about 20 percent from fiscal year 2011’s actual expenses of $259,000.
Orange County’s grand jury has produced five reports so far this year, including examinations of bus service for the disabled and challenges in collecting child support.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Grand Jury Questions San Diego Unified Action Center
By Kyla Calvert, KPBS.org -
San Diego Unified may have violated state laws by using part of its website for political advocacy. The county’s grand jury argues a sample letter to legislators in support of more funding for schools crosses the line.
Last year San Diego Unified added a section to its website called the Education Issues Action Center. Ahead of the November elections, the action center included that sample letter to state legislators urging them to support funding for schools as well as links to the Yes on 38 and Yes on 30 campaign websites.
A grand jury report released this week said those postings are the kind of political activity prohibited by the state’s education laws.
But, the district’s website wasn’t their only concern, according to Jury Foreman Paul Christian.
“A lot of the individual schools have their own websites as well and we thought there was somewhat of a lax supervision of those websites," he said. "We found that over 4,300 people had access to put information on the various websites through all the San Diego city schools.”
Tightening access to school site was one of the report's five recommendations. The grand jury also recommended that the district put more robust policies in place to prevent political activity on the part of district staff and closer monitoring of the Education Issues Action Center page for compliance with state law.
A school district representative said the district’s attorney is reviewing the report and will prepare the response required within 90 days under state law.
San Diego Unified may have violated state laws by using part of its website for political advocacy. The county’s grand jury argues a sample letter to legislators in support of more funding for schools crosses the line.
Last year San Diego Unified added a section to its website called the Education Issues Action Center. Ahead of the November elections, the action center included that sample letter to state legislators urging them to support funding for schools as well as links to the Yes on 38 and Yes on 30 campaign websites.
A grand jury report released this week said those postings are the kind of political activity prohibited by the state’s education laws.
But, the district’s website wasn’t their only concern, according to Jury Foreman Paul Christian.
“A lot of the individual schools have their own websites as well and we thought there was somewhat of a lax supervision of those websites," he said. "We found that over 4,300 people had access to put information on the various websites through all the San Diego city schools.”
Tightening access to school site was one of the report's five recommendations. The grand jury also recommended that the district put more robust policies in place to prevent political activity on the part of district staff and closer monitoring of the Education Issues Action Center page for compliance with state law.
A school district representative said the district’s attorney is reviewing the report and will prepare the response required within 90 days under state law.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Marin County Civil Grand Jury: Library spending lacks oversight
By Nels Johnson, Marin Independent Journal -
Oversight of an annual $2.5 million Marin County library tax fund has been ineffective, with a "lack of involvement" from a watchdog panel that operates in the dark compounded by a fragmented budget that makes expenses difficult to track, Marin's civil grand jury asserted.
The county Library Commission, appointed by county supervisors in 2010 as the independent panel voters were promised would audit Marin's $49-a-year Measure A parcel tax, has done little to fulfill its oversight role, with "input ... limited to twice yearly reports from the library administration," the jury concluded.
Further, "expenditures of Measure A funds are difficult to track," the jury observed, noting that the administration has failed to provide either a separate line-item budget of special tax fund expenditures or an overall program outlining "planning, budgeting and scheduling" of future improvements.
"Line items for Measure A expenditures are not in the Marin County Library budget," the jury said. "Income from Measure A is displayed as a lump sum. The outflow seems to cover the entire budget deficit."
The Marin County Free Library includes branches in Bolinas, the Marin Civic Center, Corte Madera, Fairfax, Inverness, Marin City, Novato, Point Reyes Station and Stinson Beach. A renovation project in the main Novato branch this spring launched a systemwide remodeling program using Measure A revenue.
But instead of a coherent blueprint for Measure A spending, the jury said it found information, details, budgets and schedules scattered "in various places and in various controls," making tracking funding difficult. The situation prevents the commission, serving as the Measure A Oversight Committee, from an ability to see "the whole picture, track progress and extend the support it is tasked to provide."
Making matters worse, jurors indicated the commission has neither bark nor bite, saying commissioners listened to administration reports at monthly meetings but "had virtually no discussion or dialogue on substantive issues" and "gave no feedback, offered no opinions and had no open discussions of issues."
When serving twice a year as the tax oversight committee, the commission gets an update "by way of presentations" from the library administration, but does not provide "input, discussion or direction," the jury reported.
"The Library Commission's input on Measure A has been limited to twice-yearly reports from the library administration," the jury said, adding the panel's "apparent lack of involvement leaves an unfilled gap in what should be proactive support."
The jury, citing "insufficient long-range library facility and services planning," noted an Independent Journal report about a 50 percent cost overrun for last-minute planning work, bringing a consultant tab to $250,000 for the design of a library lobby remodeling project. The tab soared when library officials changed their minds in midstream about what needed to be done.
Library Commissioner Cal Kurzman, in a recent letter to other commissioners, also cited the newspaper report, saying the oversight committee "was left completely out of the loop" on the matter. Another news report, he added, indicated the county dipped into Measure A funds to cover pay and benefits for a $170,000-a-year employee it shifted from the personnel department to the library staff.
"My concern is the decision-making process," he said. "The Oversight Committee has not been receiving the basic information it requires in order to assure the voters of Marin County that their tax dollars are being effectively spent."
Kurzman said the Measure A Oversight Committee has met just three times, once for a session that lasted nine minutes, another for a session that lasted 12 minutes and a third that went on for 64 minutes.
Communication and collaboration or the lack of it were at the center of a number of other jury complaints as well.
Several commissioners told jurors they had never met with the supervisors who had appointed them. "It is apparent ... that the Library Commission and the Board of Supervisors do not have an ongoing dialogue, and that the Library Commission is not empowered to recommend solutions to the many long-lasting problems," the jury said.
Library staffers complained about top-down management, saying they were not consulted about restructuring library operations and programs, and several balked about hiring consultants to prepare studies when "little input was solicited from staff who had considerable day-to-day experience to offer," the jury said. Staffers expressed "hesitation and dismay" at shuffling library responsibilities in a new "single point of service" program that merges reference and circulation desks.
Jury findings seemed to reflect a county survey two years ago that indicated 69 percent of county library employees responding lacked confidence in senior management.
Scott Bauer, acting head of the library system after the retirement of Librarian Gail Haar, said he needs to reflect on the jury report, but added some jury findings are "spot on," and others already are being addressed. Overall, it appears the jury took "a very good look" at library operations, he said, adding the report will be discussed when the Library Commission meets at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Inverness Library at 15 Park Ave.
Judy Arnold, president of the Board of Supervisors, noted that change is in the works at the county library.
Carson City Librarian Sara Jones, Nevada's "co-librarian of the year" last year, takes over as head of the Marin library system on July 8.
Jones should "make improved communication a priority," the jury concluded.
Oversight of an annual $2.5 million Marin County library tax fund has been ineffective, with a "lack of involvement" from a watchdog panel that operates in the dark compounded by a fragmented budget that makes expenses difficult to track, Marin's civil grand jury asserted.
The county Library Commission, appointed by county supervisors in 2010 as the independent panel voters were promised would audit Marin's $49-a-year Measure A parcel tax, has done little to fulfill its oversight role, with "input ... limited to twice yearly reports from the library administration," the jury concluded.
Further, "expenditures of Measure A funds are difficult to track," the jury observed, noting that the administration has failed to provide either a separate line-item budget of special tax fund expenditures or an overall program outlining "planning, budgeting and scheduling" of future improvements.
"Line items for Measure A expenditures are not in the Marin County Library budget," the jury said. "Income from Measure A is displayed as a lump sum. The outflow seems to cover the entire budget deficit."
The Marin County Free Library includes branches in Bolinas, the Marin Civic Center, Corte Madera, Fairfax, Inverness, Marin City, Novato, Point Reyes Station and Stinson Beach. A renovation project in the main Novato branch this spring launched a systemwide remodeling program using Measure A revenue.
But instead of a coherent blueprint for Measure A spending, the jury said it found information, details, budgets and schedules scattered "in various places and in various controls," making tracking funding difficult. The situation prevents the commission, serving as the Measure A Oversight Committee, from an ability to see "the whole picture, track progress and extend the support it is tasked to provide."
Making matters worse, jurors indicated the commission has neither bark nor bite, saying commissioners listened to administration reports at monthly meetings but "had virtually no discussion or dialogue on substantive issues" and "gave no feedback, offered no opinions and had no open discussions of issues."
When serving twice a year as the tax oversight committee, the commission gets an update "by way of presentations" from the library administration, but does not provide "input, discussion or direction," the jury reported.
"The Library Commission's input on Measure A has been limited to twice-yearly reports from the library administration," the jury said, adding the panel's "apparent lack of involvement leaves an unfilled gap in what should be proactive support."
The jury, citing "insufficient long-range library facility and services planning," noted an Independent Journal report about a 50 percent cost overrun for last-minute planning work, bringing a consultant tab to $250,000 for the design of a library lobby remodeling project. The tab soared when library officials changed their minds in midstream about what needed to be done.
Library Commissioner Cal Kurzman, in a recent letter to other commissioners, also cited the newspaper report, saying the oversight committee "was left completely out of the loop" on the matter. Another news report, he added, indicated the county dipped into Measure A funds to cover pay and benefits for a $170,000-a-year employee it shifted from the personnel department to the library staff.
"My concern is the decision-making process," he said. "The Oversight Committee has not been receiving the basic information it requires in order to assure the voters of Marin County that their tax dollars are being effectively spent."
Kurzman said the Measure A Oversight Committee has met just three times, once for a session that lasted nine minutes, another for a session that lasted 12 minutes and a third that went on for 64 minutes.
Communication and collaboration or the lack of it were at the center of a number of other jury complaints as well.
Several commissioners told jurors they had never met with the supervisors who had appointed them. "It is apparent ... that the Library Commission and the Board of Supervisors do not have an ongoing dialogue, and that the Library Commission is not empowered to recommend solutions to the many long-lasting problems," the jury said.
Library staffers complained about top-down management, saying they were not consulted about restructuring library operations and programs, and several balked about hiring consultants to prepare studies when "little input was solicited from staff who had considerable day-to-day experience to offer," the jury said. Staffers expressed "hesitation and dismay" at shuffling library responsibilities in a new "single point of service" program that merges reference and circulation desks.
Jury findings seemed to reflect a county survey two years ago that indicated 69 percent of county library employees responding lacked confidence in senior management.
Scott Bauer, acting head of the library system after the retirement of Librarian Gail Haar, said he needs to reflect on the jury report, but added some jury findings are "spot on," and others already are being addressed. Overall, it appears the jury took "a very good look" at library operations, he said, adding the report will be discussed when the Library Commission meets at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Inverness Library at 15 Park Ave.
Judy Arnold, president of the Board of Supervisors, noted that change is in the works at the county library.
Carson City Librarian Sara Jones, Nevada's "co-librarian of the year" last year, takes over as head of the Marin library system on July 8.
Jones should "make improved communication a priority," the jury concluded.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Inmate fire crews in danger: grand jury
By J. Harry Jones, U-T San Diego -
The San Diego County Grand Jury has issued a report stressing the need to continue inmate firefighting camps in the county and recommending studies be done and plans be put in place to ensure that a new state law doesn’t affect backcountry firefighting readiness.
In 2011 the state enacted a court-ordered law, the California Public Safety Realignment Act, designed to reduce overcrowding in its 33 prisons.
According to the grand jury’s report, one of the unintended consequences of the law is that low-risk inmates, some of whom would have been assigned to fire camps throughout the state, will now be housed in county jails or be placed on probation and will no longer be able to fight fires.
Inmate firefighters have been used for decades to perform crucial work during firestorms and for duties such as clearing brush from vulnerable areas before a fire strikes.
The state’s corrections department, in conjunction with Cal Fire, operate 42 fire camps throughout the state, four of them in San Diego County. Each camp has between 90 and 150 inmates.
In 2011 there were 4,400 state prison inmates assigned to fire camps, but it’s estimated that only 2,200 inmates will qualify to volunteer for firefighting over the next several years because of the new law, according to the report.
The grand jury recommends that plans should be developed by the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Department to monitor the effects of the law on firefighting. The plans should have the goal of keeping the four existing fire camps open year-round using current levels of qualified firefighting inmates from either state or county detention facilities, and should be finalized by June 1, 2014, the grand jury says.
“The grand jury finds that in order to maintain current levels of inmate firefighters within San Diego County, future firefighter-eligible detainees could be drawn from county jail populations,” the report states.
That could be costly. Under the new law counties would have to pay the corrections department $46 per inmate per day to house them as firefighters within the fire camps.
Sheriff’s Capt. Frank Clamser said on Thursday the department is in the process of coming up with a contract with the state to send inmates to the fire camps with the hope that the prisoners will be used in the county.
Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who represents large swaths of the county’s rural areas, issued the following statement Thursday: “I fully support using county inmates at state fire camps and look forward to working with Sheriff Gore to bring the issue before the Board of Supervisors. The continued operation of these camps is essential to the region. They provide the boots on the ground we need to help battle wildfires and lower the risk of a disaster.”
There are four camps in the county, two for women and two for men. The female camps are Puerta La Cruz near Warner Springs and Rainbow. Male inmates are housed at the La Cima camp near Julian and at a camp in McCain Valley.
The Grand Jury investigates the operations of governmental programs in the area. A new Grand Jury is chosen each year. Members are nominated by Superior Court Judges and serve one-year terms.
To read the report click here.
The San Diego County Grand Jury has issued a report stressing the need to continue inmate firefighting camps in the county and recommending studies be done and plans be put in place to ensure that a new state law doesn’t affect backcountry firefighting readiness.
In 2011 the state enacted a court-ordered law, the California Public Safety Realignment Act, designed to reduce overcrowding in its 33 prisons.
According to the grand jury’s report, one of the unintended consequences of the law is that low-risk inmates, some of whom would have been assigned to fire camps throughout the state, will now be housed in county jails or be placed on probation and will no longer be able to fight fires.
Inmate firefighters have been used for decades to perform crucial work during firestorms and for duties such as clearing brush from vulnerable areas before a fire strikes.
The state’s corrections department, in conjunction with Cal Fire, operate 42 fire camps throughout the state, four of them in San Diego County. Each camp has between 90 and 150 inmates.
In 2011 there were 4,400 state prison inmates assigned to fire camps, but it’s estimated that only 2,200 inmates will qualify to volunteer for firefighting over the next several years because of the new law, according to the report.
The grand jury recommends that plans should be developed by the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Department to monitor the effects of the law on firefighting. The plans should have the goal of keeping the four existing fire camps open year-round using current levels of qualified firefighting inmates from either state or county detention facilities, and should be finalized by June 1, 2014, the grand jury says.
“The grand jury finds that in order to maintain current levels of inmate firefighters within San Diego County, future firefighter-eligible detainees could be drawn from county jail populations,” the report states.
That could be costly. Under the new law counties would have to pay the corrections department $46 per inmate per day to house them as firefighters within the fire camps.
Sheriff’s Capt. Frank Clamser said on Thursday the department is in the process of coming up with a contract with the state to send inmates to the fire camps with the hope that the prisoners will be used in the county.
Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who represents large swaths of the county’s rural areas, issued the following statement Thursday: “I fully support using county inmates at state fire camps and look forward to working with Sheriff Gore to bring the issue before the Board of Supervisors. The continued operation of these camps is essential to the region. They provide the boots on the ground we need to help battle wildfires and lower the risk of a disaster.”
There are four camps in the county, two for women and two for men. The female camps are Puerta La Cruz near Warner Springs and Rainbow. Male inmates are housed at the La Cima camp near Julian and at a camp in McCain Valley.
The Grand Jury investigates the operations of governmental programs in the area. A new Grand Jury is chosen each year. Members are nominated by Superior Court Judges and serve one-year terms.
To read the report click here.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
(San Diego) Grand Jury mourns redevelopment end
The San Diego County Grand Jury endorsed San Diego city's 54-year effort a redevelopment, even as it mourned its state-ordered demise.
"The grand jury concluded that the taxpayers of San Diego did, indeed, get value for their property tax dollars in the contributions their redevelopment agency made to the city," the jury said in its April 30 report.
But the jury noted that the city is left with nearly $2.4 billion in debt tied to numerous ongoing projects, such as Petco Park and the 2001 San Diego Convention Center expansion.
"The grand jury recommends that Mayor Bob Filner personally lead a comprehensive, impactful advocacy effort to assure that the state fulfills this responsibility (to see that debts are paid) and the interests of the city of San Diego are well represented," the jury said.
The state ordered the dissolution of more than 400 redevelopment agencies last year as a way to reduce the state's budget deficit by a projected $1.8 billion. The money was returned largely to school districts, and relieved the state of filling the gap left by diverted taxes for redevelopment.
The state currently reviews post-redevelopment spending to cover certain debt obligations and can override items it deems disqualified. About $13 million in convention center and ballpark bond payments are examples of disallowed payments. The city general fund has had to make up the difference.
The grand jury took note of many redevelopment projects that it said successfully reduced blight and advanced economic development downtown and in many suburban neighborhoods. It cited as examples Horton Plaza shopping center, the new Central Library, now nearing completion, affordable housing, City Heights Urban Village, the Naval Training Center's conversion to Liberty Station and the North Park Theatre.
"Redevelopment in San Diego is unfinished business. Literally!" said the jury. "When San Diego's redevelopment agency was dissolved, many projects that were under way were left unfinished."
The jury recommended Civic San Diego, set up to wind down redevelopment, form a specialized work group to find new funding sources for those unfinished projects. Member said some of the funds should come from the city's share of redevelopment property taxes dispersed back to its general fund. So far the city has not made such a commitment, although it has used the funds, about $17 million this year, to cover the convention center and Petco bonds. The mayor also has backed spending $400,000 in city funds to install two new public restrooms downtown -- a project previously intended to be financed through redevelopment.
The jury did not discuss the views of many redevelopment critics, who objected to using of eminent domain to acquire sites; concentrating redevelopment funds on downtown projects rather than sharing them with other redevelopment project areas; and spending high amounts on subsidies for some affordable housing projects.
Instead, the jury recommended the city survey other states to see what alternate redevelopment concepts might be applied locally.
"The strong encouragement and unequivocal support of redevelopment efforts that have characterized past city administrations should be continued," the jury said.
Filner has called on Civic San Diego to broaden its view citywide, even suggesting its name be changed to "Neighborhood San Diego."
Coincidentally, CivicSD recently received approval for $35 million in federal new markets tax credits that could be used to help underwrite commercial projects. The jury cited this program as one example of a non-redevelopment funding approach.
City Council President Todd Gloria also has launched a look at floating perhaps a billion-dollar infrastructure bond issue to address projects that redevelopment funds previously might have supported.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/may/01/grand-jury-redevelopment/
"The grand jury concluded that the taxpayers of San Diego did, indeed, get value for their property tax dollars in the contributions their redevelopment agency made to the city," the jury said in its April 30 report.
But the jury noted that the city is left with nearly $2.4 billion in debt tied to numerous ongoing projects, such as Petco Park and the 2001 San Diego Convention Center expansion.
"The grand jury recommends that Mayor Bob Filner personally lead a comprehensive, impactful advocacy effort to assure that the state fulfills this responsibility (to see that debts are paid) and the interests of the city of San Diego are well represented," the jury said.
The state ordered the dissolution of more than 400 redevelopment agencies last year as a way to reduce the state's budget deficit by a projected $1.8 billion. The money was returned largely to school districts, and relieved the state of filling the gap left by diverted taxes for redevelopment.
The state currently reviews post-redevelopment spending to cover certain debt obligations and can override items it deems disqualified. About $13 million in convention center and ballpark bond payments are examples of disallowed payments. The city general fund has had to make up the difference.
The grand jury took note of many redevelopment projects that it said successfully reduced blight and advanced economic development downtown and in many suburban neighborhoods. It cited as examples Horton Plaza shopping center, the new Central Library, now nearing completion, affordable housing, City Heights Urban Village, the Naval Training Center's conversion to Liberty Station and the North Park Theatre.
"Redevelopment in San Diego is unfinished business. Literally!" said the jury. "When San Diego's redevelopment agency was dissolved, many projects that were under way were left unfinished."
The jury recommended Civic San Diego, set up to wind down redevelopment, form a specialized work group to find new funding sources for those unfinished projects. Member said some of the funds should come from the city's share of redevelopment property taxes dispersed back to its general fund. So far the city has not made such a commitment, although it has used the funds, about $17 million this year, to cover the convention center and Petco bonds. The mayor also has backed spending $400,000 in city funds to install two new public restrooms downtown -- a project previously intended to be financed through redevelopment.
The jury did not discuss the views of many redevelopment critics, who objected to using of eminent domain to acquire sites; concentrating redevelopment funds on downtown projects rather than sharing them with other redevelopment project areas; and spending high amounts on subsidies for some affordable housing projects.
Instead, the jury recommended the city survey other states to see what alternate redevelopment concepts might be applied locally.
"The strong encouragement and unequivocal support of redevelopment efforts that have characterized past city administrations should be continued," the jury said.
Filner has called on Civic San Diego to broaden its view citywide, even suggesting its name be changed to "Neighborhood San Diego."
Coincidentally, CivicSD recently received approval for $35 million in federal new markets tax credits that could be used to help underwrite commercial projects. The jury cited this program as one example of a non-redevelopment funding approach.
City Council President Todd Gloria also has launched a look at floating perhaps a billion-dollar infrastructure bond issue to address projects that redevelopment funds previously might have supported.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/may/01/grand-jury-redevelopment/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)