By Pablo Lopez, The Fresno Bee -
Del Rey Community Service District has been operating at a financial loss for 17 of the past 18 years and board members can't account for missing money, a Fresno County grand jury report says.
The eight-page report, released this week, criticizes board members for not conducting themselves properly at public meetings and for failing to perform their duties in accordance with the law.
It was the second time in five years the county's civilian grand jury has investigated improper expenditures by the district, which was established in 1963 to provide water, sewer, solid waste and other service to 1,600 residents south of Sanger.
According to the report, the district's reserve had $687,942 in December 1995. A June 2007 audit showed a reserve balance of $284,844. But as of July last year, the reserve had dropped to $94,967.
"The findings of the current grand jury are in total agreement with those of the previous grand jury," the report said. "Records needed to identify how the funds were spent are non-existent."
In the report, jurors ask the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and the Local Agency Formation Commission, known as LAFCO, to have better oversight of the Del Rey district. Jurors also would like LAFCO to "take a more aggressive stance in recommending a merger of this district" with another, financially stable district.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Friday, May 31, 2013
(San Joaquin) Report Critical of Stockton’s Former City Manager, Finance Department
by Sam Cohen, Fox40.com -
A grand jury report says it was a lack of reliable information and lack of project oversight that led to Stockton having to file for bankruptcy. They make many recommendations to the city, including forming new audit and budget systems, and provide finance training for current department staff and council members.
According to the report released Thursday, the San Joaquin County Grand Jury found “evidence of inadequate information presented to the City Council by a former city manager; lack of project oversight; unilateral control and manipulation of projects by a former city manager without City Council knowledge or approval; poor accounting of the various transactions involving the Events Center; lack of reliable information between city staff and the City Council; and, a financial system that is inadequate for the accounting needed.”
The group looked at Stockton’s current financial situation, and also what information the city council knew, or didn’t know, the effectiveness of the City Auditor, the finance department and prevalence of financial training for council members and the mayor.
Read the whole report here.
The grand jury report criticizes Stockton’s Finance Department, stating the department’s software and computer hardware was more than 20 years old. “The inability to manage and extract information makes it difficult to prepare timely financial reports in a format that is easily understood by elected officials and the public.”
They recommend the department prepare a training program for all finance department staff to improve their knowledge and account skills.
The report also chastised the lack of communication between the former city manager and city department heads, and the general council about the financial health of Stockton; specifically alerting the council about which departments of the city were or were not adhering to their budget limits.
In addition, the current grand jury report reconfirms an earlier report in 2006 that the then-city manager failed to provide information about the true cost of the Events Center to council members. This incident, and the increasing costs of building the Events Center, led to a growing mistrust between the city manager position and council members, according to the grand jury.
In conclusion, the grand jury report made it clear the responsibility is on the mayor and city council to know what is going on in their city. “A Mayor and City Council that prefers to not ask questions or demand complete and accurate information from its management, or to remain uneducated about the intricacies of the city’s financial structure and operations can be more easily swayed by staff recommendations that are not in the public’s best interest.”
A grand jury report says it was a lack of reliable information and lack of project oversight that led to Stockton having to file for bankruptcy. They make many recommendations to the city, including forming new audit and budget systems, and provide finance training for current department staff and council members.
According to the report released Thursday, the San Joaquin County Grand Jury found “evidence of inadequate information presented to the City Council by a former city manager; lack of project oversight; unilateral control and manipulation of projects by a former city manager without City Council knowledge or approval; poor accounting of the various transactions involving the Events Center; lack of reliable information between city staff and the City Council; and, a financial system that is inadequate for the accounting needed.”
The group looked at Stockton’s current financial situation, and also what information the city council knew, or didn’t know, the effectiveness of the City Auditor, the finance department and prevalence of financial training for council members and the mayor.
Read the whole report here.
The grand jury report criticizes Stockton’s Finance Department, stating the department’s software and computer hardware was more than 20 years old. “The inability to manage and extract information makes it difficult to prepare timely financial reports in a format that is easily understood by elected officials and the public.”
They recommend the department prepare a training program for all finance department staff to improve their knowledge and account skills.
The report also chastised the lack of communication between the former city manager and city department heads, and the general council about the financial health of Stockton; specifically alerting the council about which departments of the city were or were not adhering to their budget limits.
In addition, the current grand jury report reconfirms an earlier report in 2006 that the then-city manager failed to provide information about the true cost of the Events Center to council members. This incident, and the increasing costs of building the Events Center, led to a growing mistrust between the city manager position and council members, according to the grand jury.
In conclusion, the grand jury report made it clear the responsibility is on the mayor and city council to know what is going on in their city. “A Mayor and City Council that prefers to not ask questions or demand complete and accurate information from its management, or to remain uneducated about the intricacies of the city’s financial structure and operations can be more easily swayed by staff recommendations that are not in the public’s best interest.”
Thursday, May 30, 2013
(San Joaquin) Grand jury faults bug-control agency
By Kevin Parrish, Record Staff Writer -
The agency that protects San Joaquin County by killing dangerous bugs and vermin has come under grand jury criticism for the second year in a row.
The county Mosquito and Vector Control District - which states as its mission "comprehensive vector surveillance and control services to enhance ... public health and quality of life" - was targeted by the 2012-13 grand jury for three areas involving its 11-member governing board:
» Open-meeting violations.
» Failing to understand health benefits trustees approved for themselves - and lacking in basic understanding of district finances.
» A sense of entitlement on the part of some trustees and appointments to the governing board.
"We certainly respect the efforts of the grand jury to ensure county residents are receiving the most efficient and responsible service," said Ed Lucchesi, district manager. "If there are efforts we need to improve on, we will look into it. This may cause us to do a self-evaluation."
Lucchesi, a district employee for 26 years, replaced longtime manager John Stroh last summer.
The current grand jury investigated two complaints involving the Brown Act, California's open-meeting law, and found no violations had occurred.
According to its report, posted Tuesday, the grand jury did, however, find other areas of concern: a lack of transparency regarding district board meetings, lack of understanding by trustees, a failure to grasp district finances, concerns over trustee appointments and the board's governance structure.
The mosquito-and-vector control district's legal counsel is Stockton attorney Chris Eley.
"The report states that the district board ignores the peoples' right to be informed. I think that mischaracterizes the actions of the district and the board."
Eley said the criticisms were minor. He said the board "has done a good job in keeping up the level of service" during difficult financial times.
"Trustees are community members who take time every month to do the unglamorous work of overseeing vector control work," Eley said.
The district has 37 employees and an annual budget of approximately $6.7 million. There are 68 other mosquito-control districts in California. Only three offer health-insurance benefits for trustees.
The local board president is Marc Warmerdam, who represents the Lodi area. The 11 members, who meet monthly, are appointed by the county Board of Supervisors and the seven incorporated cities in San Joaquin County.
The county's bug-fighting agency has been criticized for the health-insurance practice by the San Joaquin Taxpayer's Association.
In January, trustees reaffirmed a 2009 resolution to receive the same health benefits as employees.
The projected cost at the time was $66,000 for six of the 11 members (about $11,000 per trustee).
The grand jury also recommended the district "allow the public greater access to ... agendas and reports" and that the county supervisors and cities "consider adopting term limits."
Grand jury members said they had "concerns about whether having a separate district with a separate board is the most effective structure for present and future vector-control needs."
A year ago, the grand jury looked into accusations of sexual harassment in the form of rude, vulgar and lewd remarks. The district reported back its disagreement with some findings and a recommendation to improve training.
The grand jury has given the district 90 days to compile an official response.
The agency that protects San Joaquin County by killing dangerous bugs and vermin has come under grand jury criticism for the second year in a row.
The county Mosquito and Vector Control District - which states as its mission "comprehensive vector surveillance and control services to enhance ... public health and quality of life" - was targeted by the 2012-13 grand jury for three areas involving its 11-member governing board:
» Open-meeting violations.
» Failing to understand health benefits trustees approved for themselves - and lacking in basic understanding of district finances.
» A sense of entitlement on the part of some trustees and appointments to the governing board.
"We certainly respect the efforts of the grand jury to ensure county residents are receiving the most efficient and responsible service," said Ed Lucchesi, district manager. "If there are efforts we need to improve on, we will look into it. This may cause us to do a self-evaluation."
Lucchesi, a district employee for 26 years, replaced longtime manager John Stroh last summer.
The current grand jury investigated two complaints involving the Brown Act, California's open-meeting law, and found no violations had occurred.
According to its report, posted Tuesday, the grand jury did, however, find other areas of concern: a lack of transparency regarding district board meetings, lack of understanding by trustees, a failure to grasp district finances, concerns over trustee appointments and the board's governance structure.
The mosquito-and-vector control district's legal counsel is Stockton attorney Chris Eley.
"The report states that the district board ignores the peoples' right to be informed. I think that mischaracterizes the actions of the district and the board."
Eley said the criticisms were minor. He said the board "has done a good job in keeping up the level of service" during difficult financial times.
"Trustees are community members who take time every month to do the unglamorous work of overseeing vector control work," Eley said.
The district has 37 employees and an annual budget of approximately $6.7 million. There are 68 other mosquito-control districts in California. Only three offer health-insurance benefits for trustees.
The local board president is Marc Warmerdam, who represents the Lodi area. The 11 members, who meet monthly, are appointed by the county Board of Supervisors and the seven incorporated cities in San Joaquin County.
The county's bug-fighting agency has been criticized for the health-insurance practice by the San Joaquin Taxpayer's Association.
In January, trustees reaffirmed a 2009 resolution to receive the same health benefits as employees.
The projected cost at the time was $66,000 for six of the 11 members (about $11,000 per trustee).
The grand jury also recommended the district "allow the public greater access to ... agendas and reports" and that the county supervisors and cities "consider adopting term limits."
Grand jury members said they had "concerns about whether having a separate district with a separate board is the most effective structure for present and future vector-control needs."
A year ago, the grand jury looked into accusations of sexual harassment in the form of rude, vulgar and lewd remarks. The district reported back its disagreement with some findings and a recommendation to improve training.
The grand jury has given the district 90 days to compile an official response.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
(Kern) Stay at Lerdo costs more than Marriott
17 KGET.com -
It used to be called the Honor Farm, but Lerdo jail is becoming more dangerous by the day - and more expensive, too - according to a new report by the Kern County Grand Jury.
On average, it costs 129 dollars per day to house each inmate. You can get an executive room at the Downtown Marriott for that price. That's 47 thousand dollars a year, which is more than two semesters tuition at USC medical school.
There are nearly 27 hundred inmates in Lerdo's four units. That's more than 126 million dollars per year, three times what it's going to cost to build the new dorms at at Cal State Bakersfield.
The grand jury says because of prison realignment, every inmate released tends to be replaced by a more violent one.
There are 300 inmates serving sentences of three years or more.
Click here to read the whole grand jury report.
It used to be called the Honor Farm, but Lerdo jail is becoming more dangerous by the day - and more expensive, too - according to a new report by the Kern County Grand Jury.
On average, it costs 129 dollars per day to house each inmate. You can get an executive room at the Downtown Marriott for that price. That's 47 thousand dollars a year, which is more than two semesters tuition at USC medical school.
There are nearly 27 hundred inmates in Lerdo's four units. That's more than 126 million dollars per year, three times what it's going to cost to build the new dorms at at Cal State Bakersfield.
The grand jury says because of prison realignment, every inmate released tends to be replaced by a more violent one.
There are 300 inmates serving sentences of three years or more.
Click here to read the whole grand jury report.
Friday, May 24, 2013
(San Diego) GRAND JURY CRITICAL OF DISTRICT FOR NOT BUILDING HIGH SCHOOL
By Karen Pearlman, U-T San Diego -
Alpine voters OK’d 2 bond measures, but still no campus
East County
The San Diego County Grand Jury took the Grossmont Union High School District school board to task Tuesday for not coming through on construction of a high school in Alpine despite passage of two bond measures.
A grand jury report found that “the residents of GUHSD and the greater Alpine area deserve clarity from the School Board regarding the proposed 12th high school.”
Since 2004, voters in the district have approved two bond measures, totaling nearly $700 million, that include funding to construct the high school in Alpine along with upgrades to existing schools.
School officials say the high school is on hold because available bond funds are insufficient, that enrollment projections do not support a new school and that the school would not be economical to operate.
“The district will give serious consideration to these recommendations and will develop a timely response following a thorough review,” said Catherine Martin, a spokeswoman for the school district. She noted the district has 90 days to respond.
The district serves nearly 25,000 students. Most students living in Alpine attend Granite Hills in El Cajon or Steele Canyon in Jamul, said Al Haven, one-time Alpine Union School District superintendent and one of three chief petitioners to the grand jury.
“We started this in 2002 because Grossmont was not providing a high school for our kids, some of whom need 60 to 90 minutes one way to attend school,” Haven said. “We have kids spending 10 hours a week traveling to school, whereas for other kids in the district it’s 20 minutes at the most. And we’ve had kids being killed on the road.”
The grand jury recommends that the board make a final decision by Dec. 31. If it decides to build, funds should be placed in an escrow account and a timeline established. If it does not commit to the school, the board has been asked to support a unification effort in Alpine so voters can decide whether to have a high school built as a part of the Alpine Union School District.
Board members Priscilla Schreiber and Jim Stieringer, both of whom have supported the building of the Alpine school, were heartened by the report.
“I have made my statements for 10 to 12 long years, and the grand jury report and findings should confirm my fight for the Alpine community plight and the total disdain and disregard for the Alpine community,” Schreiber said.
Stieringer said he agreed with the report’s argument that “the district has consistently made promises to the residents of Alpine that it either could not or would not keep.”
Alpine voters OK’d 2 bond measures, but still no campus
East County
The San Diego County Grand Jury took the Grossmont Union High School District school board to task Tuesday for not coming through on construction of a high school in Alpine despite passage of two bond measures.
A grand jury report found that “the residents of GUHSD and the greater Alpine area deserve clarity from the School Board regarding the proposed 12th high school.”
Since 2004, voters in the district have approved two bond measures, totaling nearly $700 million, that include funding to construct the high school in Alpine along with upgrades to existing schools.
School officials say the high school is on hold because available bond funds are insufficient, that enrollment projections do not support a new school and that the school would not be economical to operate.
“The district will give serious consideration to these recommendations and will develop a timely response following a thorough review,” said Catherine Martin, a spokeswoman for the school district. She noted the district has 90 days to respond.
The district serves nearly 25,000 students. Most students living in Alpine attend Granite Hills in El Cajon or Steele Canyon in Jamul, said Al Haven, one-time Alpine Union School District superintendent and one of three chief petitioners to the grand jury.
“We started this in 2002 because Grossmont was not providing a high school for our kids, some of whom need 60 to 90 minutes one way to attend school,” Haven said. “We have kids spending 10 hours a week traveling to school, whereas for other kids in the district it’s 20 minutes at the most. And we’ve had kids being killed on the road.”
The grand jury recommends that the board make a final decision by Dec. 31. If it decides to build, funds should be placed in an escrow account and a timeline established. If it does not commit to the school, the board has been asked to support a unification effort in Alpine so voters can decide whether to have a high school built as a part of the Alpine Union School District.
Board members Priscilla Schreiber and Jim Stieringer, both of whom have supported the building of the Alpine school, were heartened by the report.
“I have made my statements for 10 to 12 long years, and the grand jury report and findings should confirm my fight for the Alpine community plight and the total disdain and disregard for the Alpine community,” Schreiber said.
Stieringer said he agreed with the report’s argument that “the district has consistently made promises to the residents of Alpine that it either could not or would not keep.”
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
(Mendocino) Grand jury: Law enforcement should not be mental health system
Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 05/21/2013 10:10:57 PM PDT
While the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors debated the contract it will issue to a private company to provide mental health services in the county, the Mendocino County grand jury issued a report which says more needs to be done to relieve local law enforcement from its role as the de facto mental health responders.
In its report titled "Cut Backs In Mental Health Services Impacting Law Enforcement" the grand jury said that in its look at law enforcement facilities this year, "There was one issue that came up repeatedly, the impact of 5150 arrests on departmental resources and public safety."
A "5150" is the section of California law which addresses individuals displaying high risk behavior posing an imminent safety risk to themselves or others. "Every 5150 arrest takes an officer away from patrol duty for hours at a time as they wait for a crisis worker to arrive or until preliminary procedures are complete," the grand jury report states. "The severe cuts to the County's Mental Health budget have resulted in less staff and resources. As a result, there is one crisis worker on duty for the entire county after hours and on weekends. Crisis workers have the authority to release patients over the objections of police, hospital staff, and psychiatrists. The lack of mental health workers is costly to law enforcement and local hospitals as well as to the safety of all citizens. Additionally, there are conflicting opinions on how this County's Health and Human Services Agency treats dual diagnoses."
The grand jury is recommending that the county mental health department administration continue and expand the search for a county psychiatrist for the jail, provide additional crisis workers after hours, and re-examine the 5150 hospitalization and release procedures.
"Mental Health needs to make funds available to implement a discharge plan to aid the mentally ill released from jail," the report states. "The medical provider at the jail is currently using a doc-in-a-box (telepsychiatry) in the absence of a psychiatrist. There is a psychiatric nurse on site. The GJ observed and determined the position of the camera was inadequate. Jail administration needs to move the camera closer to achieve personal contact. Telepsychiatry provides prescription service only, no counseling."
During a visit to the county jail, the grand jury was told that close to 20 percent of all inmates have mental health issues. "Due to the lack of mental health services and facilities in this County, people arrested for behavioral issues end up in jail," the report states. "There are people in jail who are not accepted by mental health facilities, not deemed competent to stand trial, or are waiting for conservatorship status."
At the time of the grand jury visit, it was reported there were 254 inmates, of which 46 had mental health issues. "One third of these are women," the report states. "Twelve inmates are acutely mentally ill (half men, half women) and should be hospitalized. This includes one inmate with a misdemeanor waiting months for a mental health bed."
Patient inmates are often placed in solitary confinement for their own safety, as well as the safety of others. Jail staff quoted, "solitary confinement in jail is the worst thing we can do to someone ... safety cells are a horrible, horrible necessity. There is no other way."
According to the grand jury, a senior jail official told them, "We provide more mental health services than the Mental Health Department. We are the end recipient for the people the Mental Health Department no longer serves."
The grand jury's findings include that:
The Mental Health Department scheduling one crisis worker after hours and weekends is insufficient for Mendocino County.
Crisis workers have conflicting responsibility and authority.
Health and Human Services Agency and Ukiah Valley Medical Center have conflicting views on the procedures for treatment of patients with dual diagnoses.
Mendocino County Jail enlisted the help of MH staff to begin a follow-up program for released patients deemed mentally ill.
The current method of providing psychiatric services needs improvement.
Telepsychiatry (doc-in-the-box) is an expensive/poor substitute for the "real thing."
HIPAA regulations prevent mental health communication between law enforcement and medical staff. Hospital staff may only transmit patient information to the medical staff at the jail.
They recommend:
Mental Health provide an additional crisis worker after 6 p.m. and on weekends. (F1)
The Health and Human Services Agency re-examine its policies regarding crisis workers making the determination for releasing 5150s when a supervisor's authorization is required to hospitalize a patient.
Health and Human Services Agency clarify the procedures for treatment of patients with dual diagnoses.
Mental Health funds be used to implement a discharge /follow-up program for mentally ill inmates released from the jail.
The doc-in-the-box camera be repositioned for improved personal interaction.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/news/ci_23295982/grand-jury-law-enforcement-should-not-be-mental
Updated: 05/21/2013 10:10:57 PM PDT
While the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors debated the contract it will issue to a private company to provide mental health services in the county, the Mendocino County grand jury issued a report which says more needs to be done to relieve local law enforcement from its role as the de facto mental health responders.
In its report titled "Cut Backs In Mental Health Services Impacting Law Enforcement" the grand jury said that in its look at law enforcement facilities this year, "There was one issue that came up repeatedly, the impact of 5150 arrests on departmental resources and public safety."
A "5150" is the section of California law which addresses individuals displaying high risk behavior posing an imminent safety risk to themselves or others. "Every 5150 arrest takes an officer away from patrol duty for hours at a time as they wait for a crisis worker to arrive or until preliminary procedures are complete," the grand jury report states. "The severe cuts to the County's Mental Health budget have resulted in less staff and resources. As a result, there is one crisis worker on duty for the entire county after hours and on weekends. Crisis workers have the authority to release patients over the objections of police, hospital staff, and psychiatrists. The lack of mental health workers is costly to law enforcement and local hospitals as well as to the safety of all citizens. Additionally, there are conflicting opinions on how this County's Health and Human Services Agency treats dual diagnoses."
The grand jury is recommending that the county mental health department administration continue and expand the search for a county psychiatrist for the jail, provide additional crisis workers after hours, and re-examine the 5150 hospitalization and release procedures.
"Mental Health needs to make funds available to implement a discharge plan to aid the mentally ill released from jail," the report states. "The medical provider at the jail is currently using a doc-in-a-box (telepsychiatry) in the absence of a psychiatrist. There is a psychiatric nurse on site. The GJ observed and determined the position of the camera was inadequate. Jail administration needs to move the camera closer to achieve personal contact. Telepsychiatry provides prescription service only, no counseling."
During a visit to the county jail, the grand jury was told that close to 20 percent of all inmates have mental health issues. "Due to the lack of mental health services and facilities in this County, people arrested for behavioral issues end up in jail," the report states. "There are people in jail who are not accepted by mental health facilities, not deemed competent to stand trial, or are waiting for conservatorship status."
At the time of the grand jury visit, it was reported there were 254 inmates, of which 46 had mental health issues. "One third of these are women," the report states. "Twelve inmates are acutely mentally ill (half men, half women) and should be hospitalized. This includes one inmate with a misdemeanor waiting months for a mental health bed."
Patient inmates are often placed in solitary confinement for their own safety, as well as the safety of others. Jail staff quoted, "solitary confinement in jail is the worst thing we can do to someone ... safety cells are a horrible, horrible necessity. There is no other way."
According to the grand jury, a senior jail official told them, "We provide more mental health services than the Mental Health Department. We are the end recipient for the people the Mental Health Department no longer serves."
The grand jury's findings include that:
The Mental Health Department scheduling one crisis worker after hours and weekends is insufficient for Mendocino County.
Crisis workers have conflicting responsibility and authority.
Health and Human Services Agency and Ukiah Valley Medical Center have conflicting views on the procedures for treatment of patients with dual diagnoses.
Mendocino County Jail enlisted the help of MH staff to begin a follow-up program for released patients deemed mentally ill.
The current method of providing psychiatric services needs improvement.
Telepsychiatry (doc-in-the-box) is an expensive/poor substitute for the "real thing."
HIPAA regulations prevent mental health communication between law enforcement and medical staff. Hospital staff may only transmit patient information to the medical staff at the jail.
They recommend:
Mental Health provide an additional crisis worker after 6 p.m. and on weekends. (F1)
The Health and Human Services Agency re-examine its policies regarding crisis workers making the determination for releasing 5150s when a supervisor's authorization is required to hospitalize a patient.
Health and Human Services Agency clarify the procedures for treatment of patients with dual diagnoses.
Mental Health funds be used to implement a discharge /follow-up program for mentally ill inmates released from the jail.
The doc-in-the-box camera be repositioned for improved personal interaction.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/news/ci_23295982/grand-jury-law-enforcement-should-not-be-mental
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
(Marin) Grand jury calls for methane plant; critics say its full of hot air...
by Jason Walsh, Pacific Sun -
A Marin Civil Grand Jury’s call for the County to partner with Redwood Landfill to create a methane gas-to-energy plant is leaving some environmentalists with a bad taste in their mouths.
In its latest report released this week, “Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy,” the grand jury, citing the need for a local landfill that can produce local energy, says the Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management joint powers authority should join landfill officials in making a methane plant a “reality”… “as soon as feasibly possible.”
And, despite a legal challenge to the Redwood Landfill’s ongoing quest for an additional 19-year operating permit, the grand jury says it “supports the extension of the landfill’s life.”
The landfill’s current permit allows operations to continue up to 2022; its application for a new permit to manage the landfill through 2032 was successfully challenged in court by the group No Wetlands Landfill Expansion. In her ruling striking down the validity of the environmental impact report accompanying Redwood’s application, Judge Lynn Duryee cited a lack of information on the cumulative effect of the project’s greenhouse gas emissions; the possible increased non-cancer health impacts; mitigation of groundwater contamination; and suggestions for an alternative waste disposal location. The case is currently being appealed by Redwood owners Waste Management Inc.
Redwood’s proposed energy plant—which would be abandoned if the landfill’s lease is not extended—could convert enough methane to power between 6,000 and 8,000 Marin homes, according to the grand jury report.
But critics of methane plants say they allow too much methane to escape into the atmosphere. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, methane is the second most prevalent human-produced greenhouse gas emitted in the United States, behind carbon dioxide. Yet, it is 21 times more powerful in its “warming” effect than CO2.
Despite the dangers of methane, the grand jury concluded its report by saying that if Redwood Landfill closes, “Marin’s carbon footprint will increase and rates may also be increased if our waste is hauled to more distant landfills” and that the grand jury “hopes that [Redwood Landfill] will continue to enhance its operations in Marin County regardless of the outcome [of litigation].”
A Marin Civil Grand Jury’s call for the County to partner with Redwood Landfill to create a methane gas-to-energy plant is leaving some environmentalists with a bad taste in their mouths.
In its latest report released this week, “Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy,” the grand jury, citing the need for a local landfill that can produce local energy, says the Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management joint powers authority should join landfill officials in making a methane plant a “reality”… “as soon as feasibly possible.”
And, despite a legal challenge to the Redwood Landfill’s ongoing quest for an additional 19-year operating permit, the grand jury says it “supports the extension of the landfill’s life.”
The landfill’s current permit allows operations to continue up to 2022; its application for a new permit to manage the landfill through 2032 was successfully challenged in court by the group No Wetlands Landfill Expansion. In her ruling striking down the validity of the environmental impact report accompanying Redwood’s application, Judge Lynn Duryee cited a lack of information on the cumulative effect of the project’s greenhouse gas emissions; the possible increased non-cancer health impacts; mitigation of groundwater contamination; and suggestions for an alternative waste disposal location. The case is currently being appealed by Redwood owners Waste Management Inc.
Redwood’s proposed energy plant—which would be abandoned if the landfill’s lease is not extended—could convert enough methane to power between 6,000 and 8,000 Marin homes, according to the grand jury report.
But critics of methane plants say they allow too much methane to escape into the atmosphere. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, methane is the second most prevalent human-produced greenhouse gas emitted in the United States, behind carbon dioxide. Yet, it is 21 times more powerful in its “warming” effect than CO2.
Despite the dangers of methane, the grand jury concluded its report by saying that if Redwood Landfill closes, “Marin’s carbon footprint will increase and rates may also be increased if our waste is hauled to more distant landfills” and that the grand jury “hopes that [Redwood Landfill] will continue to enhance its operations in Marin County regardless of the outcome [of litigation].”
Monday, May 20, 2013
Grand jury slams Marin officials over medical marijuana
by Jason Walsh, Pacific Sun -
Let the chronically sick folks smoke some pot, for crissakes, a Marin Civil Grand Jury is urging County officials.
In a new report, titled “Medical Marijuana: Up in Smoke,” the grand jury laments the vast closure of medical marijuana facilities in the county and lambasts county and city officials for not have the backbone to support what 73 percent of Marinites voted for when the Compassionate Use Act was passed in 1996.
A Justice Department crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries in the last few years has shuttered dispensary doors across the state, leaving patients with choices of either the black market, dubious online providers or going without pot-pain relief entirely. “The county’s response to this situation has been to take a wait and see position,” reports the jury. “One supervisor stated that medical marijuana is not a priority, and a representative of the County’s Department of Health and Human Services stated that they ‘did not have a dog in this race.’”
Under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is considered a Schedule I narcotic, on par with heroin and ecstasy. Critics of the classification say that’s like taking a rated R movie and lumping it in with the rated X’s. Many would prefer to see it regulated along the same lines of more similar drugs as alcohol and tobacco.
The grand jury also took aim at local city councils for bowing to the complaints of the minority of folks who live near the dispensaries—the grand jury refers to it as “the NIMBY effect”—by enacting bans, moratoriums and changing land use codes to drive away the dispensaries.
According to the grand jury, this is in spite of three major studies, including one by the National Institutes of Health, that have concluded “that there is no increase in crime in neighborhoods around dispensaries.” Nevertheless, continues the report, local governments have responded to citizens’ misgivings.
The grand jury cites Mill Valley, San Rafael, Larkspur and Novato as passing bans on dispensaries; Sausalito has a moratorium; Corte Madera shut down a dispensary under threat of a cease-and-desist order. Marin Holistic Solutions, in Corte Madera, is the only dispensary still operating in the county; its agreement with the Town allows it to operate until spring of 2014.
Marin Holistic Solutions serves about 800 patients in Marin, says the report. Their average age is 40. MHS pays sales tax and a gross receipts tax of 1.4 percent to the city. During an onsite visit to MHS, “grand jury members observed tight security measures… and the chief of police reports that there has been no increase in crime in the area.”
In its conclusion to the report, the grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors “respect the will of the voters and the intention of the Compassionate Use Act by using its authority to uphold access to medical marijuana within the county” and to develop a viable set of ordinances for medical marijuana dispensaries to operate in the unincorporated areas of the county.
“Compassion without action,” the report concludes, “is not enough.”
Let the chronically sick folks smoke some pot, for crissakes, a Marin Civil Grand Jury is urging County officials.
In a new report, titled “Medical Marijuana: Up in Smoke,” the grand jury laments the vast closure of medical marijuana facilities in the county and lambasts county and city officials for not have the backbone to support what 73 percent of Marinites voted for when the Compassionate Use Act was passed in 1996.
A Justice Department crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries in the last few years has shuttered dispensary doors across the state, leaving patients with choices of either the black market, dubious online providers or going without pot-pain relief entirely. “The county’s response to this situation has been to take a wait and see position,” reports the jury. “One supervisor stated that medical marijuana is not a priority, and a representative of the County’s Department of Health and Human Services stated that they ‘did not have a dog in this race.’”
Under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is considered a Schedule I narcotic, on par with heroin and ecstasy. Critics of the classification say that’s like taking a rated R movie and lumping it in with the rated X’s. Many would prefer to see it regulated along the same lines of more similar drugs as alcohol and tobacco.
The grand jury also took aim at local city councils for bowing to the complaints of the minority of folks who live near the dispensaries—the grand jury refers to it as “the NIMBY effect”—by enacting bans, moratoriums and changing land use codes to drive away the dispensaries.
According to the grand jury, this is in spite of three major studies, including one by the National Institutes of Health, that have concluded “that there is no increase in crime in neighborhoods around dispensaries.” Nevertheless, continues the report, local governments have responded to citizens’ misgivings.
The grand jury cites Mill Valley, San Rafael, Larkspur and Novato as passing bans on dispensaries; Sausalito has a moratorium; Corte Madera shut down a dispensary under threat of a cease-and-desist order. Marin Holistic Solutions, in Corte Madera, is the only dispensary still operating in the county; its agreement with the Town allows it to operate until spring of 2014.
Marin Holistic Solutions serves about 800 patients in Marin, says the report. Their average age is 40. MHS pays sales tax and a gross receipts tax of 1.4 percent to the city. During an onsite visit to MHS, “grand jury members observed tight security measures… and the chief of police reports that there has been no increase in crime in the area.”
In its conclusion to the report, the grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors “respect the will of the voters and the intention of the Compassionate Use Act by using its authority to uphold access to medical marijuana within the county” and to develop a viable set of ordinances for medical marijuana dispensaries to operate in the unincorporated areas of the county.
“Compassion without action,” the report concludes, “is not enough.”
Saturday, May 18, 2013
(San Diego) Grand jury wins unusual court case
by JW August, 10News(ABC) -
Testimony reveals reasons behind restraining order
Judge William Dato said it best: "This is a most unusual case." Dato was being asked to decide if key records for an ongoing grand jury inquiry could be used in its investigation.
The hearing involved the City of Imperial Beach squaring off against the County of San Diego and the San Diego County Civil Grand Jury.
Attorney Steven Boehmer argued that the billing records for attorneys working for Imperial Beach shouldn’t be released to the grand jury. Normally anything the grand jury does is secret until it finishes its investigation. However, a temporary restraining order from Boehmer’s firm provided a glimpse into what the jury was curious about and why the firm of McDougal, Love, Eckis Boehmer and Foley fought to keep the legal bills out of the grand jury’s hands.
Attorney Boehmer based his arguments on the attorney-client privilege. He felt the legal bills with detailed narratives on the services the firm provided were protected. Boehmer’s firm deals primarily with redevelopment issues for the city.
Opposing him was Deborah McCarthy from the office of San Diego’s County Counsel. Her agency had been pulled into the dispute after the county auditor had requested the bills on behalf of the grand jury.
The jury had asked for the auditor's help in evaluating legal bills the City of Imperial Beach was paying.
Auditor Tatiana Foster testified she received the records after requesting them from the city.
According to Imperial Beach Administrative Services Director Kathleen Von Achen, she had instructed a temporary employee to just give the auditor the basic bill and a coded description of the legal services, nothing more.
The code describes generally what the law firm was doing for the money.
But as the testimony revealed, the employee provided the entire set of books for the grand jury.
The city wanted the records back and didn’t want the grand jury to be able to use them in any investigation.
That’s why the TRO was filed.
McCarthy would argue that the grand jury had every right to review the records, how else would they have a full understanding of exactly what was going on. While some details are sketchy, it was clear from the testimony from both sides they were talking about a large sum—25 million dollars. Also revealed was the probable focus of the grand jury’s inquiry -- illegal use of redevelopment funds.
Also revealed in testimony was another law firm the city used on other matters did provide codes with detailed explanations of charges. The bills from McDougal, Love, Eckis, Boehmer and Foley didn’t provide as much information as this other law firm.
County counsel argued that the detailed narratives with the bills were needed to understand what had happened to the money.
In his ruling Judge Dato said the temporary Imperial Beach employee was not provided adequate guidance in the release of the records. In addition, he made clear that for the grand jury to do its job, it needed to be able to review the legal bills in their entirety.
In the audience observing the hearing was the San Diego County Grand Jury. Team 10 asked the jurors what would happen next?
They were tight lipped, only saying they may be getting back to us. When Attorney Boehmer was asked if he would appeal the Judge’s ruling, he said no decision had been made. He appeared to be very upset.
Testimony reveals reasons behind restraining order
Judge William Dato said it best: "This is a most unusual case." Dato was being asked to decide if key records for an ongoing grand jury inquiry could be used in its investigation.
The hearing involved the City of Imperial Beach squaring off against the County of San Diego and the San Diego County Civil Grand Jury.
Attorney Steven Boehmer argued that the billing records for attorneys working for Imperial Beach shouldn’t be released to the grand jury. Normally anything the grand jury does is secret until it finishes its investigation. However, a temporary restraining order from Boehmer’s firm provided a glimpse into what the jury was curious about and why the firm of McDougal, Love, Eckis Boehmer and Foley fought to keep the legal bills out of the grand jury’s hands.
Attorney Boehmer based his arguments on the attorney-client privilege. He felt the legal bills with detailed narratives on the services the firm provided were protected. Boehmer’s firm deals primarily with redevelopment issues for the city.
Opposing him was Deborah McCarthy from the office of San Diego’s County Counsel. Her agency had been pulled into the dispute after the county auditor had requested the bills on behalf of the grand jury.
The jury had asked for the auditor's help in evaluating legal bills the City of Imperial Beach was paying.
Auditor Tatiana Foster testified she received the records after requesting them from the city.
According to Imperial Beach Administrative Services Director Kathleen Von Achen, she had instructed a temporary employee to just give the auditor the basic bill and a coded description of the legal services, nothing more.
The code describes generally what the law firm was doing for the money.
But as the testimony revealed, the employee provided the entire set of books for the grand jury.
The city wanted the records back and didn’t want the grand jury to be able to use them in any investigation.
That’s why the TRO was filed.
McCarthy would argue that the grand jury had every right to review the records, how else would they have a full understanding of exactly what was going on. While some details are sketchy, it was clear from the testimony from both sides they were talking about a large sum—25 million dollars. Also revealed was the probable focus of the grand jury’s inquiry -- illegal use of redevelopment funds.
Also revealed in testimony was another law firm the city used on other matters did provide codes with detailed explanations of charges. The bills from McDougal, Love, Eckis, Boehmer and Foley didn’t provide as much information as this other law firm.
County counsel argued that the detailed narratives with the bills were needed to understand what had happened to the money.
In his ruling Judge Dato said the temporary Imperial Beach employee was not provided adequate guidance in the release of the records. In addition, he made clear that for the grand jury to do its job, it needed to be able to review the legal bills in their entirety.
In the audience observing the hearing was the San Diego County Grand Jury. Team 10 asked the jurors what would happen next?
They were tight lipped, only saying they may be getting back to us. When Attorney Boehmer was asked if he would appeal the Judge’s ruling, he said no decision had been made. He appeared to be very upset.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Notes from the grand jury on San Luis Obispo County jails
The grand jury, comprised of 19 members, is a unique body that serves as a local government watchdog. The grand jury is an official body of the Superior Court in San Luis Obispo County.
The public or local governments may agree or disagree with the findings of the grand jury, but the ability of the jury to shine a light on the operations of government is one that can only lead to better public understanding of government. It also affords an opportunity for government to bring about necessary changes.
Occasionally a report does not receive the attention the jury believes it warrants. Such is the recent 2012-13 report on county jails. The report outlined several areas in which the jury was critical of the county jail and the holding cells at the county courthouse. These critical areas were well identified by the media. However, the grand jury is also aware that most of these areas are affected by a lack of funds, and most can only be corrected with additional public funding.
The grand jury would also like to recognize many of the positive findings at the county jail, juvenile hall and local police agencies, which we believe were not adequately identified to the public. The jury found that the holding cells in local agencies were clean and safe for occupancy. Juvenile hall is building a new wing, adding cells, classrooms and a multi-purpose room. The probation department staff at juvenile hall was found to be highly professional and dedicated to its work.
The staff in the jail demonstrated the highest degree of professionalism at the management and correctional officer levels. The staff at the men and women’s Honor Farm was commended for the development of programs to reduce recidivism, as well as educational and vocational programs for Honor Farm inmates — particularly members of the Women’s Honor Farm who support the adjacent San Luis Obispo County Animal Services shelter. Also of special note is the inmate cooks who are qualifying for certified food safety manager accreditation, a skill that can be utilized outside of jail.
The grand jury also commended the volunteers at the county jail and juvenile hall, particularly Sister Theresa Harpin and her Restorative Partnership program. Her work over the years has been exemplary.
This viewpoint is not to defend any actions of the grand jury, but rather to provide a fair and balanced review of a report that cannot acknowledge and recognize individually the efforts of so many. You may agree or not with this analysis, but the grand jury wishes to assure all residents of San Luis Obispo County that they are being well served in many ways that are never known, and perhaps sometimes not appreciated.
Edward Kreins is the foreperson of the 2012/2013 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury. Grand Jury reports may be found at http://www.slocourts.net/grand _jury/reports.
The public or local governments may agree or disagree with the findings of the grand jury, but the ability of the jury to shine a light on the operations of government is one that can only lead to better public understanding of government. It also affords an opportunity for government to bring about necessary changes.
Occasionally a report does not receive the attention the jury believes it warrants. Such is the recent 2012-13 report on county jails. The report outlined several areas in which the jury was critical of the county jail and the holding cells at the county courthouse. These critical areas were well identified by the media. However, the grand jury is also aware that most of these areas are affected by a lack of funds, and most can only be corrected with additional public funding.
The grand jury would also like to recognize many of the positive findings at the county jail, juvenile hall and local police agencies, which we believe were not adequately identified to the public. The jury found that the holding cells in local agencies were clean and safe for occupancy. Juvenile hall is building a new wing, adding cells, classrooms and a multi-purpose room. The probation department staff at juvenile hall was found to be highly professional and dedicated to its work.
The staff in the jail demonstrated the highest degree of professionalism at the management and correctional officer levels. The staff at the men and women’s Honor Farm was commended for the development of programs to reduce recidivism, as well as educational and vocational programs for Honor Farm inmates — particularly members of the Women’s Honor Farm who support the adjacent San Luis Obispo County Animal Services shelter. Also of special note is the inmate cooks who are qualifying for certified food safety manager accreditation, a skill that can be utilized outside of jail.
The grand jury also commended the volunteers at the county jail and juvenile hall, particularly Sister Theresa Harpin and her Restorative Partnership program. Her work over the years has been exemplary.
This viewpoint is not to defend any actions of the grand jury, but rather to provide a fair and balanced review of a report that cannot acknowledge and recognize individually the efforts of so many. You may agree or not with this analysis, but the grand jury wishes to assure all residents of San Luis Obispo County that they are being well served in many ways that are never known, and perhaps sometimes not appreciated.
Edward Kreins is the foreperson of the 2012/2013 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury. Grand Jury reports may be found at http://www.slocourts.net/grand _jury/reports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)