Grand jury 'ill-suited' to review critical police incidents

The Sonoma County grand jury is ill-suited to act as a civilian review board investigating police handling of critical incidents, say two members of the jury. The panelists cite what they describe as the grand jury's lack of transparency, diversity and expertise reviewing fatal or otherwise serious incidents involving law enforcement. "I think this is not the appropriate body for civilian review," said Cheryl Davey of Santa Rosa, the jury forewoman.

The comments, offered in public forums and in interviews this month, add to an ongoing debate spurred by calls for stronger law enforcement oversight in the wake of the shooting death last fall of 13-year-old Andy Lopez by a Sonoma County Sheriff's deputy. They also act as an indirect rebuttal to prior statements by Sheriff Steve Freitas that the grand jury was a capable, independent oversight body for law enforcement.

Freitas spoke in the aftermath of the shooting of Lopez in October and in the face of a campaign by critics and activists who have questioned whether the Santa Rosa Police Department, which investigated the shooting, and the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office are capable of objectively determining whether the boy's death was justified or a criminal act.

The grand jury, which has subpoena powers, provides a review by "people totally independent from law enforcement . . . who are open to criticizing law enforcement in an open and transparent way," Freitas said at the time. But last week he said he would not dispute the grand jurors' assessment, adding that he would reserve judgment on an alternative model until the details are spelled out. "I'm open to the idea of citizen review," Freitas said.

Davey, the jury forewoman, and Martin Jones, another grand jury member, raised their concerns at a March 3 meeting of a subcommittee of the 21-member community task force established by the county in the wake of Lopez's death. The task force is charged with reviewing options and ultimately recommending a model for an "independent citizen review body."

Use of the grand jury as it is, or with variations, was cited as one of the options to be considered. But the grand jury, at least in its current structure, shouldn't be on that list, the two jury members said in interviews last week.

They said the panel's $77,000 annual budget can't support the hiring of outside experts. Also, the jury's final report is its only public statement, its deliberations by legal requirement are entirely secret and its recommendations have no legal force.

"A civil grand jury is not the place to conduct review of critical incidents," said Jones, a Santa Rosa wine industry management consultant.

The panel's lack of diversity is another key problem, Jones and Davey said. Members are volunteers who are interviewed and screened by a Superior Court judge and then selected by drawing.

Jones said his demographic profile of the current grand jury showed that the average age of the 18 jurors is 65 and only two are younger than 60; 17 are white, one is African-American and they all are retired, work part time or are self-employed. One jury slot is vacant. The jury is "not representative of a cross-section of the community," Jones said. A civilian review board ought to include young and old, people of color and members of law enforcement, Davey said.

Davey and Jones said they were speaking for themselves, not the grand jury as a whole. Davey was invited to the subcommittee meeting as the forewoman and said she included Jones because he is interested in the matter.

Napa County's grand jury officially disqualified itself from police oversight in a report last year, and a national expert on civilian review of law enforcement acknowledged some shortcomings inherent in the grand jury process.

The jury, under current law, is not required to take on a critical incident, nor is it allowed to continue an investigation past the June 30 end date for each grand jury, the Napa jurors said.
Grand juries can be "a valuable tool in holding police agencies accountable," Brian Buchner, president of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, a nonprofit organization dedicated to police oversight, said in an interview.

But their secrecy conflicts with the principle of "shining a light" on law enforcement investigations that have traditionally been opaque, he said.

A civil grand jury's primary role is to investigate the performance of public agencies and "make recommendations for positive change," Davey said. But the jury has no budget to hire experts to assist in their investigations, which Jones said is a "huge impediment" to functioning as a civilian review board.

"We are not trained investigators," Davey said.

Freitas said he considers the grand jury "a form of citizen review," but he said he won't quarrel with the jurors' contention that it may not be the ideal approach. "I would respect their thought on that," he said.
Asked if members of law enforcement are averse to civilian review, Freitas said, "I've heard from many people in law enforcement that they have a good relationship with their civilian review."

Freitas said he agreed with the idea that a police review panel should be diverse. "Any advisory group should as much as possible reflect the community," he said.

In cases of officer-involved shootings, the county grand jury has limited its scope to a determination of whether police investigators followed a protocol established by the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs' Association, which includes the Sheriff's Office and the county's nine municipal police departments.
During its 2012-13 term, the jury reviewed the fatal shooting of an armed suspect by a Sebastopol police officer responding to a domestic disturbance on Nov. 24, 2011.

The shooting was justified because the suspect brandished a pistol and refused to back down, District Attorney Jill Ravitch said four months later. In its one-page report on the case, the grand jury said that "review of the critical incident report confirmed the required protocols were followed." No recommendation was made.

Davey and Jones presented their views on the grand jury's capabilities at meeting of the community task force's Law Enforcement Accountability Subcommittee, which is exploring options for a civilian review board.

Todd Mendoza, a Petaluma real estate broker who is chairman of the subcommittee, said last week he had drawn no conclusion regarding the grand jury's proper role. "It's really premature to say what would work and what wouldn't," he said in an interview. "We haven't gone down the road with civilian review models."

Robert Edmonds, a subcommittee member, said he was skeptical of the grand jury's suitability as a police review body because of its secrecy, which is mandated by law, and one-year time limit for investigations.
Lack of transparency "doesn't lead to trust in the community," said Edmonds, a Santa Rosa Junior College student trustee. Edmonds also noted that a grand jury is "self-directed" and that no local entity can set standards for how it operates. The meeting with the two grand jurors confirmed his views, Edmonds said.

"I think it was pretty clear to our entire subcommittee that the grand jury isn't what we're after," he said.
Task force member Joe Palla, a Cloverdale city councilman and former Healdsburg police chief, said the grand jury as it stands "would not work" as a civilian review board. But with adequate budget and staffing "it may be a vehicle with some teeth," he said.

Napa County's grand jury investigated the fatal shooting of a man by Napa police on Nov. 28, 2010, in the city's Alta Heights neighborhood, reviewing police documents and conducting its own interviews with witnesses. In a June 2012 report, the jury recommended formation of a civilian review board to examine officer-involved shootings, but several local governments said the jury should take on that role. The jury, in response, said the suggestion was "erroneous," citing the time constraints imposed by a jury's annual term.

Lopez was shot by Sonoma County Sheriff's Deputy Erick Gelhaus on Oct. 22 after Gelhaus reportedly mistook the airsoft BB gun Lopez was carrying on a street near his Moorland Avenue home for a real assault rifle. The shooting prompting a series of protests and calls for change.

Civilian review advocates have pointed out that the county, Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park failed to implement review boards recommended by a U.S. Civil Rights Commission's advisory committee in 2000, in the aftermath of a series of fatal incidents involving law enforcement. The civil rights committee noted that the grand jury lacks financial independence and organizational separation from local law enforcement.

Meanwhile, the community task force studying the issue has failed to meet its initial February deadline for submitting a report on civilian review options. Edmonds said county officials have acknowledged the work will take longer than expected. Supervisor Shirlee Zane said the community is anxious for responses to Lopez's death, but the task force, which has met five times since Jan. 13, needs time to do "quality work."

"They're moving ahead," Zane said. "We expect they'll get back to us soon."

You can reach Staff Writer Guy Kovner at 521-5457 or guy.kovner@pressdemocrat.com.

Grand jury: Marin County Civic Center flunks recycling 101

                                                                          

County government is failing to walk its talk of "zero waste" at the Civic Center, where the diversion rate of recyclable materials falls well below the countywide average, a civil grand jury investigation disclosed.

The jury probe, in effect contending the county flunks recycling 101, found diverting material from landfills is not a priority at the Civic Center, where it said recycling leadership is lax, written recycling policies have not been developed, procedures are inconsistent and recycling processes misunderstood.

Based on misinformation and confusion, officials thought they were doing better, the jury said. Staff disposed of garbage in plastic bags without realizing the bags were not sorted at Marin Sanitary Service for recyclables — but sent to the landfill unopened.

In 2012, the jury reported 243 tons of garbage were removed from Civic Center offices by Marin Sanitary Service, and an estimated 134 tons wound up in the landfill. In addition, the county jail generated 162 tons of garbage, with 137 tons going to the landfill.

"While sustainability and recycling may be a part of the culture of the Marin County government, the practices of recycling, composting, and reuse by county employees and by visitors to the Civic Center are neither actively promoted nor made easy to accomplish," the jury concluded. "There is some talk, but there's not nearly enough walk."

The jury said its study indicated diversion rates, or the percentage of waste diverted from traditional disposal for recycling, averaged from 65 percent to 66 percent across the state. Marin posted an overall rate 75 percent in 2012, but "the grand jury estimates that the diversion rates of the Marin County Civic Center and Marin County Jail were only 45 percent and 15 percent, respectively."

The estimated 45 percent diversion rate, based on a new, apparently rigorous November 2013 audit Marin Sanitary provided after the jury launched its probe, was far less than earlier "erroneous" data from the firm indicating the Civic Center rate in 2012 was 84 percent, slightly more than the county's "zero waste Marin" goal for the year.

The jury also indicated officials scrambled to increase recycling as its investigation unfolded, with the jail staff quickly cutting its landfill garbage 25 percent. More loose garbage is now dumped into debris boxes, rather than bagged, so that it can be sorted by Marin Sanitary's conveyor belt system.

"There's lots of opportunities for the county to divert more and we're here to help," said Kim Scheibly, Marin Sanitary's communications manager. She said the firm advocates "source separation" of recyclables and does not open plastic garbage bags in light of hygienic concerns. A Marin Sanitary audit provided a number of improvement recommendations, she added.

County officials took issue with the jury's methodology but noted improvements can be made.

"They are making estimates based on one spot check," County Administrator Matthew Hymel said, adding officials don't think the situation is as bad as the jury report indicates.

"With that said, we can always do better," Hymel said.

“It’s not a bad thing to get some feedback on how we can do better,”  he added.  “We want to do better.”  Supervisor Kate Sears, president of the county board, was at a conference when the report was issue Thursday." I have not had a chance to read the report yet, but certainly will as we all want to ensure our recycling efforts are effective and have a meaningful impact," she said.

The jury said county supervisors do not have written plans or policies on recycling, composting and reuse in county facilities, and that leadership is lacking.

"County employees do not perceive clear direction or imperative from leadership on the importance of recycling, composting, and reuse," the jury asserted. "Recycling practices are inconsistent across county departments and facilities."

The jury lauded the county's paper recycling system, but found many opportunities for improvements in a host of areas.

"These include continuing to recycle steel cans used by the county jail kitchen (implemented during this investigation), providing glass, plastic, and aluminum recycling bins in the offices of the Civic Center, composting food waste from the county jail, and promoting reuse of coffee and tea containers in the Civic Center," the jury said, noting those who bring their own cups to the cafeteria get big discounts.

"The environmental footprint of the county government's business practices is paramount as with over

2,000 employees it is the largest employer in the county and can set an example for other employers," the jury noted. Marin County government should 'walk the talk' when it comes to recycling, composting and reuse."

The jury's recommendations included increasing diversion rates, examining recycling and reuse practices and policies, and developing a long-range plan tied to performance metrics and goals.

The jury report can be found at http://www.marincounty.org/depts/gj/reports-and-responses

Contact Nels Johnson via email at njohnson@marinij.com. Follow him at twitter.com/nelsjohnsonnews

(San Luis Obispo County) Retired county auditor-controller heralds grand jury system

State’s civil grand jury system: Does it work?

By Gere Sibbach
February 24, 2014
San Luis Obispo Tribune

Like most important questions, the answer is, it depends. Over a period of government service spanning more than 30 years, I have observed and interacted with many grand juries. Some have achieved much good, some not so much, and some have done mischief. But the overarching fact is that they serve a critical function as an independent watchdog. They support the public’s interest in honest, efficient and effective local government.

A new grand jury is seated each fiscal year. During February, the San Luis Obispo Superior Court seeks applicants to serve from the following July through June. Each jury has its own character and could face very different challenges.

In my early career, the jurors received almost no training and their primary function seemed to be as a minor irritant to government officials. (That of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing.) But beneficial changes gradually occurred. New members began meeting and sharing experiences with jurors from other counties, various officials such as the county auditor, county administrator and district attorney were invited to address the newly seated panels and state law required the subjects of grand jury inquiries to respond in writing when a grand jury issued a final report. Thus grand juries became more knowledgeable and their findings more difficult to ignore.

Grand juries may initiate investigations based on complaints from citizens, or they can explore whatever their members decide to look into.

Their investigative powers are nearly unlimited. However, they have no real enforcement power. When their reports are of high quality, are well documented, are even-handed and nonpartisan and contain practical recommendations, they cannot easily be ignored by the subject officials and agencies. They provide important impetus for important change.

On the other hand, poorly written or poorly documented reports can be dismissed out of hand.

Sometimes failed reports result from preconceived or politically based notions on the part of the grand jurors. Since a final report requires a consensus of at least 12 of the 19 members, this rarely happens.

More often, in my view, failed reports result from a lack of cooperation on the part of the agency being investigated. In this situation, the jury may have relied on misleading or nonrepresentative data, misunderstood complex regulations or run out of time to fully understand a problem before its fiscal year term ends.

I believe a responsible government agency should be open to scrutiny at all times. When problems are identified, acknowledge them and take corrective action.

This advice seems difficult to follow. Demands for perfection by the media and the public are not reasonable and probably contribute to this situation. However, accountability must be accepted, and without watchdogs like the grand jury (or auditors!) it is too easy for an agency to stagnate and poorly serve its constituents.

Grand jurors receive a small stipend plus reimbursement for mileage. They need to have at least 20 hours per week available.

If you want to learn more about this unique opportunity to serve your community, go to: http://www.slocourts.net/grand_jury.  

Gere Sibbach is a certified public accountant and retired San Luis Obispo County auditor-controller.

Civil grand jury is the citizen watchdog for Contra Costa County

By Tom Barnidge

Contra Costa Times Columnist

Posted:   02/23/2014 01:40:24 PM PST | Updated:   about 19 hours ago

The hours are long and the work intense. The pay is minimal and the recognition nonexistent. Duties require interviewing bureaucrats, conducting investigations and writing in-depth reports. If this is the way you'd like to spend your free time, July through June, you may want to volunteer for the Contra Costa Grand Jury. Applications close at 5 p.m. on March 28.

Oh, you'd like to know what it is?

The civil grand jury is a largely overlooked and rarely understood citizen tool that helps ensure local government operates efficiently and ethically. It's a watchdog group of 19 carefully selected Contra Costa residents -- a Superior Court judge interviews the finalists -- who probe the nooks and crannies of government agencies to see that they're functioning properly.

Jerry Lasky, a Rossmoor resident who served in 2007-08, said it was among the most rewarding experiences in his life. Lloyd Bell, of Brentwood, who served as a jury member in 2010-11 and foreperson in 2011-12, said it was deeply gratifying to identify important issues for public consumption.
The grand jury has challenged the diligence of school bond oversight committees, the quality of county health care, the transparency of city financial dealings and a host of other concerns. It has the authority to demand cooperation and expect responses from those it investigates. The breadth of its reach is limited only by its vision.

"Sometimes jurors will have a topic they want to investigate," Bell said. "Sometimes something in the paper triggers their interest. Sometimes we react to a citizen complaint."

If at least 10 [sic: 12] of the 19 jurors agree a topic worth is investigating, a committee is formed. An investigation can take four or more months, after which a report is written. Two-thirds of the jury must find the report has merit before it's forwarded to the county counsel and a judge for approval. Then it's delivered and made public.

"If we investigate something, it's serious," Lasky said. "We interview department heads, accountants, anyone involved. Then we analyze the information we've gathered, and we dig some more. When we issue a report, it has a summary, the grand jury's findings and recommendations. The investigated department has three months to reply."

What few people realize is the time involved. A juror's weekly commitment can mean as many as five or six meetings (compensation is $15 per meeting) requiring 25 to 30 hours. Homework includes reviewing documents, analyzing spreadsheets and composing investigative reports.

Said Lasky, "It's not uncommon, after one or two months, for a juror to say, 'Oh, my goodness, what have I gotten myself into?' You might lose a juror or two."

Eleven alternates are at the ready if replacements are needed. The people who survive typically are bright and committed. Lasky remembers his group including psychiatrists, professors and business executives, bound by an interest in better government. Everything they discuss is confidential.

Bell, who describes himself as a natural skeptic, said he volunteered to satisfy his curiosity as to how efficiently county government works and what might be improved.

"I was pleasantly surprised," he said. "I think we have a fairly well run county. But there are always things that could be done better."

You can be sure members of the next grand jury will be thinking the same way.

For more information, go to http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury.

Contact Tom Barnidge at tbarnidge@bayareanewsgroup.com.

Marin watchdog urges police agencies to buy body-worn cameras

By Gary Klien

Marin Independent Journal

Posted:   02/20/2014 05:32:06 PM PST

Local police agencies that aren't already using body-worn cameras should seek funding to acquire the technology, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury said in a new report.

"A modern law enforcement agency must take advantage of innovation that can reduce its liabilities and increase citizens' trust," the panel said. "The Grand Jury believes that on-officer cameras will become an integral part of policing, now and in the future."

The panel, an independent watchdog group that investigates local government, examined the use of cameras at 10 local law enforcement agencies. Its report — titled "Get the Picture? Audiovisual Technology and Marin Law Enforcement" — was released Tuesday.

The grand jury finished the report before the San Rafael Police Department's recent announcement it had started a 90-day test program of body-worn recorders. Tiburon and Belvedere police had been using them already.

The grand jury also researched whether local departments used two other forms of camera technology: license plate scanners and video cameras in patrol vehicles. It found that all but one agency, the Fairfax Police Department, used at least one of the three types of devices.

The grand jury said the body-worn recorders are the best choice because they are relatively inexpensive — $500 to $1,200 each — and can provide the most accurate record of an incident.

Conversely, vehicle cameras only record what is in front of them, while license plate scanners are effective but cost up to $19,000 and raise concerns about privacy.

The panel did acknowledge one drawback of the body-worn devices: the fact that an officer can forget to turn the device on during an interaction — or intentionally turn it off to avoid a recording.

"Although equipment can occasionally malfunction and batteries lose their charge, clear departmental policies mandating when and how these devices are to be used must be established," the jury said. "Officers should be trained to understand the use and the utility of the body cameras they wear, and they must be called to account if they fail to follow departmental policy."

The grand jury recommended all Marin law enforcement agencies use the body-worn cameras and urged the Board of Supervisors and city councils to find the funding. It has requested responses from the relevant officials.

Several law enforcement officials expressed favorable opinions Thursday regarding the officer-worn cameras.

"We have been evaluating the use of cameras for two years and feel the technology is now available to use the body camera as a tool for our officers," said Central Marin police Chief Todd Cusimano, whose department covers Larkspur, Corte Madera, Greenbrae and San Anselmo. "We are looking at purchasing a number of body cameras for a testing period."

Fairfax police Chief Christopher Morin said the department does not use license plate scanners for financial reasons, but that he is interested in body-worn and vehicle cameras.  "I am closely following San Rafael's testing," Morin said.

Sheriff Robert Doyle said his department has not used vehicle cameras because they are expensive, have fixed views and are primarily used in traffic-type calls. But he is interested in body cameras.  "At some time in the near future we'll probably move forward with a test," Doyle said. "I think that they're an excellent tool."

The Marin County Civil Grand Jury consists of 19 residents who serve one-year terms. It is empowered by the local judiciary to conduct confidential investigations.

Contact Gary Klien via email at gklien@marinij.com or https://twitter.com/GaryKlien

(Santa Barbara) Grand Jury needs new members, game plan

February 14, 2014 12:00 am  •  Joan Leon/Looking Forward

The Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury needs some changes. Having served three times, I have a basis of comparison on how that group operates.

When I was first sworn in as a grand juror in July 1996, there were 17 new members and two people who had served on the previous grand jury. Those two helped new members become familiar with the system and offered suggestions on procedures. With only two holdovers, they did not overwhelm new members.

We agreed on procedure. Upon receipt of a complaint or when made aware of a governmental issue, any two members could make a preliminary investigation. If they found the complaint or issue valid, they proposed a new study delineating the scope of the issue. The proposal was presented to the grand jury at the general meeting. If a majority of members agreed on the issue and scope, the investigation could proceed. Any member could volunteer to be on the study committee.

Having been invited by the foreman, the next year I was one of the two holdovers. We helped the 17 new members become familiar with maintaining confidentiality, interview techniques, and staying within the scope of the investigation.

I was again a member in 2009, with five holdovers. The system had changed. There were specific, structured committees. Members had to choose which committee they wanted to serve on, without knowing what issues might come up. State law requires all jails and holding cells in the county to be inspected, so that was one committee.
Another requirement of the grand jury is review of county audit and finances, thus another committee.
Another vague committee was government operations, but all grand jury work involves government operations.
Instead of two members taking a preliminary look at an issue, it required a vote of 12 members to begin a study, thus, many valid complaints were eliminated before even a preliminary investigation could begin.

I didn't agree with that limited process, since there were some of us who thought an issue deserved a preliminary look. With such structured committees, a topic had to be assigned to one of them, regardless if that topic fit that description. The members of a committee were to investigate the issue, whether they were interested or not.

The structure of the grand jury has further changed now, since there are so many holdovers. At the end of my term in 2010, there were eight who wanted to hold over, regardless of whether they were effective members in the previous term. I think there should be a limit of two, by invitation of the foreperson.

Another problem is that many people serve for years on a grand jury. Some of the same people are holdovers or apply year after year. Yes, there are interviews and then a drawing to become a member. But with a group of repeat members, the grand jury takes on its own perspective on what issues to investigate. That limits the scope of grand jury investigations, based on the priorities and inclinations of those members who have worked together for years.

It is time to get rid of the tight committee structure and good-old-members attitude for those career grand jurors. Grand jury service should be limited to a total of two years.

With teleconferencing available instead of a drive to Santa Barbara, Santa Maria citizens should apply. We need a more balanced group, not just geographically, but with a more diverse representation of our entire county.

Joan Leon is a local resident. She can be reached at joanleon@verizon.net. Looking Forward runs every Friday, providing a progressive viewpoint on local issues.

Chowchilla cemetery trustees respond to (Madera County) grand jury report

BY MARINA GAYTAN
mgaytan@losbanosenterprise.comFebruary 4, 2014

Members of the Chowchilla Cemetery District board of trustees responded to the 2013-14 Madera County grand jury report after a number of findings by the jury revealed trustees purchased items without board approval, violated the Brown Act and committed other violations.

In a statement made by trustees responding to the report, which was finalized by the district’s attorney Robert W. Hunt, members first stated their appreciation for the recommendations of improvement: “The board notes that many of the conditions reported by the grand jury were recognized prior to the issuance of the grand jury’s report and many remedial actions are already underway.”

Trustee members are Duff Bryant, Ron Lawson, John Kirwin and Betty Askew. Former trustee member Andrea Giordanella resigned on Jan. 7. In a letter addressed to the Madera County Board of Supervisors, Giordanella stated her reason for the resignation:

“In my letter it states there’s a lot of corruption and things the board does, against the Brown Act, and I will not be a part of that,” she said. Giordanella also said she hired an attorney but would not release any further information.

Lawson said the response was created by all board members except Giordanella, who has not been in attendance at the last few board meetings.

“I think (the response) came out fine,” Lawson said. “Most of the citations by the grand jury were distorted.”

The findings by the grand jury were released late last year and the Chowchilla Cemetery District trustees held a special meeting back in December to start addressing those concerns.

Trustees met at the Madera County Board of Supervisor’s District 2 office to receive training on agenda preparation, supporting of backup materials and a presentation on the Brown Act.

The report listed eight items determined to be out of compliance after several interviews by grand jury members, along with visits and attendance of board meetings. The items included purchases by certain trustees on behalf of the cemetery without first obtaining approval from the entire board. Those purchases were subsequently reimbursed by the cemetery.

The grand jury also learned about the purchase of a golf cart by a trustee member in July 2011, with approval from the board coming 10 days later.

“Indeed trustees have made emergency purchases for tools, parts and equipment necessary to conduct repairs, maintenance and operations of the district,” the response stated. “Nonetheless, the district has taken action to formalize its purchasing practices, as well as reimbursements.”

The board failed to follow the trustee-approved procedures and policies in the employee handbook and failed to follow the Brown Act, according to the grand jury report. Alleged Brown Act violations include trustees holding special board meetings with improper or no notice to the public and holding discussions and taking action on items in closed session when it should have been done in an open session.

Included in the trustees’ response to the grand jury report, the board stated it has purchased uniforms for its employees, similar to those used in other cemeteries. In addition, the district is also recruiting for a new district manager, “one of whose duties will be to improve the appearance, professionalism and service-orientation of all employees.”

Lawson said back in Sept. of 2013 the cemetery manager was dismissed and the board secretary, Erin Coast, was running the cemetery’s administration.

“There’s two members of the board that will pick out the most probable candidates,” he said.

Lawson also said the new manager will run the cemetery and “do what a manager should be doing.”

Cal-OSHA in December opened an investigation at the cemetery district. No further information about the investigation was available at press time as the investigation is ongoing. Trustee members confirmed, in their statement however, the Cal-OSHA inspector identified unsafe conditions that must be corrected. The report only listed one example – the lack of shoring in the grave to prevent side walls from collapsing on workers.

Lawson said he checked into how the Madera Cemetery District uses its shoring techniques. He also said it could have cost the district a $20,000 fine. “Now it’s down because we’ve taken steps to correct it,” he said.

Curbs, gutters, sidewalks and asphalt were listed in need of repair for public safety. “A preliminary maintenance and repair plan for curbs, gutters, sidewalks and asphalt is currently being developed, and will be further developed … by the district’s new manager,” the statement continued.

Areas in the worst state of disrepair and with the most unsafe conditions are being fixed soon as possible, according to trustees.

The trustees’ statement concluded with plans to adopt a new set of bylaws, plus a purchasing and contracting policy, an ethics code for the district, a conflict of interest policy, an expense reimbursement policy, a public records policy and a job descriptions.

“We did everything we possibly could to provide a better facility,” Lawson said. “It looks better. It’s starting to function better, it’s just taking some time to turn this thing around.”

Bryant also said he was pleased with the response adding, “things are doing much better.”

Reporter Marina Gaytan can be reached at (209) 826-3831 ext. 6562 or mgaytan@losbanosenterprise.com.

http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2014/02/04/3476876/chowchilla-cemetery-trustees-respond.html

Foreman Sten explains (Santa Barbara) Grand jury operation

Robert “Bobby” Jones, a parent in the Blochman Union School District, requested both a full investigation and corrective actions in a complaint about oversight of a local charter school program earlier this week. 

He faxed the complaint, dated Jan. 27, with a civil division of the Superior Court known as the Santa Barbara County grand jury.

Ted Sten, foreman of the 19-member jury, said the body is sworn in on July 1 each year and operates through June 30 of the following year. He said the jury answers both complaints and inquiries in a completely confidential process.

“The whole basis of the grand jury is that it’s confidential,” he said.

Sten added that he cannot answer questions about the likelihood that the jury will investigate the Trivium complaint, but he said any investigation into a complaint could include a review of documents and witnesses.
The Santa Barbara County grand jury issued 10 reports from June 2013 to January 2014.

The most recent report, issued Jan. 27, responds to a complaint from prisoners about the quantity and quality of meals served at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.

The grand jury listed methodology that includes kitchen inspection; an interview; an unannounced visit; and examination of meal content, preparation, nutritional value and serving methods.

The jury concluded that “meals meet state standards and provide a reasonable variety of nutritionally balanced food to all prisoners...”

In another complaint, low-income housing providers alleged that they suffered after the Santa Barbara County grand jury criticized the Lompoc Housing Community Development Corporation, the county of Santa Barbara and the city of Lompoc for mismanagement of other affordable housing facilities. The jury found “no basis for the allegations,” according to the report summary.

Sten explained that each investigation is tailored to the complaint.
“It’s a very involved detailed process before a report is written,” he said.