[Sacramento County] Report: Galt Police plan to focus on domestic violence

GALT — The Galt Police Department plans to assign one detective to follow up with domestic violence cases no later than one day after the reported incident. Under the proposal, prepared by Police Chief Tod Sockman, the department also plans to work closer with victim advocate groups to provide support.

The changes should be in effect by March 1, he said in a report to the city council.

The goal is the result of a Sacramento County Grand Jury report that reviewed whether the crime was an inconsistent priority for law enforcement agencies. Although Galt Police Department was not the focus of the review, the city is required to respond to the findings with a plan by the end of the month.

The Grand Jury is tasked annually with the responsibility of investigating and reporting on the operations within the county.

In its most recent report, released on June 30, Grand Jury members recommended all law enforcement agencies within Sacramento County should demonstrate their commitment to addressing domestic violence adequately by having fully functional domestic violence units that focus on response, investigations, follow-up, tracking and collection of comprehensive domestic violence data, as well as establish partnerships with related advocacy groups and provide specialized training for all patrol officers and detectives to deal with domestic violence incidences.

The report drew attention to both Citrus Heights and Elk Grove police departments identifying them as model programs that use comprehensive and coordinated approaches to domestic violence.

September 16, 2016

Lodi News-Sentinel

By Jennifer Bonnett

[Santa Barbara County] LUSD to commission study on general fund spending

The effectiveness and efficiency of Lompoc Unified School District’s general fund spending will be the focus of a new study that was approved Tuesday night by the LUSD Board of Education.

The board approved moving forward with the study, which will cost the district more than $34,000, with a 4-0 vote. Board member Bill Christen was absent.

The study, which will focus specifically on the district’s special education department, is being commissioned in response to the Santa Barbara County civil grand jury report released June 29. That report, which was preceded by an investigation by the grand jury, identified seven problem areas within the district, including the finding that the LUSD board “does not have adequate control of how expenditures of the general fund are being allocated and tracked.”

The grand jury recommended that the LUSD board “obtain an independent, specific audit of the general fund expenditures to clarify the use of public funds.”

The study approved by the board will be performed by School Services of California at a cost of $34,600, plus other costs not to exceed $2,000.

In other action, the board decided not to endorse Proposition 55, which is also known as the California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2016.

The board was faced with voting on whether to adopt a resolution supporting the proposition, which will be on the Nov. 8 ballot. After a lengthy discussion, however, the vote on the measure ended with a 2-2 tie and, thus, failed to move forward.

Carmela Kessler and Bill Heath provided the two "no" votes, while Steve Straight and Hank Gallina voted in favor of endorsing the measure.

Kessler said she felt like approving such a resolution would amount to the board taking a “political stand.”

“It’s on the ballot,” she said. “I don’t think there’s a need for this resolution.”

Proposition 55 will essentially expand Proposition 30, which was approved by voters in 2012 to provide funding to schools. The funding from Proposition 30 is set to run out in 2018. Proposition 55, which will affect the top 2 percent of wage earners in the state, would run through 2030, if approved by voters.

Christen, who has missed the last two meetings, is expected to return to the board for its next meeting Sept. 27.

Christen was out of state on business travel Tuesday, and he said the district’s attorney prevented him from attending the board’s Aug. 19 special meeting, which was held to craft responses to the grand jury report. Christen and his wife, Tina, figured prominently in that report.

September 16, 2016

Lompoc Record

By Willis Jacobson

San Bernardino County responds to grand jury findings on Children and Family Services

San Bernardino County’s Department of Children and Family Services is on a “clear path” to resolving high social worker turnover and heavy caseloads, according to the county’s response to grand jury findings.

High social worker turnover and bulging caseloads were among more than a dozen problems the San Bernardino County grand jury found at CFS, disclosed in its annual report released July 1.

The report found CFS rife with systemic failures, including a need for more social worker training, particularly in the area of accurate documentation writing, and caseloads far exceeding the average recommended by the Child Welfare League of America. The grand jury also reported a lack of cooperation between social workers and police, especially in the area of providing unredacted files to detectives investigating child abuse.

In a 12-page response approved Tuesday by the Board of Supervisors, the county maintained that, for a time, it was losing social workers to other counties offering higher pay, which resulted in higher caseloads for the employees who remained.

In November, CFS began the phased-in hiring of experienced social workers. To date, the county has hired 46 senior social services practitioners, and intends to fill the remaining vacant positions by year’s end, according to the county’s response.

The county agreed with the grand jury’s finding that social workers need continuous field training and instruction on writing reports, stating it has been the county’s ongoing practice to ensure these things.

In response to the recommendation to implement a system to review the effectiveness of social worker training, the county has partnered with the California Social Work Education Center and the Public Child Welfare Training Academy, has updated its training curricula to state standards, and is now requiring newly hired social workers to not only complete 158 hours of classroom and webinar training, but also 203 hours of orientation and induction training with the county.

“During the 19 months I have been in this position, I have made it my mission to ensure we continue to grow our ranks and give our social workers the tools they need to protect our children, including new training programs, an after-hours investigation unit to eliminate the need for on-call staff, and an improved risk assessment tool to evaluate potential child abuse,” CFS Director Marlene Hagen said in a statement Tuesday. “We are always interested in collaborating with the grand jury in its examination of our systems and are grateful for any recommendations that could benefit our families.”

Though disputing a grand jury finding that social workers need to improve relations with police and provide them juvenile case records more expeditiously, Hagen, prior to Oct. 1, will send a letter to all law enforcement agencies within CFS’ jurisdiction to clarify the process for requesting records and information through the CFS records unit.

Quarterly meetings between CFS executives and representatives from the Sheriff’s Department and San Bernardino Police Department will be expanded to include all police departments within CFS’ jurisdiction.

While the grand jury based its findings on interviews with three police officers, the county noted in its response it had interviewed six law enforcement agencies representing 19 of the county’s 24 cities, and none reported concerns regarding their relationship with CFS.

“Nevertheless, CFS will continue to strive to maintain and strengthen its excellent working relationship with law enforcement and to reinforce its existing commitment to provide records within 24 hours of a request,” the county said in its response.

Although the county does not dispute the fact it took seven months for the grand jury to receive records requested from CFS, the county said in its response that, by the grand jury’s own account, the requested files were being reviewed by a juvenile dependency court judge for five or six of those months, which the county had no control over.

And while the grand jury indicated there is no local independent review board that monitors CFS operations, the county said in its response that state law does not mandate one.

“The California Department of Social Services is tasked with monitoring child welfare agencies and is statutorily authorized to compel compliance with state laws and regulations,” the county said in its response.

Additionally, in order for such a review board to function it would have to be granted access to confidential juvenile case records, which state law prohibits, according to the county response.

September 13, 2016

San Bernardino Sun

By Joe Nelson

New San Francisco Bureau to Handle Police Shootings

Blog note: This story refers to a recent San Francisco grand jury report


SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Grappling with long delays and a perception of unfairness in police shooting probes, the city of San Francisco has pledged $1.9 million to launch an independent bureau to investigate police shootings.
    
 The money would staff 14 full-time employees working as an independent division under the District Attorney's office focused solely on investigating police shootings, police misconduct and potentially wrongful convictions.     

The funding comes three months after a {San Francisco) civil grand jury report faulted the city for a lack of timeliness and transparency in its process for deciding whether to prosecute officers that shoot civilians.    

The report found it has taken an average of 654 days, or more than 21 months, to investigate police shootings over the last five years. The DA's office says the actual average is 444 days, or nearly 15 months, because the civil grand jury based its average on a sample of only 42 police shooting cases since 2011.    

Civil rights attorney John Burris says long delays in deciding whether to prosecute officers can leave the families of victims in limbo and postpone action in civil rights lawsuits against the police.     

Burris represents the family of Mario Woods, a knife wielding suspect who was shot 21 times and killed by police in the city's Bayview neighborhood last December.     

"Justice delayed - it creates anxiety and distrust when you take an indefinite period of time," Burris said in an interview.     

Attorneys for Amilcar Perez Lopez, a 20-year-old Guatemalan immigrant who was shot and killed by two San Francisco police officers in February 2015, are still waiting to interview the officers in that case for a pre-trial deposition.     

Because criminal charges are still pending, the officers can invoke their Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination and remain silent on accusations that they used unnecessary lethal force.     

The DA's office has yet to finalize investigations or decide whether to prosecute officers involved in 10 fatal police shootings dating back to 2014, according to the civil grand jury report.     
District Attorney's Office spokesman Max Szabo said blame for delays in investigating police shootings does not lie solely on the shoulders of the DA's office.    

"We are largely dependent on the police department," Szabo said in an interview. "And we have to wait for the chief medical officer's report."     

The report found the police department's homicide and internal affairs divisions, which are required to submit final reports within 45 days of a police shooting, routinely miss their deadlines.    

However, the report commended the chief medical examiner's office for significantly reducing the time it takes to issue autopsy reports after police shootings since March 2015.     

Currently, police shooting cases are handled by investigators and attorneys in the White Collar Crime Unit of the DA's Office. Those employees are often forced to prioritize other cases to meet deadlines for arraignments and trial dates, leaving police shooting probes on the back burner, according to the civil grand jury report.     

"It's a good thing to have an independent body looking at police shootings," Burris said, adding it is also important to make sure the new division is staffed with people who are experienced working on police shooting cases.    

The new bureau would be staffed with six investigators, six attorneys and two paralegals, according to the San Francisco DA's office.     

Before hiring employees to staff the new bureau, the DA's office must first work out an agreement with the San Francisco Police Department.     
Details, such as which agency would be responsible for initially securing and investigating a crime scene, will be part of that agreement, Szabo said.     

Martin Halloran, president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association, did not return a phone call seeking comment on the city's plan for handling police shooting investigations going forward.     

However, last week a police union consultant, Nathan Ballard, told the San Francisco Chronicle that the union would prefer investigations be handled by a multiagency task force, like those recommended by President Barack Obama's Taskforce on 21st Century Policing.     

Ballard said it could pose a conflict of interest for the District Attorney's Office to both investigate and prosecute police shooting cases.     

Even with an independent bureau handling the investigation, the decision on whether to press charges in any criminal case ultimately lies with the head of the DA's office, who is currently George Gascón.     

The funding for a new division in the DA's office comes amid a backdrop of law enforcement reforms that have taken place since Woods was shot and killed on Dec. 2, 2015.     

The city of San Francisco has enacted a new use-of-force policy, adopted new training methods for officers and approved body cameras for police. It has also submitted to a voluntary, federal review of the police department by a division of the U.S. Justice Department.     

Former San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr stepped down in May after an unarmed car theft suspect, Jessica Williams, was shot and killed by police on May 19, following the fatal police shooting of a homeless man, Luis Gongora, in April.

September 23, 2016
By Nicholas Iovino
Courthouse News Service

More time for Harbor District: San Mateo County to delay, possibly suspend analysis of dissolution of special tax district

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors has agreed to give the Harbor District at least two years to get its finances in order before deciding whether to conduct an analysis into dissolving the special tax district.

The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury has urged supervisors to conduct an analysis into dissolution almost immediately but Tuesday the board amended its response letter to the grand jury indicating that an analysis “may” rather than “will” be implemented after fiscal year 2017-18, according to the Harbor District’s General Manager Steve McGrath.

McGrath and Tom Mattusch, president of the Harbor District Board of Commissioners, attended Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting and asked that the response letter be pulled from the consent agenda to allow for public comment.

The board allowed it and ultimately softened its response by amending a few lines in the letter indicating that a county analysis of the Harbor District is a possibility rather than a certainty in about two years.

“The county is recognizing the district’s near-term performance improvements. They have noticed the progress. In the meantime, we will continue to work and improve the district,” McGrath said.

The agency for the first time has separated its budget into how its enterprise and non-enterprise revenue are spent.

The county, in its response, said the district should be given at least two more years “until an accurate fiscal accounting of enterprise and non-enterprise activities can be conducted.”

“They’ve done better. There is a focus now on capital improvement projects and I credit the general manager for the progress and Mattusch has shown good leadership,” said Supervisor Don Horsley, whose District 3 covers the coast.

The district relies on about $5 million in property taxes and raises the rest of its money by renting boat slips and from other leases at Oyster Point Marina/Park in South San Francisco and Pillar Point Harbor on the coast. The district owns Pillar Point Harbor and operates the marina at Oyster Point under a joint powers agreement with South San Francisco.

The grand jury released a report in June titled “The San Mateo County Harbor District: The Price of Dysfunction is Rising.”

It notes that County Manager John Maltbie stated that the county would “undertake a comprehensive analysis of all aspects of the district” if dissolution was recommended by the Local Agency Formation Commission.

LAFCo recommended last year that the Harbor District be dissolved. A previous grand jury in 2014 reported that the Harbor District should also be dissolved.

The latest grand jury report indicates the county has made no moves to analyze whether the district should be dissolved and taken over by another agency.

“The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors look beyond any attempts by the Harbor District to improve operations and calls for the county to commence by Sept. 30, 2016, its promised analysis of dissolving the district. Such analysis should be completed within six months and be presented to the public at a regular board meeting,” the grand jury reported in June.

But that analysis was pushed back at least two years Tuesday and may never take place, according to the board’s response letter.

“It should be noted that the district has paid off all debt, identified adequate reserves and developed a five-year capital improvement plan for maintenance of and improvements to district facilities. Given the ... improvements, the county believes, at a minimum, that compiling two years of accurate fiscal data is necessary to adequately review district operations, efficiencies and cost allocations,” according to the response letter to the grand jury.

Grand jury recommendations must be responded to but are not mandates and do not have to be followed.

September 21, 2016
By Bill Silverfarb, Daily Journal
bill@smdailyjournal.com

-

Supervisor: [Riverside County] Grand Jury Report on Code Investigations 'Very Good'

Still, it failed to recognize that "you have to work with people who are sort of the victims in all of this," supervisor says.

A Riverside County Grand Jury report spotlighting shortcomings in how the Department of Code Enforcement handles cases will be used to improve the agency, but not all of the recommendations are relevant, a county official told the Board of Supervisors this week.

"The grand jury has acknowledged a number of areas that need to be addressed," Transportation & Land Management Agency Director Juan Perez said. "One caveat: code cases can be very specific and involve very complex issues. So we cannot apply a one-size-fits-all approach."

Perez was called to the board dais to answer supervisors' questions regarding TLMA's response to the jury's findings, published earlier this summer.

Among the key concerns contained in the 19-member grand jury's report, and answered by TLMA, was the amount of time routinely required to resolve code issues, which can range from rubbish piles on private property to unusable vehicles left parked outside a home for extended periods.

Jurors recommended that the county establish a timeline of 12-18 months to resolve code disputes, for the sake of efficiency and to save money.

"We agree with the general target guidelines," Perez said. "But some cases may take longer than others. Some cases may take less time."

Past board meetings have been tied up with appeals from residents facing tax liens and hefty penalties related to alleged code violations. The grand jury report suggested "improper patronage" may be at work when supervisors take actions on behalf of constituents that conflict with what code enforcement officers are recommending. Board members have the authority to delay proceedings in order to give residents additional time to clean up a site or take other remedial action.

Supervisors Marion Ashley and Kevin Jeffries objected to the implication that efforts to assist constituents smacked of impropriety.

"Elected officials can step in and say, 'We need fairness,"' Jeffries said. "Code fines can reach $1,000 a day. For homeowners, that can be devastating. Residents are seeking a little compassion, and it's our job to make sure government policy is fair and equal. That will continue in our office. We won't stand in the way of code doing its job, but we're going to show compassion."

Ashley agreed, saying that while he found the grand jury report "very good," it failed to recognize that "you have to work with people who are sort of the victims in all of this."

"There are some real strange cases out there," the supervisor said. "We're trying to respond to constituents and do the right thing. There are all kinds of situations, and people are usually making their best efforts."

The grand jury said its investigation uncovered instances in which residents had no means by which to file a formal complaint against a code enforcement officer. Perez said his staff was developing a process for taking complaints that will include making complaint cards available in county offices.

Jurors additionally pointed to the need for a "policy or procedure to return fines previously paid when a property owner is exonerated."

Perez said that would be one of several issues addressed when TLMA drafts a revised procedure manual. The TLMA director also indicated that efforts are underway to disburden code enforcement supervisors, who are sometimes carrying high caseloads, so they can be more readily available to respond to residents' concerns and scrutinize line officers' actions.

Supervisor John Tavaglione noted that code cases have become more complicated, in part because the agency has been downsized as a result of county budget cuts, leaving fewer personnel to manage larger numbers of complaints.

"We want to help people get into compliance," Tavaglione said. "We're going to have to take (the jury's recommendations) slowly."

The code violation appeals process entails three hearings in front of TLMA officials, after which an alleged violator can take his or her case to the board for resolution. Barring satisfaction there, a resident can always seek relief through the judicial process.

"We look forward to resolving issues that may arise so that code is as efficient as possible," County Counsel Greg Priamos said.

September 15, 2016
– By City News Service.
By Patch CA (Patch Staff)

Why Riverside County says supervisors aren't meddling with code enforcement

Riverside County officials say it’s OK for supervisors to inquire about cases on constituents’ behalf.

Riverside County’s official response to a grand jury report on code enforcement agreed on the need for improvements, but took issue with the panel’s finding that county supervisors may have interfered with code violation cases.The official response is on the Board of Supervisors agenda for Tuesday, Sept. 13, more than two months after the grand jury issued a report critical of the county’s code enforcement department, which is responsible for enforcing building codes and related rules in unincorporated communities and the city of Perris.The panel found fault with how long it took code enforcement cases to reach a hearing date – 4.3 years on average, according to the report. Unsupported and inaccurate billing of property owners is common and there’s no procedure in place for property owners to get refunded for fines when those owners are exonerated, the grand jury reported.The panel also questioned whether the county’s five elected supervisors “interjected themselves into active code cases, causing delays and sometimes abandonment of those cases.”It brought up a 2010 matrix, or list, of code violations in Temecula Valley Wine Country presented at an unnamed supervisor’s request.

“Witnesses stated that code enforcement was given the ‘go ahead’ or ‘stand down’ by supervisor/staff regarding 10 wine country cases on that particular (list),” the jury reported. “Similar meetings were held every month with updated (lists) for an unknown period of time.”

State Sen. Jeff Stone, R-Temecula, who was wine country’s supervisor in 2010, later said there were many code enforcement issues prior to the passage of a wine country master plan and that he asked for the list of active citations in that region.

“I wanted to meet with code officers monthly to ensure we were making timely progress in eliminating the code issues that were seemingly slow at getting solved,” Stone wrote in a letter to The Press-Enterprise.“If those cited were working with the county to cure their issues, we were supportive. If they ignored the county (only a few cases), we put pressure on to get them to comply. It’s disappointing that some code enforcement officers would object to my oversight, but frankly ... it is what the taxpayers expected of me when they elected me.The county’s formal response echoed Stone’s assertion that it is proper for supervisors to respond to constituents’ concerns.

“Some code enforcement cases are complex in nature,” the response read. “Achieving compliance in those cases may require coordination and discussions between multiple departments and it is not inappropriate to involve (supervisors’) staff in those discussions so that ... staff is aware of the status of the case and board staff can also inform county departments of information received from their constituent.”According to the response, the county is easing supervising code enforcement officers’ workloads so they can resolve cases quicker and review cases “before ... invoices are set out to remove any abatement costs charges that may not be appropriate.”

September 12, 2016

The Press Enterprise

By Jeff Horseman

Merced [County] Mysteries & Minutiae: Supervisors don’t vote on their own raises

Blog note: this article references a 2007 ordinance enacted by the Board of Supervisors on supervisor compensation that followed a grand jury report recommending changes.

Supervisor pay is sort of wacky.

It’s a good salary, but the mechanics behind the salary are a bit complicated.

It’s also something that’s not really discussed during public meetings.

Q: Did the Board of Supervisors give themselves another raise recently?

A: No.

Though the board did receive a raise in July, the beginning of the new fiscal year, supervisors do not vote on their salaries.

In Merced County, supervisor pay is linked to the pay rate for judges. Supervisors receive 54.2 percent of what judges earn.

The system was established in 2007 through an ordinance after the Merced County grand jury suggested changes in how supervisors were paid.

The grand jury in its report said the supervisors’ pay should be higher to attract more quality candidates and to provide equal opportunity for potential candidates who could not afford to quit their jobs to take on the position.

The board at that time was made up of District 1 Supervisor John Pedrozo, District 2 Supervisor Kathleen M. Crookham, District 3 Supervisor Mike Nelson, District 4 Supervisor Deidre Kelsey and District 5 Supervisor Jerry O’Banion.

The board was presented four options to choose from that included various methods of determining a base salary and options to sell back sick leave and vacation time.

The board voted for the option that gave them a higher percentage of the judges’ salary and the option of taking all or nothing when it came to sick leave sellback at retirement.

The decision eliminated the board’s position to set its salary or raises.

The board members receive their raises automatically beginning in the new fiscal year after the raises have gone into effect for the judges.

Kelsey was the only one who voted “no.”

In July, a pay increase kicked in for supervisors, bumping their annual salary by about $2,000. Their pay went from $100,000 to $102,400.

Supervisors Hub Walsh, Daron McDaniel and O’Banion each accepted the raises. Kelsey and Pedrozo didn’t return phone calls to confirm whether they did, but so far no supervisor has reported declining the raise.

In the past, individual supervisors have declined raises or voluntarily taken reductions.

The county supervisors were not subject to a 5 percent salary reduction that hit county employees in 2012, but all voluntarily took the decrease. The concession expired Dec. 15, 2013, along with the end of employee furloughs, Merced Sun-Star archives show.

In 2014, Pedrozo and Walsh declined the raises. Last year, McDaniel declined the raise because he’d only been on the board for about six months, he said.

This year, the supervisors felt more comfortable accepting the raises since other county employee groups have received raises and the county is in a better financial position than in the past, they said.

“The general climate is better,” Walsh, the board chairman, said. “We’re not furloughing folks anymore. The circumstances are better. We’ve actually negotiated some raises.”

McDaniel said this time around, he feels he’s earned the raise. McDaniel estimates he works 60 to 70 hours a week as a supervisor. Most of that time is spent reading and studying, he said. Meeting constituents, returning phone calls, attending breakfast meetings and dinner events make for long days, he said.

“When we get paid as we do, every day we need to consider that and work our worth,” he said. “I do everything on behalf of my constituents. I have 50,000 bosses.”

In the past, Kelsey has expressed a critical opinion of how much supervisors earn and said she would support a 15 percent pay cut.

Supervisors have received three raises since 2008, said Mike North, a spokesman for the county. The raises came in 2014, 2015 and in July. Each of the raises followed raises for judges.

Supervisors’ salaries come from the county’s general fund.

September 11, 2016

Merced Sun-Star

By Brianna Calix

Marin [County] focuses on monitoring concussions of student athletes

Blog note: this article references a February 2016 grand jury report on the subject.

A group of representatives from local hospitals, county government, the Marin County Office of Education, Marin Athletic Foundation and others is seeking ways to prevent Marin student athletes who sustain concussions from suffering permanent harm.

“We’ve been meeting for over a year now as this collaborative,” said Lara Trahan, director of education services at the Marin County Office of Education. “The focus of the group is to approach brain safety as one entity instead of little pockets.”

The effort has already begun to pay dividends. In the fall of 2015, both Marin General Hospital and Novato Community Hospital began providing athletic trainers to schools in their areas.

Marin General is providing athletic trainers who work with students at San Rafael, Terra Linda and Tomales high schools, and the hospital is in the process of hiring a third trainer to assist with those schools. Novato Community is in its second year of providing two athletic trainers for Novato Unified School District — one at Novato High School and one at San Marin High School.

“The athletic trainers do concussion baseline testing of all student athletes at no charge to the parents or the school district,” said Novato Community spokeswoman Mary Strebig.

Marin General’s arrangement with schools is somewhat different.

“All of our athletic trainer services, including baseline testing, are provided to the schools at below our cost, and we do not make a profit on the program within our contracts with the school districts,” said Terese O’Malley, Marin General’s manager of wellness programs.

Athletes involved in contact sports at all these schools are required to undergo baseline testing.

Baseline neurocognitive tests provide a snapshot of a healthy athlete’s decision-making ability, reaction time, attention and memory. If an athlete suffers a concussion, the test is readministered and helps doctors know when it is safe for the student to return to competition.

232 concussions

Trahan said that during the 2015-16 school year, Marin County high school athletes suffered an estimated 232 concussions. During that same period, San Rafael High School’s 500 student athletes alone suffered 47 concussions, said Shana McKeever, the athletic trainer dealing with concussions at San Rafael High.

San Rafael High received a $5,000 community service grant from county supervisors in June to expand its use of electronic head impact monitors, which it began using in 2015. The sensors are being used at San Rafael High for soccer, football and lacrosse, and the school is looking to extend the program to water polo and other sports.

The devices, worn in headbands or skullcaps, record head impacts and transmit data from the playing field to a smartphone or computer tablet on the sideline.

The Marin Athletic Foundation also received a $5,000 community service grant from supervisors to underwrite baseline testing at high schools and expanded use of impact monitors.

Testing urged

In February 2016, the grand jury issued a report, “Head Injuries and Concussions: Are Our High Schools Keeping Our Children Safe?” The grand jury’s report included several recommendations.

One recommendation was that each Marin school district require and pay for baseline neurocognitive testing of all high school athletes and mandatory re-testing after an injury. Another was that each school district pay for the hiring of certified athletic trainers at each of its high schools, who would attend high-risk sporting events.

Trahan said she wasn’t sure which schools in Marin have hired athletic trainers to monitor concussions, although she believes most have.

Another grand jury recommendation was that each school adopt protocols for reporting head injuries and for determining how long injured players should wait before returning to school and athletic activities. The grand jury said that each district should provide mandatory concussion education for student athletes. And it recommended that the Marin County Office of Education collect head injury data and compile the data in a centralized database.

Trahan said the collaborative is in the early stages of discussing how to meet most of these goals.

Getting needed care

Dr. Srinivas Ganesh, a sports medicine physician at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, said, “We’ve had a set of protocols that we’ve created to make sure our Kaiser athletes are able to get the care they need. We want to work with the community to make sure that best practices are shared and standardization is noted across Marin for student athletes.”

Kit Holsten, the athletic trainer monitoring concussions at Terra Linda and Tomales high schools, said if it is suspected that an athlete has suffered a concussion during a game or practice, they are removed from play and a standardized medical questionnaire is administered.

Steve DeHart, the athletic trainer at Novato High School, said the assessment he does also includes a cranial nerve test along with balance testing.

If there is evidence of trauma, the athlete could be taken to an emergency room; otherwise they would be required to visit their personal physician for further evaluation.

“Does every one of these kids go to the doctor immediately? No,” DeHart said. “One of the challenges is the consistency of treatment.”

DeHart said emergency room doctors are often reluctant to diagnose a concussion. If a concussion is confirmed by a doctor, under state law the athlete is required to complete a graduated return-to-play protocol of no less than seven days in duration under the supervision of a licensed health care provider.

September 10, 2016

Marin Independent Journal

By Richard Halstead

Yolo County Supervisors stand behind the Yolo Habitat Conservancy

The Yolo County Board of Supervisors are standing behind the Yolo Habitat Conservancy despite a scathing Grand Jury report issued earlier this year.

Recently the Grand Jury — an independent watchdog convened to review the operations of city and county government as well as other tax supported agencies — released the report, “Yolo Habitat Conservancy : A Never Ending Story.” The document detailed the agency’s allegedly checkered past, recent efforts to implement safeguards, the state of its current operations, and recommendations for improvement.

The Conservancy is a Joint Powers Agency that was formed in 2002 to prepare the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan and the Yolo Local Conservation Plan. These policies are intended to establish a framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources across the county while allowing for continued rural and urban development.

The Grand Jury’s recent report argued that the agency’s performance does not justify the time and money spent as a final conservation plan has not been approved despite county efforts that can be traced back to the 1990s. In the YHC’s response, they noted that they have only been in charge of the plan’s formation since 2002 and that similar plans in other counties have taken over a decade to complete. They further stated that the plan is estimated to cost $10.3 million, which is similar to the cost of plans in other counties such as Placer County which has cost $10.5 million over the past 15 years. Yolo Supervisors agreed with the Conservancy’s position and asked that the Grand Jury refer to the Conservancy’s response for explanation.

To get the Conservancy back on track, the Grand Jury recommended that the YHC submit a final plan by April 30, 2017 and receive annual performance audits to measure progress towards this goal. Supervisors agreed with the recommended deadline, as the Conservancy had already adopted a similar timeframe prior to the Grand Jury’s investigation.

Regarding the performance audits, the Conservancy responded that this would be unnecessary. They argued that the YHC’s Board of Directors already evaluates the agency’s budget and schedule each year. They did note, however, that to enhance agency oversight they would consider implementing performance audits or reviews once the plan is in effect which would likely begin in 2018 or developing performance measures around organizational and budget goals adopted by their Board of Directors to be reviewed every six months.

Yolo supervisors also supported the Conservancy on this recommendation and added that the Department of Financial Services had provided input to the YHC in their initial response to the Grand Jury and that the department will continue to be available to the Conservancy as a resource going forward.

County Counsel Phil Pogledich noted after the report was released, “Having been involved as legal adviser to the Conservancy for a decade, the last four years is a night and day difference from the prior several years.”

He went on to say, “From my perspective, the report simply isn’t credible. The report’s major conclusion is that the habitat planning effort isn’t worth the time or the money, but it doesn’t explain why,” he continued. “Nor does it reflect an honest effort by the Grand Jury to understand the complexity of a countywide habitat planning effort covering numerous species. The Grand Jury does not appear to have considered just how much a completed plan will streamline the permitting for public works projects and private development. Put simply, I don’t think the Grand Jury did its homework.”

The Board’s response will be formally approved when they convene on Tuesday and will then be sent along to Judge Paul Richardson and the Yolo County Grand Jury, closing the door on this chapter of the Conservancy’s history and allowing them to focus on the final conservation plan.

The plan’s current draft covers 12 endangered and threatened species and 15 natural communities. The final plan will provide for the conservation of these species in the county, as well as 50-year permits for development activities.

September 10, 2016

Daily Democrat

By Lauren King