[Amador County] Assessor Rooney responds to Grand Jury

Re: Response by the Amador County Assessor

2015-2016 Grand Jury Special Investigation – Health and Human Services Building Lease

Dear Judge Hermanson:

As an initial matter, neither myself nor the Assessor’s Office had anything whatsoever to do with the negotiation, review, approval, or implementation of the March 4, 2008 Amended and Restated Lease for the Health and Human Services Building, which is the subject of this Report, and none of the Grand Jury’s Recommendations appear to involve either myself or the Assessor’s Office in any way.

However, the Grand Jury has specifically requested my response to this Report in its June 20, 2016 letter. Therefore, as required by Penal Code Section 933, I have prepared the following responses to only those findings that possibly pertain to matters under my control or that possibly pertain to matters under the control of the Amador County Assessor’s Office. Since the remainder of the findings do not pertain to matters under my control, I have not responded to them.

Finding #17: The County had two methods to assess the property tax for the HHS building and property. The first property tax assessment method which was used for the LLC was based on the market value. The second property tax assessment method for the new owners was based on the value of the HHS building’s guaranteed twenty year income from the lease. The two tiered system favored the LLC which had the same lease as the new owners, but they paid about 25% less property taxes. If the LLC did not sell the HHS building, the LLC would have paid approximately 25% less in property taxes each year.

Response: The Assessor partially disagrees with Finding #17.

To clarify, the County Assessor does not assess property tax and there are no property tax assessments, but rather, the Assessor assesses property for property tax purposes.

Concerning methods to assess property, there are three primary approaches, or “methods”, to appraise property in the assessment process, not two. They are the Cost Approach, the Market Approach and the Income Approach. These approaches are commonly used throughout the state to determine accurate values of properties resulting in proper assessments.

There is not a “two tiered system”. Rather there are different types of events that trigger a new assessment. Two of the most common reasons for assessment are change of ownership and new construction.

The first event (not a tier) was when the new construction was completed for the subject. The Cost Approach was the only approach used for this event, not “market value”. This is common practice for new construction, which has not yet sold.

The second event (not a tier) was when the property sold. All three approaches were used and each approach was given consideration. However, due to the subjectivity of the cost data and the scarcity of market data, other than the subject sale, the most consideration was given to the Income Approach which supported the negotiated sales price. All three approaches created a value range that bracketed the sales price, so the sales price value was enrolled as the assessed value as specified under Rule 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

No group or individual was favored with a “two tiered system”. When an entity purchases undeveloped property and builds on it, they generally sell it for more than they put into it or they hold on to it. The buyer then receives a new assessment that, most of the time, is based on the sales price. This situation is extremely common and is essentially what motivates contractors to stay in business. Also, due to the complexities of Prop 13 and its limitations for increasing existing assessments, it is not advisable to rely on assessed values for fair market value purposes and it appears that this has been done in Finding #17.

Finding #18: On May 25, 2010, the County Counsel, the BOS acting as the BOE, and the County Assessor clearly believed that pursuant to Article 6.5 of the March 4, 2008 HHS building lease that the LLC and the new property owners of the HHS building did not pay the property taxes on the first $13.6 million of assessed value but rather that these taxes were paid by the County. This is [sic] belief was one factor as to why the BOE believed the HHS building lease is “gold”.

Response: The Assessor partially disagrees with Finding #18.

After looking at the data concerning the appeal hearing of May 25, 2010, it is apparent that I did interpret the property tax payment portion of the Amended and Restated Lease Agreement incorrectly, which led me to believe that the new property owners of the HHS building were not responsible for the property taxes on the first $13.6 million of assessed value. It is difficult to understand how this item might be important or relevant. The negotiation of the “Amended and Restated Lease Agreement” signed March 4, 2008, occurred over two years prior to the hearing and the purchase of the property for $16.9 million occurred just less than two years prior, on June 6, 2008. I would also find it difficult to speculate that an incorrect or ill-advised statement, made

more than two years after the Amended and Restated Lease Agreement was signed, had bearing on the subject lease or even the valuation of a property that sold for $16.9 million and was assessed for $16.9 million. Additionally, I would not speculate this to be a “belief’ of the BOE members, considering the extensive amount of cost, market and income data that was presented at the hearing.

Finding #19: While the new owners contradicted the county’s claim that the County was paying the taxes on the first $13.6 million of assessed value, this conflict was not resolved by the BOE prior to their ruling against the new owner’s appraisal appeal. The Grand Jury has determined that new owners were correct in stating that they were paying the taxes on the first $13.6 million of assessed value and consequently that the BOE based their decision in part on the BOE’s misunderstanding of property tax payments. Note that this misunderstanding was not simply a misinterpretation of the terms of the Article 6.5 of the lease but rather was a fact whose truth or falsehood could have been determined by an examination of the tax payment records by the BOE and County Assessor’s Office either prior to the BOE hearing or prior to the July 13, 2010 BOE finding to deny the reduction in assessed value of the HHS building.

Response: The Assessor partially disagrees with Finding #19.

Many aspects of the valuation of the property were discussed by the appellant and the Assessor in the appeal hearing. The Cost Approach was discussed briefly as the least reliable of the approaches. The Market Approach was discussed at greater length concerning individual comparables and general market conditions. The Income Approach was also discussed at length giving consideration to the general terms of the lease.

There are three approaches used to determine the value of real estate. Who ultimately pays the property tax bill is not an indicator of value and is irrelevant in the determination of value. The owner’s agent in the appeal hearing also considers it irrelevant at 51:00 minutes into the hearing when he says:

“The point you made that I think is irrelevant to this discussion but if… if this value is lowered it actually will save the county a little bit of money in terms of property taxes. So it doesn’t just save us money it saves the county some property tax money. But again, as far as I understand the rules and regulations, that is irrelevant.”

The explanation of payment of taxes was essentially used to demonstrate that the assessment had increased, resulting in a higher property tax bill and the appellant wanted to pay less in taxes.

The May 25, 2010 statement regarding payment of property taxes certainly had no bearing on the Amended and Restated Lease agreement of March 4, 2008, and the speculation “…that the BOE based their decision in part on the BOE’s misunderstanding of property tax payments.” is a speculation of a circumstance that I do not think is accurate and can be verified by the findings of the appeal.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to the 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report regarding the Health and Human Services Building lease.

Sincerely,

James B. Rooney

Amador County Assessor

September 21, 2016

Amador Ledger Dispatch

Posted by Jerry Budrick

[Trinity County] Supervisors respond to grand jury reports

The Trinity County Board of Supervisors has filed responses to recent grand jury reports on water, grants and inmate welfare trust funds, disagreeing with several findings and recommendations that were made.

WATER

On the grand jury’s water report, the Board of Supervisors disagreed with a recommendation to involve county officials in resolving conflicting practices regarding sale and transportation of bulk water for agricultural purposes, noting the water providers operate under state law and their own governing boards, not the county.

However, the board agreed that well permitting review and upgrades are needed in the county and proposals are currently being worked on to better manage and regulate well permits. The board also agreed that further analysis is needed on ways to protect county watersheds and aquifers from unauthorized or damaging incursions, noting “the desire is there, but the funding is not.”

The board disagreed with a grand jury finding that residential water is most important, stating instead that both residential and agricultural use are very important and warrant further study on how to manage and carefully regulate to benefit both.

The grand jury also recommended a study be done with involvement from all stakeholders to determine what the water carrying capacity is countywide, including additional public and private water storage opportunities. The board agreed there is need for such a study, but no available resources at this time to fund it without obtaining a very large grant.

The grand jury found that policies of water providers in the county have enabled transport of water outside of district boundaries, opening up marijuana agriculture in areas not anticipated or desired in county policies.

The board of supervisors disagreed, saying the Weaverville Community Services District and Trinity County Waterworks District #1 in Hayfork have been providing drought emergency water to residences whose wells have dried up. The board noted the providers do not have resources to police where the water is going or what it is being used for, and said the actual amount of such diversions is insignificant to the total volume of water processed by the providers.

On the grand jury’s recommendation that the Board of Supervisors promptly adopt a county grading ordinance, the board said that will be implemented and has been on the Planning Department’s “to do” list for several years, becoming even more important “with the expansion of illegal agriculture.” It said a grading ordinance will be drafted when the county finds funding and planning staff to do the work.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT LOANS

On the grand jury’s report entitled “Money, Money Nowhere…The Buck Stops Here!!” the board agreed that the loan/grants accounting spreadsheet is unorganized, poorly documented and in great need of management oversight.

The board indicated that an audit of the CDBG portfolio accounting and Housing Rehabilitation loan portfolios will be recommended to the County Administrative Officer (as soon as one is hired).

The board disagreed with the grand jury finding there has been no servicing of the loans other than posting of payments, and no collection efforts made by the county, resulting in the write-off of much needed money for support services. The board’s response was that the county, to the best of its ability, has taken steps to send out default notices and commence collection efforts.

The board also noted the county cannot use income received from servicing the loans to cover administrative costs and doing so would be illegal.

The board agreed that a checklist or risk assessment policy to ensure equitable decision making for future loans will be recommended to the CAO.

Regarding allegations by the grand jury that the housing rehab loan committee violated the Brown Act by holding serial email and phone meetings, the board disagreed, saying the committee is not subject to the Brown Act and that the county has held public meetings as required for CDBG activities.

The board also agreed to continually attempt to refresh the committee membership “as volunteers come forward.”

The grand jury recommended that the Board of Supervisors make re-establishment and reorganization of the county grants department a priority, budgeting appropriately to attract qualified employees with lending, collections and grant-writing experience.

The board’s response was that the recommendation would not be implemented, noting “the county does not have the financial resources to re-establish the grant department.”

INMATE WELFARE FUND

The grand jury found Sheriff Bruce Haney potentially guilty of “misfeasance” for reporting to the Board of Supervisors on the past five years’ worth of expenditures from the Inmate Welfare Fund instead of annually as required by penal code.

The Board of Supervisors disagreed, saying the term “misfeasance” was not an accurate description of why the reports were given in the manner they were.

Regarding a finding that Board of Supervisors’ visits to county jail facilities are rare, the board agreed, noting the grand jury’s recommendation of yearly visits would require further analysis. Full board participation would require a noticed meeting, open to the public. An ad hoc committee of two could be convened to tour facilities instead, but that would be at the discretion of the board chairman.

• September 21, 2016
• The Trinity Journal
• By Sally Morris
• 
  

• 
  
• 
  

[Riverside County] Board to Review Agency’s Response to Critical Report

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA - Riverside County supervisors Tuesday will review the Department of Public Social Services' response to a grand jury report critical of how the agency maintains policies, which jurors found lacking a "systematic, organized" structure that makes rules and regulations easy to find and follow.

Earlier this year, the 19-member Riverside County Grand Jury conducted an investigation of the electronic database and hard copy paperwork on which DPSS relies to keep staff updated on policy changes. Jurors cited multiple problems demanding managers' attention.

Topping the jury's list was evidence that the "Administrative Policy and Procedure manual ... lacks a systematic order and is not user-friendly."

Jurors found that the county intranet did not provide clear indices that permit subject matter to be quickly accessed and digested. Jurors complained that there appeared to be no "systematic, organized (practice) ... for categorizing and tracking department policy." They visited DPSS offices in Blythe, Hemet and Riverside and encountered the same issue at each location, according to the report.

In its response, the county countered that keyword searches would return relevant information from memoranda, forms and announcements.

The jury was further troubled by evidence that DPSS, which oversees services for dependent adults, neglected and abused children, as well as foster kids, does not regularly undertake "periodic review or revision of policies and procedures to ensure they remain current, accurate and applicable."

County staff acknowledged the issue, saying "some older policies need to be updated." DPSS said that it was in the process of addressing the problem.

Jurors stressed the importance of converting memoranda distributed over the years into actual procedures listed in the departmental admin manual. Jurors said they came across some memos that were "more than 12 years old," yet not enshrined in the manual.

According to the county, staff are poring over roughly 200 memos to determine their relevance and whether they should become long-term procedures. DPSS managers complained of high workload and short staffing as potential barriers to meeting some of the jury's recommendations under a tight timetable.

Jurors underscored the need for "hard copies of administrative policies" in all DPSS satellite offices when the intranet is inaccessible, pointing to instances when jurors encountered web pages on the county's secure server that stated "page under construction," leaving doubts as to how staff obtain information if their search turns up an inactive or incomplete listing.

The county replied that it was working to correct the dead-end links and assured the jury that versions of all admin polices "are maintained centrally and are available to supervisors and administrators ... as needed upon request."

In a separate but related report, the grand jury criticized DPSS' record- keeping in connection with the issuance of gift cards to transitioning foster youth.

According to the jury, an audit of the agency's National Youth in Transition Database pointed to laxity in monitoring the status of gift cards awarded to individuals leaving the foster care system but agree to complete surveys about their experiences. The cards are valued between $75 and $100 each.

Jurors found that gift card logs "did not contain customer ID numbers, gift card numbers, case numbers" and other details about when cards were sent out, or whether they were received.

The jury urged DPSS personnel to improve "oversight of the distribution of gift cards" to track expenditures and ascertain whether survey participants got what they were promised.

Agency officials responded that DPSS "will modify the current policy to further enhance" the process of purchasing and delivering gift cards.

September 20, 2016

Murrieta Patch

By Patch staff

County snubs Law Library: Civil grand jury urged ongoing funding; San Mateo County says ’no’

The San Mateo County Law Library will not get any extra money from the Board of Supervisors to stave off its fiscal crisis, according to a report by County Manager John Maltbie. The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury issued its own report in June that urged the board to provide supplemental funding to the Law Library since its primary source of funding from civil court filing fees has steadily decreased since 2010. The grand jury report stated that the library, near the Hall of Justice in downtown Redwood City, is in “serious jeopardy” and a “unique resource.” But in a response letter to the grand jury, the Board of Supervisors states that there are cheaper ways to provide services such as expanded use of online legal resource systems and public libraries. The Law Library served nearly 8,000 patrons in fiscal year 2014-15. About half were members of the general public, county employees and students and the other half were members of the legal community. Library revenue have decreased 52 percent in five years. The grand jury wanted supervisors to promptly adopt a formal policy to mitigate the Law Library’s fiscal crisis and establish ongoing supplemental funding immediately. But the county responded that it is time for the Law Library, which turns 100 this year, to explore other less expensive models for delivering services such as expanded use of online tools Westlaw and LexisNexis. Per state law, California County Law Libraries are funded by a portion of a litigant’s fee on their first filing in court, whether a complaint or answer, which amounts to $38.50 per filing. A small claims court filing, however, only generates $3 for the libraries. The San Mateo County Law Library’s income in 2010-11 was $841,000 but dropped to $549,544 for the 2014-15 fiscal year, according to library Director Andrew Gurthet. Gurthet has been forced to suspend updating the library’s book collection, layoff four part-time employees, cut evening and weekend hours and suspend some of its electronic databases to reduce the budget. The library has had to dip into its reserves to cover recent budgets, Gurthet previously told the Daily Journal. In 2014-15, the library was funded through 14,165 filings, the lowest number of filing since 1974. In 1988, the library was funded by a record number of filings at 27,800. It is unclear why there is a drop but there is speculation, Gurthet previously said. Some theories include that more people are opting to take the mediation or arbitration route rather than solving disputes through the courts. Court consolidation, the increase of small claims limits to $10,000 and an improving economy may also be a factor. The county, however, maintains that the Law Library needs to cut costs. “When the county is satisfied that the Law Library has exhausted all reasonable means to cut costs while maintaining adequate resource materials and services, the county will at that point consider the possibility of providing supplemental funding,” Maltbie wrote in a report to the board. The county does provide the library its space and facility maintenance for free, a requirement by the state. The San Mateo County Law Library Foundation is a nonprofit agency that is seeking tax-deductible donations to keep the library operating.

September 20, 2016

San Mateo Daily Journal

By Bill Silverfarb

[Yolo County] Grand jury criticizes leadership, delays at Yolo Habitat Conservancy

A Yolo County environmental agency that was nearly disbanded in 2012 because of financial mismanagement and a lack of direction once again is facing questions about its leadership.

In a recent report, “Yolo Habitat Conservancy: A Never Ending Story,” the county’s grand jury takes aim at an agency created 14 years ago to make a local plan for protecting habitat for threatened and endangered species – a responsibility that otherwise falls to state and federal agencies. Conservancy leaders expect to have the plan approved late next year at a cost of about $10 million.

The grand jury report comes after a 2013 audit found the conservancy had improperly spent $1.8 million in funds intended for the Swainson’s hawk on the overall habitat plan, and generally was spending more money than it had. The agency’s executive director already had resigned in 2012 when she was confronted with questions about the agency’s dire financial situation. Most of its money has come from state and federal grants.

The conservancy’s performance “does not justify the time and the money spent,” according to the grand jury report.

The conservancy’s board of directors, which includes elected officials from Yolo County, Davis and West Sacramento, disputed that conclusion, and criticized the grand jury for failing to recognize the agency’s improvements since new leadership took over. Board chair and Yolo County Supervisor Jim Provenza predicted the conservancy would have a “model plan” approved next year.

Some of the grand jury’s most critical complaints about the conservancy concerned its new leadership. The report calls for the conservancy to take steps to address any appearance of impropriety regarding the approval of bills from two consultants who work as the conservancy’s executive director and project manager.

The grand jury found that payments to one of the consultants has the potential for conflict because she is a “decision maker” at the conservancy. The report does not specify which of the agency’s consultants is a decision maker, and jury foreman Carl Kailikole declined to comment.

Provenza said the complaint is off the mark because neither consultant is a decision maker. All key decisions are made by the board, he said.

The conservancy’s executive director is Petrea Marchand. She was working for Yolo County as manager of intergovernmental affairs in 2012 when she took a second job as interim executive director of the conservancy at the request of Provenza and other conservancy board members, according to Marchand and Provenza.

Marchand became the agency’s permanent executive director later that year, when she had left the county and started a consulting firm, Consero Solutions. She was hired as a part-time consultant at $125 an hour and has since received a $5 an hour raise.

According to Marchand’s invoices, she was paid $134,000 last year for an average of 20 hours of work a week. She was paid another $30,000 for work performed by other employees at her firm.

Marchand’s compensation was $7,000 more than the cost of salary and benefits for the agency’s previous executive director, who worked full time.

The agency paid another $117,000 last year to consultant Heidi Tschudin, who is the conservancy’s project manager. She is paid $215 an hour and worked an average of 12 hours a week last year.

Provenza, who as board chair approves the bills of Tschudin and Marchand, defended the use of consultants. Even if the agency could hire full-time employees at the same cost of part-time work by consultants, the conservancy would not get the plan approved any sooner, he said.

“I really don’t think anyone could do this job but Petrea and Heidi,” he said.

Provenza said Marchand deserves a higher rate of compensation, while Tschudin’s rate is based on years of experience providing planning services to the county and other local agencies. Tschudin did not return a message seeking comment.

The grand jury report notes that Marchand’s firm was hired without a competitive bidding process. Provenza said she initially was hired in a crisis situation that precluded a formal selection process and has proved herself most qualified for the job.

Marchand cited several accomplishments since taking the reins at the conservancy, including releasing two drafts of a habitat plan in four years when the previous executive director did not complete one in 10 years. She said she has increased grant revenues.

Marchand acknowledged that she missed her original deadline of October 2015 to have the habitat plan approved, saying it should be done late next year. She said she was new when she proposed the original deadline and did not completely understand the process, including the difficulty of getting federal and state wildlife officials to review proposals.

Marchand and Provenza said that delays by state and federal agencies are the biggest reason for missing last year’s deadline, and officials at the agencies don’t dispute the claims.

The plan will forecast development in Yolo County over a 50-year period, and propose mitigation for certain species that lose habitat as a result of the construction. The emphasis is on preserving Yolo County’s farms and other open space, Provenza and Marchand said.

Once the plan is approved, they said, the agency intends to hire a full-time director.

Habitat conservation plans allow developers within a designated geographic area to pay a fee or donate land to a local conservancy when they build on land that affects covered species, rather than having to obtain individual permits from state and federal wildlife agencies. The Natomas Basin Conservancy, for instance, has used developer fees to acquire almost 5,000 acres to compensate for development in the Natomas area of Sacramento.

September 17, 2016

Sacramento Bee

By Brad Branan

San Bernardino County supervisor pushes for on-the-spot drug tests for parents

San Bernardino County Supervisor Robert Lovingood is pushing for a change in state and federal laws that would allow social workers to drug-test parents suspected of being under the influence.

“There is nothing more important than protecting children from abuse and neglect. It’s time for state and federal law to give local communities the ability to prevent tragedy,” Lovingood said in a statement Thursday. Lovingood’s proposal comes in the wake of the Board of Supervisors declining on Tuesday to adopt a policy, recommended by the San Bernardino County grand jury in its annual report released July 1, to furnish social workers with instant drug testing kits and train them on their use to determine if parents are under the influence of drugs. The grand jury also recommended that the policy allow social workers to immediately remove children from the home if they suspect the children are in danger.

The county, in its written response approved Tuesday by the board, said it will not implement the recommendation because social workers do not have the legal authority to compel parents to submit to a drug test.“

Also, under the law, a parent or legal guardian being under the influence is not sufficient cause, in and of itself, to remove a child from a home,” according to the county’s response, adding that it must be determined that the parent’s/guardian’s drug use places the child at risk, and unless that risk is imminent, the social worker cannot remove the child without a court order.

During Tuesday’s board meeting, Lovingood directed county staffers to research state and federal laws on the issue and report back to him. On Thursday, he announced his plans to work with his colleagues on the board to draft legislation that would allow social workers to do on-the-spot drug testing when they suspect parents are under the influence of drugs and would give them authority to remove children from homes if the test reads positive.

“If we can identify any obstacles at the state or federal level, we should, and once we identify those then we can collectively, as a board, reach a decision to lobby for that change,” Lovingood said in a telephone interview Thursday.

C.L. Lopez, spokeswoman for the San Bernardino County Department of Human Services, which oversees Children and Family Services, said in an email Tuesday that “county departments do not take public positions on legislation.

”According to legal experts, Lovingood is fighting an uphill battle, and one major obstacle stands in his way: the U.S. Constitution.

“The proposal is clearly unconstitutional,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at UC Irvine. “Drug testing is a search. It would require probable cause. Also, taking a child away would require notice and a hearing, unless there is an emergency.”

Jan C. Costello, professor of child and family law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said in a telephone interview that Lovingood’s proposal raises serious Fourth Amendment issues, and that although social workers do have authority to remove children from their homes if there is a perceived immediate threat to their safety, there is still due process afforded the parents.

John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and director of its Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, agreed on the unlawful search and seizure concerns behind Lovingood’s proposal, and he said a search warrant would need to be obtained by a social worker in order to administer a drug test.

He said the proposal may also pose Fifth Amendment concerns because such a search could amount to compelling the parent to be a witness against himself or herself.

“On the other side of the equation is the child’s safety,” Eastman said. “That might provide the exigent circumstances necessary to avoid the need for a warrant. But the threat to the child would likely have to be serious and imminent, not just a speculation on the part of the social worker.”

September 16, 2016

The Press Enterprise

By Joe Nelson

[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