[Orange County] Letter to the editor: Snitch scandal denies justice, but DA and sheriff blame others

Blog note: this letter references a grand jury report on the subject that continues to receive significant media attention.

SACRAMENTO — The Orange County public has been sadly tolerant for years of disturbing scandals in its Sheriff’s Department and District Attorney’s Office. The reason for this, I believe, is a common tendency among law-abiding voters to give the “good guys” a break to cheat a little, so long as the “bad guys” get what they deserve.

Yet what happens when the bad guys don’t get what they deserve because of behavior within the law-enforcement community? What if these scandals lead to the retrial of several murder cases, resulting in reduced sentences and overturned convictions? Alleged cheating isn’t so funny when it leads to gross miscarriages of justice, is it?

What if, say, the man who pleaded guilty to the worst mass murder in the county’s history is spared the death penalty because the courts can’t trust that a defendant will receive due process and a fair penalty phase in the trial? In fact, that just happened, in a case where the judge believed law-enforcement officials engaged in “chronic obstructionism.”

Indeed, Judge Thomas Goethals struck the death penalty from consideration last month in the Scott Dekraai murder case. Dekraai pleaded guilty to a 2011 shooting at a hair salon in Seal Beach where his ex-wife had worked, but the trial’s sentencing phase has been delayed for years because of the ongoing Orange County “snitch scandal.”

Deputies and prosecutors are accused of operating a confidential jailhouse informant program designed to gain confessions from inmates. The courts say that where such jailhouse snitches aren’t granted legal representation, the scheme violates their constitutional rights. In this case, the public defender accuses the Sheriff’s Department of housing a snitch near Dekraai to gain evidence to help assure he received the death penalty, although the prosecution claims it was merely a coincidence the informant was housed near Dekraai.

“What does an allegiance to the rule of law now require of this court?” asked Judge Goethals of Orange County Superior Court. He said he was referring to “law enforcement’s chronic failure to comply with this court’s lawful discovery orders, and the impact this chronic failure has on the defendant’s right to due process and a fair penalty trial.”

His answer, in the Aug. 18 decision, was to strike the death penalty as a potential punishment “despite the horrendous nature of his crimes.” That will mean a certain life sentence unless the state attorney general decides to appeal the decision.

It takes a nearly inconceivable level of foolishness to bungle a case in which a man already has confessed to murdering eight people and wounding one other, but District Attorney Tony Rackauckas and Sheriff Sandra Hutchens have managed to pull that off. Instead of taking responsibility for their failures, the two released appalling statements criticizing the judge.

“The court has for some time maintained hope that the Orange County District Attorney and the Orange County Sheriff, in the face of objectively verifiable evidence, would accept the reality” of the informant situation within the jails, Goethals wrote. But instead of accepting the court’s findings about “systemic problems” there, “members of the prosecution team chose to either deny, or ignore” the problems, with a byproduct being “the prosecution team’s chronic failure to comply” with discovery orders.

In response, Rackauckas’ office wrote, “Given the pattern and tenor of his previous rulings, Judge Goethals’ decision does not come as a surprise.” The statement from Hutchens’ office also shamefully evaded responsibility: “The decision to remove the death penalty rests at the feet of Judge Goethals and nobody else.”

Indeed, Rackauckas and Hutchens continue to deny operating a systematic informant program, despite the harsh rulings from the courts. They trumpet a grand jury report that calls the snitch program a myth and which instead blames “rogue deputies” and “a lack of supervision and laziness in the practice of law.” That report also pointed to leadership failures in the DA’s office, so it’s funny that local law enforcement takes such solace in it.

That grand jury report, however, “appears to be based on the expectation that such a program would have a documented strategic plan, a schedule of informants, formal training, a dedicated budget, job descriptions and other such bureaucracy one would expect from a bona fide government agency,” an Orange County Register editorial explains.

Let’s not forget that the judge at one point recused the entire Orange County District Attorney’s Office staff from the prosecution, thus turning the case over to the state attorney general. This remains a troubling scandal with far-reaching ramifications.

I believe the other reason that local residents have long tolerated these scandals involves politics. The main challenger for district attorney has his own deeply disturbing baggage, some of which I’ve covered in this column. Fair enough, but we’re never going to clean up the justice system until the public stops being so tolerant of this nonsense.

The Orange County Register

September 2, 2017

By Steven Greenhut, Western region director for the R Street Institute

[San Francisco City and County] As car break-ins jump 28 percent in San Francisco, police shuffle response

Blog note: this article references a June 2016 grand jury report.

With car break-ins spiking again in San Francisco to the tune of about 85 a day, police Thursday unveiled a shakeup that eliminates a citywide task force focused on the epidemic in favor of assigning dozens more cops to walk neighborhood beats.

The disbanding of the auto burglary task force, which the city created less than two years ago, comes even though the city’s civil grand jury recommended that San Francisco not only make the special unit permanent but beef it up with more officers and equipment.

While the 18-person unit had netted more than 200 arrests, the problem continued, and Police Chief Bill Scott said at a news conference that trying to stop criminals before they act is a more effective strategy than seeking to catch them later. He is shifting staffing from the agency’s central office to its 10 stations.

“We really want to get in front of the crime,” said Scott, who took command in January. “We know it’s only a piece of the puzzle, but we know it will make a difference.”

Scott came to the job amid escalating criticism from city residents about filth and crime in San Francisco’s streets. He spoke as newly released figures revealed that victims had reported 17,970 vehicle break-ins across San Francisco through the end of July, a 28 percent jump from the same period last year.

At this rate, the city will far exceed the 25,899 burglaries in 2015, which the civil grand jury said cost victims at least $19 million. In 2010, less than 10,000 vehicle break-ins were reported the entire year.

Magnifying the problem, guns taken in car burglaries have been used in a number of killings in the city, including the July 2015 shooting of Kate Steinle on Pier 14.

The civil grand jury report, released in June 2016, said gangs were responsible for up to 80 percent of the burglaries, but that police made arrests in fewer than 2 percent of cases.

The grand jury’s chief recommendation was to “ensure the Patrol Bureau Task Force has adequate resources, including investigators, a dedicated crime analyst, and necessary vehicles, equipment and technology to expand surveillance and apprehension.”

“A decentralized police force,” the report said, “has been ineffective at curbing organized criminals who offend across precincts.”

Martin Halloran, president of the city police officers’ union, was skeptical of the chief’s plan, particularly the elimination of the task force.

“I’m not sure that’s the right approach, but I hope he proves me to be wrong,” Halloran said.

One of the strengths of the task force, he said, is that it worked to gather strong evidence to take to prosecutors who may be reluctant to bring charges and to judges who may favor leniency in property-crime cases.

“You may not necessarily get that if you’re walking a foot beat,” Halloran said.

The spike in break-ins has been particularly intense in the Mission District, which has seen a 182 percent increase this year. The city’s northern reaches including the Marina, Pacific Heights and Western Addition experienced a 40 percent jump. The downtown area that includes the Financial District, North Beach and Fisherman’s Wharf saw a 25 percent rise.

“We see broken glass everywhere,” said Keith Pesci, a 46-year-old artist who heads a city-sponsored street cleanup crew and lives at the Mission Navigation Center, a supportive housing complex. “At least three to five places a day. It’s everywhere.”

On Thursday afternoon, between two parked cars near the BART station at Mission and 24th streets, granules of broken auto glass glistened among fallen leaves and discarded fast-food wrappers. Not far away, on South Van Ness Avenue, a black Toyota Corolla was missing the glass from a passenger-side window.

The Police Department declined to specify how many officers would be reassigned to street patrols, but Scott said the number citywide would nearly double to the “mid-100s.”

The Mission District substation will see staffing of foot patrols increase fourfold, while the force will be doubled at the Central substation that serves the Financial District, North Beach and Fisherman’s Wharf, and the Park substation that serves the Castro, Haight and neighboring areas.

As a result, Scott said the department’s narcotics division will see cuts, though he did not provide details.

Deputy Chief Michael Redmond, who worked with Scott on the new deployment, said that even with the elimination of the citywide task force, arrests would continue as relocated officers did similar work on the local level.

“We’re excited for them to go back to the stations because they bring a wealth of experience,” Redmond said.

Officials said the restructuring had already begun in some parts of the city, including the Twin Peaks neighborhood, where a 71-year-old man was shot and killed during a robbery in July. With more police on patrol in that area, crime has plummeted since the killing, police said, with just one car break-in between July 17 and Aug. 16 — compared with nearly 40 in the prior seven months.

“This highlights how important it is to have officers out on the street,” Scott said.

Acknowledging that San Francisco’s car-burglary rate was tainting its image as a world-class city, the department also announced a new marketing effort called “Park Smart,” basically a reminder for residents and tourists alike not to leave valuables in their cars.

Mary Ortiz, 76, who sat on the porch of her small apartment building in the Mission District on Thursday afternoon, cooling off with a beer, said she hadn’t seen police pay enough attention to street crimes like car burglaries. Most of the vehicle break-ins, Ortiz said, happen late at night and trigger car alarms.

“The cops don’t ever come,” she said.

Not far away, at Auto Glass Now on Bryant Street, shop manager Ru Das said business had been strong over the past couple of years.

“There’s been a substantial spike” in car break-ins, Das said. “In the past you would see it only in certain areas, like SoMa and Dogpatch, but now I’m seeing cars even from Pacific Heights being broken into almost daily. And it’s happening in broad daylight.”

“They’re even breaking into cop cars,” he added. “We’re doing official police vehicles multiple times a week. We just did one yesterday.”

September 1, 2017

SF Gate

By Kurtis Alexander and Michael Cabanatuan, San Francisco Chronicle staff writers

[Calaveras County] Calaveras fire fears

Fire engines can’t use some roads, bridges 

Blog note: this article (toward the end) references a 2013 grand jury report.

As far as fire response goes, Franziska Schabram did everything right.

After her electric fence sparked a small vegetation fire near the back end of her ranch style home, she picked up the phone and dialed 911. Her and her husband, Roland, did their best to keep the Aug. 25 blaze under control as they waited for emergency responders.

As each minute passed, the fire grew bigger and slowly spread through her 750-acre Valley Springs area ranch.

But from the top of her property overlooking the valley, she watched with shock as a collection of fire engines sat still next to a narrow bridge that leads to her property.

“I was standing on my property, watching helplessly. They were a couple of hundred feet away from me and not able to respond,” she said.

Confused and seemingly without options, Schabram jumped on her all-terrain vehicle and rode over to the narrow and wooden Gilliam Road bridge to determine the cause for the delay.

Jason Robitaille, Calaveras Consolidated Fire Protection District chief, said that his crews could not safely cross the bridge without putting the health of his firefighters in danger.

The old wooden bridge has a sign posted for a 3-ton load limit. Robitaille said that the engines he attempted to get across the bridge would have far exceeded the posted weight limit. He was also unsure who provided the weight limit certification on the bridge.

“As a fire chief, we’re always concerned on getting our folks to an emergency safely,” said Robitaille. “Based on the infrastructure in place, now it’s causing a great concern.”

Schabram said that the only thing that saved her property was an air drop of flame retardant from a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection aircraft.

For years, the Schabrams have requested county officials address their concerns.

“We’ve felt helpless for years,” said Schabram.

Gilliam Road is a single-lane rural road consisting of gravel that connects Paloma Road to Double Springs Road. The bridge crosses over Young’s Creek and was once used as a stagecoach path long ago.

The road got trickier to manage in 2006. That year, more than 4,400 acres of wetlands were placed under federal protection under the Clean Water Act. The road passes through protected habitats for several species, including the California red-legged frog, the California tiger salamander, the vernal pool fairy shrimp and the Northwestern pond turtle.

County officials have said in the past that the cost of applying for and receiving permits to work on roads through federally protected lands becomes too expensive for the county.

In 2006, former Public Works Director Rob Houghton wrote a letter in response to the Schabrams’ claims, stating that the routine maintenance work needed for the road encroaches into the jurisdiction of several federal and state agencies.

“I am disheartened to acknowledge that the physical road work is trivial in comparison to the permitting effort,” Houghton said at the time.

Public Works Director Jeff Crovitz Tuesday called the entire situation a “perfect storm” caused by jurisdictional issues. He said that any work inside the Army Corp of Engineers’ jurisdiction near New Hogan Reservoir would require potentially expensive permitting. He also said that the bridge on Gilliam Road did not qualify for state or federal funding assistance.

The best fix, Crovitz said, would be to reroute the road, which was also suggested in the grand jury report, but that an operation of that size is unlikely at this time.

Crovitz did say that routine maintenance was completed on the road in 2015.

In the meantime, Schabram feels that her safety and the safety of the other three residents on the road are being put in jeopardy.

“If we wouldn’t have been there, or if it was in the middle of the night, it could have ended much differently,” she said.

“After the Butte Fire, you think they would have learned,” she added.

The road, and more importantly, the bridge, has been mentioned by multiple agencies as a potentially hazardous structure for more than a decade, and the Schabrams have felt left in limbo as different agencies determine how to handle the issue.

Former Foothill Fire Protection District Chief Michael Siligo sent a letter to then-District 1 Supervisor Bill Claudino in 2008 informing the county of the risks that the road poses to emergency responders.

“The agency is responsible for the quick and decisive response to life and property emergencies,” he wrote. “Gilliam Road does not lend itself to either.”

He said in the letter that after riding along the road in his two-wheel drive pickup, that water tenders or “larger structural firefighting equipment” would not be able to safely negotiate the route.

The Calaveras County Grand Jury got involved in 2013. After reviewing documents from different fire agencies, the grand jury requested that alterations be made to the road, but acknowledged that the roadway’s status as a wildlife reserve makes it difficult for the county to afford much, if any, action. The grand jury report recommended that the county look into state and federal funding options.

The Gilliam Road Bridge isn’t the only location where emergency responders have had issues. Robitaille said there are five bridges in his district that are problematic for responders. He said that each bridge has weight limits and postings that are either unreadable or missing. A few months ago, an engine collapsed a bridge due to a weight limit misunderstanding. In instances like that one, responders have to find alternative entrances to properties, like they did for the Schabram property.

Robitaille said that the responders took a back entrance to the property via Paloma Road.

“Five minutes doesn’t sound like much, but in a situation like that, five minutes made the world,” Schabram said.

The Schabrams consider themselves lucky. Only 10 acres burned, and the monetary impact of the fire is manageable. But after 12 years of living next to what they see as a hazard, they are no longer waiting for the county to handle the issue.

“I’m rattled,” said Schabram. “I’m a rancher and I’m not easily rattled, but fire is something where you are so helpless. You see all of your life’s work go up in flames.”

“If that would have been a windy day, that could have ended in a catastrophe,” said Schabram. “I consider that neglect.”

Schabram is reluctant to sue the county; instead, at a recent meeting of the Board of Supervisors, said she would rather work with the county to get the issue resolved. She has not contacted legal representation, but says she plans to.

It wouldn’t be the first time.

Schabram sued the county in 2013 in small claims court for damages caused by the road. According to Schabram, sharp and jagged rocks, referred to as “shot rocks,” were used as an emergency fix for the road. As she exited her property, the rocks repeatedly carved into her vehicle and damaged her tires. She won the case.

She feels that her previous lawsuit gives credence to her newest issue.

“The monetary loss we suffered this time is manageable, but I cannot live in this situation anymore,” she said. “It scares the heck out of me.”

August 31, 2017

Calaveras Enterprise

By Sean P. Thomas

[Santa Cruz County] Grand jury probe of SLVWD sought by Smallman

Bill Smallman, a director of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District, said this week he will be filing a complaint with the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury, seeking an investigation of his own water district, its board of directors and its staff.

Smallman’s unusual move comes amid a social media buzz that “observers” for the current sitting Superior Court Civil Grand Jury have attended several of the most recent water district board meetings

Court officials and grand jurors cannot comment on the status of any investigation or confirm whether a grand jury investigation even exists. However, two men have identified themselves as “observers for the grand jury” to ratepayers and to the Press Banner at the two most recent public meetings of the water district board.

The 19-member civil grand jury, which was sworn in in June, serves one year and conducts all of its meetings in private. It may or may not release reports of its investigations, usually in the spring.

Smallman’s fellow directors this week did not respond to Press Banner requests for comment on his announcement, which came at the end of a long Letter to the Editor, and which was repeated in an email exchange with the Press Banner.

“I welcome a second Grand Jury investigation,” he wrote Tuesday in the letter to the Press Banner, which was not solicited. “I am filing a complaint, and encourage others to do so as well.”

The next day, he wrote in an email: “I’m going to go down there tomorrow” and file a complaint in with the grand jury in Superior Court. Any citizen can file such a complaint.

Smallman, who took office in late December after he unseated incumbent water district director Randall Brown in the 2016 election, said he has been increasingly isolated by the rest of the board.

He alone opposed paying the legal bills of former director Terry Vierra, including an unsuccessful attempt to have Vierra’s conflict-of-interest judgment reversed; Smallman also opposed use of the herbicide glyphosate on district-owned land, and recently called for the board to release for public view a letter in which the district said Vierra asked the district to pay his legal bills.

He has on several occasions, in written statements and at board meetings, warned his fellow directors they might be violating the Ralph Brown Act, which aims to preserve transparency among elected officials, governments and public agencies.

“A Santa Cruz County Grand Jury investigated [the water district board] several years ago and reported several serious improprieties, including ‘insufficient transparency,’ Smallman wrote in his letter. “The board at that time, including [Margaret] Bruce, just replied that they ‘disagreed.’ “

The district directors disagreed with seven of the nine findings of the 2013 grand jury report,  which criticized the district for its lack of transparency. in the year following the grand jury report, the water district board fired its general manager, and three incumbent directors did not return to the board. Smallman also revealed that board members this week were cautioned by district counsel Gina Nicholls that grand jury investigations are strictly confidential, and that board members should refrain from discussing any aspects of a grand jury investigation, especially if they become aware that any investigation exists or is pending.

Smallman said he did not know about the grand jury observers.

“I was motivated to write about the grand jury, because I believe they will clear me of any wrongdoing by releasing the information that I did,’ he said. Smallman has been criticized harshly by other directors for revealing some details of the board’s private discussions of the alleged letter from Vierra, even though board President Gene Ratcliffe revealed the letter’s existence and discussed its content in a public statement at a water board meeting.

Smallman said he wants the grand jury to look into the board’s failure to release public information, especially the Vierra letter, the influence of the Valley Women’s Club, the continue support for challenges in the conflict-of-interest court case, the propriety of retaining a counsel who acts for both the board and a former director in the same case, and the district’s “lack of transparency.”

Mark Messimer, of Felton, who administers the San Lorenzo Valley Watchdogs Facebook page, wrote this week of the grand jury observers: “Members of the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury have introduced themselves to community members at recent board meetings. Looks like there’s a new dog on this hunt.”

August 31, 2017

Press Banner

By Barry Holtzclaw

[Shasta County] Redding settles soccer park lawsuit

Blog note: this article references a June 2015 grand jury report.

The long legal turf battle over the synthetic fields at the Redding Soccer Park is over.

The city settled its lawsuit against Surface America Inc. earlier this year for $500,000, City Attorney Barry DeWalt said Wednesday.

The city sued the company in September 2014, about seven years after the soccer park opened in east Redding off Old Oregon Trail. 

The lawsuit said that defects in the soccer fields were covered under the Surface America warranty.

“Essentially, it was the highest amount we could negotiate,” DeWalt said of the $500,000 settlement.

The city had asked for “a lot” more — DeWalt did not know the exact amount — but the $500,000 figure was eventually arrived at through negotiations with Surface America.

“Now that the lawsuit (is settled) we can get past the wait-for-the-shoe-to-drop stage and we can all sit down and figure out what is the strategy” to fix the fields, said Bryan Erickson, board president of the Soccer Regional Soccer Association, which leases the soccer park from the city.

At this point, the city does not know what it will do with the settlement money. 

DeWalt said the city could choose to take the $500,000 or it could take up to three fields of turf at a value of $125,000 per field with the difference paid in cash.

“If the city elected to take cash but also one field of turf, we would get the turf for the one field and then $375,000 in cash,” DeWalt said.

Soccer park officials, coaches and fans say the artificial turf began breaking down about a year after the $10 million complex opened in 2007.

Large areas of turf have been black for years, a conspicuous sign of the failing fields.

Nearly a year after the city sued Surface America, the Shasta County grand jury released a report titled "Turf Troubles in River City" in which it blamed the field conditions on ineffective management between the city and Shasta Regional Soccer Association.

When the grand jury report came out in June 2015, it stated the synthetic turf was good for two or three more years, and to replace it would cost $1.5 million.

Redding Mayor Brent Weaver said he has heard that the cost to replace the turf on all four fields would be approximately $4 million.

“We have got to figure out how to repair at least one, or at least two of the worst fields ASAP because for anyone spending time out there, the conditions are terrible,” said Weaver, who has kids who play soccer at the park. “We have made a large investment, this community, with this soccer park and over the last few years we have had a record number of signups and are making progress out there. We want to continue to do that.”

The Shasta Regional Soccer Association, a nonprofit, is financially responsible for paying the utility bills at the park, maintenance and staffing. Erickson said his group has done this since opening day without support from the city.

Erickson said they are working on a capital campaign to raise money for new fields and recently completed a feasibility study that told them a realistic fundraising goal is $700,000 to $1 million.

“That is not enough ... so we need to look at other options and we have to work with the city to try to figure out what resources they can tap into,” Erickson said.

The latest development on the fields at the Redding Soccer Park comes as Red Bluff High School has made the decision to relocate all its home football and soccer games this year due to unsafe conditions on the school’s field turf. The synthetic turf there was installed 11 years ago and recently failed an impact test after poor drainage from heavy rains turned the field brick-hard.

Weaver said the soccer park fields are safe to play on but the city continues to monitor the conditions.

“We certainly don’t believe we have a situation at the soccer park like they have in Red Bluff, but we would like to take care of it before it becomes a situation like Red Bluff,” Weaver said. “It’s still a safe environment. We wouldn’t allow anybody to play games out there if it were not safe.”

Erickson agreed.

“It is safe and we are doing our best to keep the fields where they are playable given the reality that they didn’t last like we thought they would,” Erickson said.

Redding Record Searchlight

August 30, 2017

By David Benda

[Santa Barbara County] Supervisors cite progress in response to grand jury report critical of youth safety strategy

In the wake of a recent critical grand jury report, Fifth District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino believes the city of Santa Maria and Santa Barbara County are moving forward together to work toward a common goal of making the community safer for its youth.

The county Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to submit required responses to the report titled "Youth Safety in Santa Maria, Developing a New Strategy."

"We did get off to a rocky start, but at the end of the day, the city has to be the driving force behind this thing," Lavagnino said about Santa Maria Mayor Alice Patino's task force on youth safety. "We are now working collaboratively, and the county is a huge player. We are moving in the right direction."

Patino formed a task force on youth violence earlier this year in response to the rash of violence between late 2014 and the end of 2016 that shook Santa Maria. The majority of the murders during that nearly 1 1/2 years were gang-related, with many of the deaths youth-on-youth killings.

Prior to Patino forming the city's task force, there was discussion between the county, which had a different vision than city leaders, and Santa Maria to form a North County-specific group that would focus on youth safety. Those talks didn't come to fruition, though.

Released in mid-June, the grand jury report concludes a successful Santa Maria Youth Task Force should reach out to surrounding area communities and their agencies. 

In the report, jurors point to Patino and the City Council initially refusing to collaborate with Lavagnino to utilize a $75,000 county allocation to hire an executive level coordinator for the task force. A portion of that funding has been used to hire a consultant to develop a strategic plan for quelling youth violence in the city.

In their proposed response, the supervisors note they partially disagree with the finding.

August 29, 2017

Lompoc Record

By April Charlton

Orange County D.A. Tony Rackauckas Disputes Grand Jury's Report

Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas repeatedly disputed an Orange County grand jury's report concluding a perception among his employees that the office has issues with sexual harassment, favoritism and fear of retaliation for whistleblowers.

In a letter dated Monday, but only released to the public after business hours Tuesday, Rackauckas took issue with the grand jury's report in June.

In a summary of his response and elsewhere in the legally obligated response to the grand jury, Rackauckas touts a variety of accomplishments. He does not allude to a rash of complaints from a prosecutor and three members of his Bureau of Investigations that they were subjected to retaliation and harassment.

Rackauckas does accept that there is a perception among some in his office that there are issues.

"Against this backdrop of excellence,'' Rackauckas writes in reference to a listing of awards his office has won in recent years, "the OCDA recognizes that some decisions made in the bureau impacted morale and compromised the professionalism and integrity of the bureau and the OCDA.

"When these issues came to light, the OCDA took swift and decisive actions to ensure these issues were corrected before the issuance of this report. Change in leadership, outreach to employees, conducting human resources investigations, and developing policies that go further than one county policy.

"The OCDA believes these changes have helped to restore morale and confidence in the future direction of the bureau." 

Rackauckas did not name names in his letter, but his reference to a "change in leadership," might be about removing the top two officials in his investigations unit in April.

Craig Hunter, the former head of the investigations unit, was removed from duty and is not expected to return. Assistant Chief Lou Gutierrez was also placed on a leave of absence then.

Hunter filed a claim with the county in May, alleging that his former boss was selectively choosing public corruption cases, allowing his friends to skate while prosecuting others.

Also in May, investigators Tom Conklin and Abraham Santos filed claims alleging they were whistleblowers who became targets of unfair discipline at work.

The grand jury noted in its June report it lacked the authority to investigate the claims of harassment, but said the mere perception of those problems was enough to spur multiple recommendations.

The grand jury report states that "whether or not the specific allegations presented to the grand jury are true, the sheer volume and pervasiveness of the perception of favoritism and retaliation based on sexual relationships is problematic as that perception alone can create a hostile work environment.

"A hostile work environment can undermine morale, reduce productivity, negatively impact agency operations and can pose a financial liability for the county." 

Rackauckas said his employees have been notified in writing of the best practices in avoiding a "hostile-free work environment." He said his managers also receive extensive training on the topic.

The grand jury found that the county's sexual harassment policy does not "prohibit supervisor-subordinate intimate relationships." 

Rackauckas said the county cannot specifically address romantic relationships among managers and employees, but, he added, it has been his office's policy to "prohibit such a relationship." 

Rackauckas said the investigations unit is "developing a stronger policy against nepotism and conflicting relationships," with negotiations underway with union leaders.

Attorney Joel Baruch, who represents Santos, Conklin and veteran prosecutor Karen Schatzle, said, "Why can't Tony Rackauckas and his office admit personal responsibility for its apparent failures?''

Schatzle filed a claim this month alleging she was being punished for running unsuccessfully for judge last year against a friend of Rackauckas'.

August 29, 2017

NBC Los Angeles

By City News Service

[Monterey County] Officials disagree that jail serves as 'de facto mental health facility'

Although the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury asserts that the county jail still struggles to meet the needs of inmates with mental illness, county supervisors and Sheriff Steve Bernal disagree, maintaining that many of the cited issues are of the past. 

In the civil grand jury’s report released earlier this summer, they write that with 45 percent of the inmates dealing with mental illness, the jail is serving as a “de facto mental health facility,” and although jail standards have been improved, mental health care issues still aren’t adequately addressed. 

In his formal response, Bernal disagreed with the characterization, writing that the jail is “not designed, staffed, or equipped to function as a mental health facility, in the way we believe the Grand Jury to mean.”

The entire report represents “more of a history lesson than a representation of current jail conditions,” Bernal wrote.

Mental health care at the jail has been a focus for years, particularly since 2013 when a class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of current and former inmates at the jail. The lawsuit cited serious structural and systemic problems which endangered inmates at the jail. 

In 2015, the lawsuit against the county reached a $4.8 million settlement, which the civil grand jury noted could have been better spent elsewhere, and required various jail improvements.

Examples of changes at the jail since the settlement include having a registered nurse, as opposed to a deputy, conduct an inmate’s medical questionnaire; nearly 300 updated cameras have been added to the facility to improve safety; the number of “tie-off” points were reduced in hopes of preventing suicide by hangings; and chain link fencing has been added along stairs and second-floor platforms to prevent people from jumping.

With six inmate suicides between 2009 and 2015, three in 2015 alone, several changes focus on suicide prevention, such as increased classification reviews for inmates placed in segregation, increased time outside for those placed in segregation and expansion of programming on subjects such as addiction recovery.

The civil grand jury wrote that Reagan-era closures of state hospitals contributed to the issue and that having inmates with mental health issues in jail for months or longer before being transferred to a state hospital is “cruel and inhumane.”

Bernal wholly disagreed with the civil grand jury’s assertion that standards are still not adequate, stating that the jail and its health provider have been working closely with the courts to meet settlement requirements. 

The board of supervisors concurs with the sheriff in the majority of their responses, including this one, and argued that the county and sheriff began modernizing the jail before the lawsuit was filed.

In the county board of supervisors meeting on Tuesday, Supervisor John Phillips questioned where the civil grand jury received some of the data, such as the 45 percent estimation of inmates with mental illness, and further stated that he felt some of the findings were “way out of bounds.”

Supervisor Luis Alejo also didn’t agree with all the findings but commended the civil grand jury for their work.

“They are not easy topics but it’s important to help shed light on them and where perhaps the county can do a better job,” he said. 

Alejo added that it’s important to look at the situation within the context of Assembly Bill 109, which required certain inmates to serve time in county jail instead of state prison.

“Under this generalization of our jail being a ‘de facto mental health facility,’ that would be for every prison, every jail across the state because there’s a significant percentage of inmates who have mental health needs so, again to put it into context, it’s not anything unique to our county, it’s something seen across the board within our inmate population at all levels,” he said. 

In Bernal’s response, he wrote that the sheriff’s office works to minimize jail time for those with serious mental health conditions and to transfer acute case inmates to appropriate locations as quickly as possible. Inmates also receive mental health care at the jail that meets constitutional standards until they can be transferred, he added.

“Every inmate at the county jail has been arrested or convicted of a crime ... Inmates cannot simply be transferred to a mental health facility," Bernal wrote. "Inmates are entitled to due process of law. If a judge determines inmates meet the legal requirements for commitment; they are referred to state or local mental health facilities.”

Several of the findings point to a lack of publicly funded mental health facilities, but Bernal defers to Monterey County Behavioral Health Professionals in his response. 

Of the dozen findings from the civil grand jury, there was only one with which Bernal agreed with entirely: “It would appear that Monterey County’s Behavioral Health Agency’s expertise would benefit those needing mental health care in the jail.”

While two of the civil grand jury-made four recommendations on the subject are already in place, according to Bernal, they also advise that the board of supervisors should fund the building of a new mental health facility, study available properties for one as well as study other existing models of integrated mental health facilities in the jail. 

Bernal’s response was that those recommendations will require “further study.”

The civil grand jury’s report also included a section citing concern over the number of deputies on patrol. 

To comply with the settlement and changing needs resulting from AB 109, staffing increased at the jail and this resulted in fewer deputies on patrol. An overall shortage of deputies contributed to $6.2 million in overtime last year, according to their report

In discussing efforts to fill deputy positions during Tuesday’s meeting, supervisors expressed concern that while the county covers the costs of the academy for applicants to the sheriff’s office, nothing prevents them from then leaving and applying to another agency. 

Monterey County Undersheriff John Mineau responded that while 21 applicants were put through the academy recently, 16 graduated from the academy and will join the sheriff’s office this week. The sheriff’s office is also looking into what other agencies, such as down in Los Angeles, are doing to boost retention and protect the investment in recruits.

However, he added that the department lost far more employees to retirements last year than to other agencies.

All of the six civil grand jury recommendations for addressing the staffing issue, such as using correctional officers in the jail instead of deputies, will not be implemented "as it is not warranted," Bernal wrote in his formal response. 

Bernal clarified that while new employees will reduce overtime, they will only raise numbers enough to provide adequate staffing at the jail with little relief to patrol coverage, which is at an "all-time low."

August 29, 2017

Salinas Californian

By Chelcey Adami

There’s one thing that’s plentiful in Humboldt County foster care: Excuses

Blog note: This article cites a recent Humboldt County Grand Jury Report near the end of the article. We have added the link to the report.

According to a recent series in the Times-Standard about foster care in Humboldt County, there is a shortage of caseworkers. There is a shortage of lawyers. There is a shortage of foster parents. But one thing isn’t in short supply: excuses for the extremely high rate at which Humboldt County tears apart families and consigns children to foster care.

The executive director of First 5 Humboldt, Mary Ann Hansen, says there must be lots more child abuse in Humboldt County.

But the overwhelming majority of cases involve “neglect” not abuse. And often, poverty itself is confused with “neglect.” Even when factoring in rates of child poverty, Humboldt County takes away children at the eighth highest rate in California. Among counties with at least 5,000 children living below the poverty line, Humboldt County is No. 1 in child removal.

The good news: This means there is no evidence that Humboldt County is a cesspool of depravity with vastly more child abuse than the rest of the state. The bad news: Humboldt County probably is far more likely than other communities to mislabel poverty as “neglect” — and then claim a high rate of “child abuse.” So Humboldt County winds up needlessly destroying families with a take-the-child-and-run approach to child welfare that has been discredited across the country.

The typical cases that dominate the caseloads of child welfare workers are nothing like the horror stories. Far more common are cases in which family poverty has been confused with “neglect.” County Social Services Director Stephanie Weldon even admits that in Humboldt County families are torn apart because of “intergenerational poverty.”

Study after study has shown that simply providing a little extra income can dramatically reduce so-called neglect. One study, released just this month, found that just increasing the minimum wage by $1 an hour reduces “neglect” by 10 percent. At least three other studies have found that 30 percent of America’s foster children could be home right now if parents just had decent housing.

Other cases fall between the extremes. So it’s no wonder that two massive studies involving more than 15,000 typical cases found that children left in their own homes fared better even than comparably maltreated children placed in foster care.

Even in cases involving drug abuse, now the all-purpose excuse for high rates of foster care, we should have learned from previous “drug plagues.” Researchers studied two groups of children born with cocaine in their systems; one group was placed in foster care, another left with birth mothers able to care for them. The children left with their birth mothers typically did better. For the foster children, the separation from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine.

It is extremely difficult to take a swing at so-called “bad mothers” without the blow landing on their children. That’s why drug treatment for the mother almost always is a better option than foster care for the child.

Hansen blames high rates of foster care on “adverse childhood experiences.” But being torn from everyone loving and familiar is among the worst traumas a child can endure. You don’t fight trauma with trauma.

That trauma occurs even when the foster home is a good one. The majority are. But the rate of abuse in foster care is far higher than generally realized and far higher than in the general population. Multiple studies have found abuse in one-quarter to one-third of foster homes. The rate of abuse in group homes and institutions is even worse.

But even that isn’t the worst of it. The more that workers are overwhelmed with false allegations, trivial cases and children who don’t need to be in foster care, the less time they have to find children in real danger. That may well explain the [Humboldt] county grand jury’s finding that some reports alleging abuse got no response for months at a time.

None of this means no child ever should be taken from her or his parents. But foster care is an extremely toxic intervention that should be used sparingly and in small doses. Humboldt County is prescribing mega-doses of foster care. At a time when the New York Times is calling foster care the new “Jane Crow,” the county needs to look to, and learn from, states and counties that have improved child safety by embracing safe, proven alternatives to foster care.

Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, www.nccpr.org

Times-Standard

September 2, 2017

[Santa Cruz County] Soquel Union Elementary School District commits to transparency, denies violating state law

CAPITOLA >> The Soquel Union Elementary School District committed to improve transparency but denied its board meetings had violated state law in a formal response to a grand jury investigation. Released Thursday, the response is the latest development in a multiyear saga sparked by accusations against the district of illegally cloaking its decision-making from teachers and parents.

The May report from the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury found the district’s board meetings in violation of the Brown Act, state education code and its own bylaws and identified four areas of “ongoing concern”: Closed session conduct, trust issues and community engagement, standards for district superintendent evaluation and unclear information in its meeting agendas.

The district quibbled with a number of the grand jury’s findings in its mandated response but committed to a number of changes to how it informs the public about, and reports on, its meetings.

“While technically there may be some things we either disagreed or partially disagreed on, we really wanted to take this as an opportunity to capture the spirit of that grand jury report which was to strive for a greater sense of transparency and community responsibility, so we really took a conciliatory approach,” said Superintendent Scott Turnbull.

From now on, minutes from the district’s board meetings will include information about the topics discussed in closed session as well as when the public was invited to comment on closed session items, according to the response. And agendas for the meetings will be tweaked to clarify when closed sessions are held and what subjects will be discussed.

But those changes go above and beyond what is mandated by state law, the response claimed.

A prior grand jury investigation in 2016 found the district had created an “atmosphere of distrust,” in addition to violating the Brown Act.

Passed in 1953, the Brown Act guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in government meetings and specifies how meetings must be conducted and reported on.

This year’s grand jury investigation stemmed from more violations revealed by the district in its mandated response, according to the May report.

The board’s response is the latest development in a years-long back and forth between the district, parents and teachers over transparency and communication that led to the resignation of Superintendent Henry Castaniada in June of 2015.

Months earlier, 96 percent of the district’s teachers had taken a vote of no confidence in Castaniada amid tense salary negotiations, with union leaders accusing the district of fostering a “culture of disrespect” by failing to effectively communicate with teachers or bring them into the district’s decision-making process.

The district hired Superintendent Scott Turnbull to replace Castaniada in July of 2016.

Meant to improve and provide oversight for local government, the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury is a panel of citizens empowered to investigate any aspect of county and city government, including schools and other special districts.

The Soquel Union Elementary School District serves 1,900 students from Capitola, Soquel and Santa Cruz at its five schools.

MULTIYEAR SAGA

March 2015: Teachers vote “no confidence” in Superintendent Castanaida.

June 2015: Castanaida resigns, effective June 2016.

Jan. 2016: Complaint accuses board of violating Brown Act.

April 2016: Grand jury finds law violations, “atmosphere of distrust.”

April 2016: Turnbull hired as superintendent.

July 2016: District responds to report, denying violations.

May 30: Second grand jury report finds continued violations of state law.

Thursday: District’s response denies law violations, commits to transparency.

August 28, 2017

Santa Cruz Sentinel

By Nicholas Ibarra