[Kern County] Grand Jury suggests county take stricter measures on unpermitted streetside food vendors

Bakersfield, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) — The Grand Jury is suggesting Kern County gets tougher on street vendors, including impounding their equipment if they don't follow the rules.

Mo Sophieh owns, a food truck that specializes in Greek Mediterranean food. He is one of 484 registered streetside food vendors in Kern County.

Sophie said it took him about three weeks to get his permit from Kern County Environmental Health.

Since last year-- Kern County has told at least 127 illegal food vendors to close shop, according to Michelle Corson with Kern County Public Health.

Now they grand jury is recommending Kern County Public Health to not just shut down their business, but also impound the carts if that's what it takes.

"I can see why they're imposing that now, only because they want to take care of the people," Sophieh said.

Health and safety are the driving concerns behind the recommendation, according to Corson.

"If you are doing an unsafe food vending business and you don't have foods at proper temperatures, you don't have a place to wash your hands -- there are a series of very serious practices that really can heighten the food safety issues when preparing this food," Corson said.

She said the Public Health Department is taking the Grand Jury recommendation seriously and they are developing a plan to follow through.

April 11, 2019

Bakersfield Now

By Jeanette Quezada

[Napa County] Napa's Juvenile Hall staff dedicated to youth mental health services, county watchdog says

Mental health services at Napa County Juvenile Hall meet state standards and are easily accessible to young people behind bars, the county watchdog says.

The Napa County Grand Jury’s first report of 2019 was released Thursday, as part of a requirement in state law to review county detention facilities each year. The state constitution requires all 58 counties to have a civil grand jury to investigate public matters of interest.

The grand jury also found that mental health staff at the facility were dedicated and professional. In its report, the grand jury commended Juvenile Hall staff, mental health counselors and medical staff from Wellpath, a county contractor and private medical group that provides three health care professionals to the Juvenile Hall.

Grand jurors also commended the Napa County Office of Education for its work at Crossroads School, an alternative school that allows those in Juvenile Hall to receive a high school education and diploma.

Grand jury members toured the facility twice, interviewed seven employees and reviewed several documents, according to the report. They also reviewed the state’s seven minimum standards for Juvenile Detention Facilities. The grand jury’s findings in the report are summarized here.

— Quick screening for psychiatric problems: All juveniles are screened for possible mental health issues via a questionnaire provided upon entry. Questions are designed to measure anxiety levels, suicidal tendencies and substance abuse.

— Treatment plans for juveniles with mental disorders: Plans are based on the juvenile’s responses to the questionnaire. Treatments plans are shared with detention center staff on a weekly basis. Wellpath provides the facility with a forensic psychiatrist, registered nurse and vocational nurse.

— Medication: A juvenile’s medication history is noted upon entry. Health care providers make every effort to continue their current medication routine. Psychiatrists visit to monitor their medication use at least once per week, and any medications needed are prescribed and administered to the juvenile. Juveniles are not forced to take medication.

— Crisis interventions and managing acute psychiatric disorders: Response to acute psychiatric symptoms is timely and one-on-one. Patients are encouraged to talk their feelings out instead of acting out physically or remaining silent.

— Suicide prevention: Juveniles are put on a suicide watch if they show suicidal tendencies, such as self-harm. This could involve having a health care professional sit down with the juvenile or having someone check on them every 15 minutes while the juvenile is in a safety cell, which can be seen by many staff at the same time. There have been no suicides at Juvenile Hall since it opened in 2004.

— Transitioning to the community: Juvenile Hall staff work with the Napa County Probation Department to connect juveniles with mental health care services outside of the facility. Probation officers track their progress. Juveniles on probation may work with programs including The Wolfe Center’s Aldea Behavioral Health Services, The Nexus Program and The Child Mental Health Center.

— Patients who need more help than what Juvenile Hall can offer: Such patients are referred to Exodus Recover, a 24-7 psychiatric crisis center for patients of all ages in Napa Valley. It is administered by the state Health and Human Services Agency.

Grand jury foreperson Kort van Bronkhorst said the grand jury expects to complete five to 10 reports in total this year.

He noted that last year’s grand jury issued a report on the underused county Juvenile Hall facility, which housed an average of 16 patients last year, according to the recent grand jury report. The facility was built to house 50 juveniles.

Mary Butler, head of the probation department, said she appreciated that the grand jury scrutinized Juvenile Hall’s mental health services and affirmed the bright spots of its work in mental health.

“The grand jury really saw the dedication and the hard work of the staff,” she said.

April 11, 2019

Napa Valley Register

By Courtney Teague

[Santa Barbara County] Grand jury had raised concerns about site of fatal crash

The intersection where an 83-year-old Santa Maria woman died in a crash on April 4 was the subject of a grand jury investigation five years ago.

In its 2014 report, members of the Santa Barbara County grand jury raised a number of safety concerns about the intersection of Union Valley Parkway and California Boulevard in Santa Maria, claiming that dangerous conditions on the road may be putting drivers at an increased risk for accidents.

The April 2 accident occurred at approximately 5 p.m. at that very intersection. According to the Santa Maria Police Department, the collision occurred between Judith Zimmer of Santa Maria, who was driving a 2000 Acura sedan, and an Apex auto-glass truck with two unnamed occupants inside. Zimmer was killed as a result of the crash while the two occupants in the truck were unharmed, police said. 

As of April 9, police were still investigating the circumstances of the crash but believe that drugs and alcohol were not factors in the fatal collision.

According to the grand jury report, a setback for the crosswalk and stop sign on California Boulevard creates visibility problems and requires northbound drivers to “creep” into the intersection with Union Valley Parkway in order to property observe cross traffic. 

“This subjects northbound drivers, particularly those turning left, to the increased risk of an accident,” the report states. “In addition, east and westbound drivers on the Parkway cannot see, nor are they warned of, the approaching intersection, also creating a dangerous condition.”

Currently, the intersection is only regulated by stop signs for north- and southbound vehicles traveling on California Boulevard. The 2014 grand jury report noted that plans for the intersection originally called for a four-way stop, but it was eliminated during the planning process. The grand jury recommended that the city of Santa Maria install a four-way stop and put up signs warning drivers of the upcoming intersection.

“Without the installation of the appropriate signage, the city of Santa Maria may be missing an opportunity to reduce its substantial risk of liability in the event of an accident at that intersection,” the report stated. 

In its response to the report, the city disagreed with some of the grand jury’s findings and declined to implement its recommendation of a four-way stop, arguing that a 12-month study of accidents at the intersection and traffic volume analysis revealed that such a measure was unwarranted.

“Using this data, staff completed the stop sign and signal warrant analysis, and the intersection did not meet the necessary criteria to install a traffic control device,” the city’s response said.

April 10, 2019

Santa Maria Sun

By Chris McGuinnes

[Kern County] Grand Jury provides recommendations for Measure N Citizen Oversight Committee

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) — The Grand Jury released their recommendations for the Measure N Citizen Oversight Committee Wednesday.

Their recommendations were the following:

• To ensure fairness and transparency in the selection process, the Grand Jury recommends the Bakersfield City Council hold random drawings from applicants to select future Citizen Oversight Committee members. 
• In the event Citizens Oversight Committee vacancies occur, the Grand Jury recommends the vacant position be filled by a random drawing from the remaining pool of applicants. 
• The Grand Jury recommends the members of the Citizen Oversight Committee have staggered four-year terms of service to avoid having all new members empaneled every three years. 
• The Grand Jury recommends the Bakersfield City Council initiate steps to ensure full disclosure on future tax measures by providing detailed information on how funds are to be spent. 

The recommendations come after the Grand Jury inquired into the Bakersfield City Council selection process to establish a Citizen Oversight Committee.

On November 6, 2018, Bakersfield City voters went to the polls to vote on Measure N to raise the sales tax from 7.2 percent to 8.25 percent.

Measure N required the city council to appoint an independent committee to review the expenditure of revenues generated by the ordinance.

The added 1 percent sales tax is anticipated to generate $50 million annually.April 10, 2019

Bakersfield NOW Eyewitness News

By Eyewitness News staff

[Kern County] Grand jury recommends City Council select sales tax committee members at 'random' for fairness and transparency

A Kern County grand jury is saying members of Bakersfield’s sales tax oversight committee should have been chosen through “random drawings” to ensure fairness and transparency in the selection process.

In a report released Wednesday, the grand jury detailed its investigation into the process the Bakersfield City Council went through to choose the nine members of the independent oversight committee.

In several rounds of voting that occurred in February, the council used a unique approach to whittle down the 82 Bakersfield residents that applied for a position on the committee.

During the first round, each council member voted for nine of the applicants. Any of the applicants who received four or more votes were given a position on the committee, and those who did not receive any votes were eliminated.

The rounds continued until all nine positions had been filled.

“The voting process was used in hopes that only the ‘best of the best were selected,’” the report said.

However, at the end of the voting process, seven of the nine committee members had been chosen from a list provided to the city by a coalition of Bakersfield business and public safety groups that included the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, Kern County Taxpayers Association, Bakersfield Association of Realtors, Bakersfield Police Officers Association and the Bakersfield International Association of Firefighters.

Many of the committee members had ties to those organizations, leading many in Bakersfield to believe the voting had been unfair.

“After the Citizens Oversight Committee was selected, public complaints began to surface,” the report said. “The consensus of the complaints is that the selection process was not fair because the Council relied heavily on Coalition recommendations and did not provide transparency.”

A better method, at least according to the grand jury, would be for the council to merely select at random any of the 82 applicants for the committee.

The alternative would likely have leveled the playing field for all those who applied, while potentially ignoring other factors such as an applicant’s level of experience and skill.

Councilman Bob Smith defended the council's voting method, which he proposed.

"There are obviously people who shouldn't be on there," he said, referring to the 82 applicants the council selected from. "And there are people that have better qualifications. Randomly picking out of a hat makes no sense to me."

He said the method used by the council was fair, and was used in other circumstances.

Council members used the voting method because they worried the large number of applicants would make voting on each individual committee seat too cumbersome.

One member of the oversight committee still needs to be added. Pritesh Patel, who was selected by the council in February, resigned from the committee before the first meeting, citing a busy schedule.

The council is set to add the new member in May.

Applications are still being accepted at the City Clerk's office.

Committee members serve three year terms, meaning the council will need to select an entirely new committee in 2022, when the term limits expire.

The grand jury recommended the council stagger the committee members' terms in four-year periods to avoid having all new members every three years.

April 10, 2019

Bakersfield.com and The Bakersfield Californian

By Sam Morgen

[Humboldt County] Opinion: County civil grand jury: What we are and what we’re not

A March 13 decision by a criminal grand jury to not seek indictments in the Josiah Lawson case gives fresh proof that terminology is key and the general public is easily confused with the concepts of civil and criminal grand juries. They are not the same thing and they do not deal in the same matters.

The term “civil grand jury” means different things to different people. First, we are not a criminal grand jury. We do not decide guilt or innocence of individuals accused of a crime. We can recommend to the District Attorney that she take action if our investigations uncover possible wrongdoing by office holders or public administrative officials, but that is a rare action.

Criminal grand juries are empaneled when law enforcement or the courts have a specific issue under consideration. Such juries may serve for short periods of time and they are not used often in this area. Conversely, civil grand juries serve for a year at a time, studying multiple issues of concern to the jurors, complainants, or as directed by state law (as in jail inspections).

These two types of grand juries are vastly different in scope and goals, but both serve a serious need and require observance of secrecy to work effectively.

Most importantly, civil grand juries are not partisan. We all have our views, but we are trained to leave our personal beliefs at the door and delve into the world of facts as they are, not as we wish they might be. The findings we reveal after our investigations and reports are completed are borne of sometimes tedious homework and collaboration. Our goal is not a Perry Mason “gotcha” moment, but a realization that maybe we could do this or that better! Hopefully that realization results in recommendations our government officials can and will use.

Another thing that cannot be emphasized enough is the difference between the Jurors’ Association and a sitting grand jury. The Association is composed of veterans of previous grand juries who have no official connection to any current investigation. We only involve ourselves in prodding government to take seriously reports and recommendations made by the previous grand jury.

Sitting grand juries often benefit from the Association because it can communicate more freely with the media and educate the public about reports already issued. Current grand juries also benefit from its willingness to assist in the interview process of prospective jury applicants. This separation of tasks is critical. The sitting grand jury must maintain confidentiality for its investigations and reports to be taken seriously. Taking such reports seriously is already a difficult enough challenge when government entities sometimes ignore or minimize the validity of the reports and relevancy of the recommendations.

In a previous article we discussed the devastating Camp Fire in Butte County in the late summer of 2018 (“Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury: Serving the citizens,” Times-Standard, March 2, Page A4). Though this fire, with its death and destruction, did not happen here, lessons should be learned about taking civil grand jury reports seriously. The Butte County Civil Grand Jury previously warned of inadequate evacuation routes, but Butte County supervisors did not heed the recommendations. Fires, earthquakes, tsunamis and floods are known local hazards. However, we have another known hazard studied by the civil grand jury in 2017 — sea rise. Humboldt Waste Management Authority has its facilities sitting right at the water table on Hawthorne Street in Eureka and the civil grand jury recommended it consider possible sea rise, whether sudden or gradual, resulting in a recommendation to make plans for a possible relocation of their infrastructure. Who is ultimately responsible for what happens when the calamity is already upon them? Is this a far-fetched scenario? Ask the residents of Paradise now if they should have heeded Butte Civil Grand Jury recommendations. There are countless other examples available … and we will offer them as this series continues.

Jim Glover writes on behalf of the Humboldt County Grand Jurors’ Association. This monthly column about the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury is provided by the Humboldt County Chapter of the California Grand Jurors’ Association (CGJA). We provide the public with informational and educational materials on the California Grand Jury system. Please contact the civil grand jury with complaints or issues you believe need to be investigated. For information on the Jurors’ Association email us: hcccgja@gmail.com.

April 6, 2019

Eureka Times-Standard

By Jim Glover

[San Diego County] Julian Fire Department in Final Days? Voter Fraud, Grand Jury Interest Alleged

Blog note: read the item about alleged grand jury interest toward the end of the article.

When results of Julian’s Measure A election are certified Thursday, the clock begins ticking down the days of the last volunteer fire department in San Diego County.

But officials aren’t clear on exactly when time expires — ending the 35-year-old Julian-Cuyamaca Fire Protection District and launching county control via Cal Fire.

Meanwhile, a legal challenge to the election is being discussed, and the District Attorney’s Office has been sent complaints alleging voter fraud in the referendum ending March 19.

And the county Grand Jury might be interested in the fraught path to dissolution.

On Wednesday, the local leader of the agency that oversees new public bodies said he’ll receive certified results April 8 and expects the transfer of firefighting and ambulance services to County Service Area 135 to happen “as soon as possible.”

“Under the law, that means any time through December 19,” added Keene Simonds, executive officer of the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO. “The commission is expected to provide feedback to staff on setting the transfer date on April 8.”

Results as of Wednesday showed mail ballots from 1,434 of 2,496 district residents have been counted — a remarkable 57.4% turnout rate.

Some 773 residents (54%) voted “yes” on Measure A to dissolve the district vs. 659 (46%) voting to keep the district with dozens of professionally trained volunteers.

Simonds said he was hoping to meet with JCFPD and the county ahead of the LAFCO meeting to “collectively talk about a possible transition plan and setting a firm transfer date.”

But he said Julian fire district officials declined to meet. (Julian officials didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.)

Alex Bell, a spokeswoman for San Diego County, said Wednesday that a decision on when to end Julian’s fire agency will be made by LAFCO on April 8, “but we expect dissolution to occur on April 8.”

She said Julian’s assets, including the new fire station on the Mosler Property deeded to the Kumeyaay Diegueño Land Conservancy, will transfer “when the Certificate of Completion is recorded by LAFCO.”

The JCFPD board will be dissolved and district assets will transfer immediately to the county upon recording of that document, Bell said via email.

When that happens, Julian won’t have its own fire chief. Tony Mecham of Cal Fire, as the county’s fire chief, will oversee operations in the 87-square-mile backcountry tourist mecca.

Despite concerns that the Julian fire station acreage on state Route 79 would revert to the Kumeyaay Diegueño Land Conservancy, county spokeswoman Bell said title for that property is held by the JCFPD.

“Titles to all assets, including the fire station property, will transfer automatically to the county upon dissolution,” she said.

A conservancy phone number wasn’t answered Wednesday, and email to its leader yielded no response.

But Brian Kramer, a member of the Julian fire board, said recently that a citizens group might challenge the Measure A election.

“There’s chatter on Facebook about multiple people here in Julian who know … people who voted in this election who do not live here,” Kramer said in a phone interview. “They live in Colorado. They live down the hill. They don’t have residency here.”

He also said some Julian residents didn’t get their ballots — having bounced after being sent to a residential address instead of a P.O. Box.

Under state law, voters can contest an election for a variety of reasons, including that illegal votes were cast or errors occurred in the vote-counting programs or summation of ballot counts.

Kramer said complaints about voter fraud have gone to Registrar of Voters Michael Vu.

Vu confirmed this.

“We did receive a complaint alleging there were three registered voters not residing in the district,” he told Times of San Diego. “This was forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office for review.”

(DA spokeswoman Tanya Sierra said: “Our office cannot confirm whether or not there is an open investigation.”)

But Vu last month denied that nonresidents would have been mailed a ballot. In any case, he’s received no complaints that someone wasn’t able to vote because they did not get a mail ballot.

“In every election (including this one), voters who are eligible to participate and who state they did not receive their ballot would have the originally mailed ballot suspended and a new ballot sent to them,” he said.

The newly elected Julian fire board opposes dissolution in contrast to the previous panel, which requested the breakup.

And the board is pursuing its own legal challenges to Brown Act violations of the previous fire board.

Toward that end, it has hired Cory Briggs as special counsel, who’s “got a reputation as a bulldog,” board member Kramer said, alluding to the San Diego mayoral candidate’s history of quashing City of San Diego efforts to fund Convention Center expansion.

Briggs, who said he was retained by the board March 15 and would charge a discounted $275 an hour, declined to discuss litigation strategy publicly.

Kramer also said he and two other Julian fire agency advocates attended a 3-hour “integrity check” meeting March 11 at the Registrar of Voters Office where at least three members of the San Diego County Grand Jury showed special interest.

“As we were leaving, a couple of them said: ‘Good luck on your vote, good luck, good luck. We’re watching it,'” Kramer said last month. “I just thought it was very interesting that they were there.”

Rose Orcino-Madruga, foreperson of the 2018/2019 San Diego County Grand Jury, confirmed that grand jurors attended what she called the public “Logic and Accuracy Test” meeting at Vu’s invitation.

She said the registrar regularly issues invitations to the public and others to observe its operations.

But she wouldn’t say whether an investigation was under way.

“The Grand Jury is prohibited from discussing anything further regarding its activities pursuant to Penal Code Sections 911 and 924, et seq.,” Orcino-Madruga said via email.

The day after the March 19 vote, county Supervisor Dianne Jacob noted that final numbers were not yet in but said: “It is my hope that the community will now come together regardless of the outcome and heal after what was a long and often divisive debate over this issue. We all want a safer and better protected Julian, and I believe we should work side-by-side to reach that goal.”

LAFCO’s Simonds echoed that sentiment Wednesday.

“This proposal has generated a considerable amount of interest on both sides of the reorganization over the last year and ultimately left to the voters to decide,” he said.

“To this end, and with a relatively high turnout aided by the decision to use a mail ballot, a clear majority of voters in Julian support the reorganization. It is now time to move on per the voters and implement the reorganization.”

April 3, 2019

Times of San Diego

By Ken Stone

[Kern County] Letter to the Editor: Support Kern County grand jury's recommendation

The Kern County grand jury has issued its recommendations regarding red-light cameras in Bakersfield ("Grand jury recommends Bakersfield install more red-light cameras," Mar 1). The grand jury recommended increasing the yellow-light interval to 3.9 seconds from 3 seconds. Nick Fidler, Bakersfield Public Works director, said the city will look into it.

Increasing the duration of yellow lights as recommended could be equivalent to approximately one car length.

Other cities have experienced approximately an 80 percent reduction in citations issued from increasing the yellow light duration by one second. About 3,569 citations were issued for left turn red-light violations in 2017. Assuming a collection rate of 54 percent ("As red-light camera citations tripled in the last 10 years, city maintains program saves lives," Dec. 15, 2018), revenue to the city would be reduced by $755,433 a year [3,569 citations x a 54 percent collection rate x $490 per citation]. According to city records, the city has seen a net loss of $602,067 during the previous 10 years, so additional losses will not be readily adopted.

In my previous piece ("Bakersfield should fix its red-light camera problem," Nov. 9, 2018), I encouraged the citizens of Bakersfield to contact City Manager Alan Tandy and their City Council representative. Now is the time to support the 19 citizens who volunteered their time to serve on the grand jury analyzing data and making the right recommendations. Looking into it is not enough. Tell them you support the grand jury recommendation to increase the duration of yellow lights at major intersections in Bakersfield to 3.9 seconds. Do it now. You might also consider leaving a message for Presiding Judge Charles R. Brehmer of the Kern County Superior Court.

March 31, 2019

Bakersfield Californian

Letter from Richard Foster, Pismo Beach 

[Marin County] Letter to the editor: Not surprised about emergency radio woes

Blog note: this letter references two grand jury reports.

Regarding Marin emergency radio project delays — first, let me thank those hard-working men and women in Marin County who put their lives on the line to keep us out of harm’s way.

While I am alarmed that their $40 million emergency radio system overhaul is three years behind schedule, I am not surprised. Anyone prying open the doors on major technology projects in Marin knows this to be a familiar story.

In 2004, the Board of Supervisors approved implementation of new software to run the government’s enterprise affairs. In 2010, they were forced to shut the program down with almost nothing to show for their $30 million investment. The replacement software has also suffered from years of delays. The Marin County Civil Grand Jury covered this episode in two outstanding reports. Lack of expertise and core-competence is cited as a key contributor.

Over the past 18 months, every community has wrestled with elected officials and their planning departments about Verizon’s intention to place small-cell 5G wireless facilities on thousands of our light poles. It was clear at public meetings the government was barely qualified to discuss the technical intricacies of the project. Half-time executive officers with no staff and no experience run the two JPA’s involved in the process.

Every government agency has its tax guns aimed at the public right now, from water to waste. New technologies are supposed to be lowering our costs. I don’t accept that I should be forced to pay one “homeowner” penny more until Marin proves it can provide 21st-century smart city solutions as a buffer against cost increases.

March 30, 2019

Marin Independent Journal

Letter from Bruce Vogen, San Anselmo

[Humboldt County] Letter to the editor: Wrong Jury

In light of the recent decision of a grand jury in the matter of the death of David Josiah Lawson, some clarification may be in order ("This Doesn't End," March 21). The criminal grand jury investigating the death of Mr. Lawson is in no way connected to the civil grand jury.

There has been some commentary in the news and social media that has some people attributing names of civil grand jury members as if they were part of the panel that found insufficient evidence to charge an individual in this matter. This is inaccurate. Grand jury members listed on the county website are not the ones included in the Lawson matter.

Criminal grand juries are selected by the court upon a request by the district attorney and this is a process seldom used in Humboldt County. On the other hand, civil grand juries serve for a full year at a time and are selected from a pool of applicants for those positions. They investigate governmental issues and create reports on an annual basis.

For additional information, you may contact the Humboldt County Chapter of the California Grand Jurors Association at hcccgja@gmail.com or leave a message at (707) 502-2168.

March 28, 2019

North Coast Journal

Letter from Jim Glover, Eureka