Thursday, May 9, 2019

[Stanislaus County] Civil Grand Jury: Measure L is a ‘well-oiled machine’

Stanislaus County taxpayers should be happy to hear that a special sales tax review of Measure L found that government agencies are using the funds for exactly what they were intended for — fixing and maintaining local roadways.
Measure L — Local Roads First Transportation Funding — was approved by voters in November 2016 and went into effect April 1, 2017. The 25-year one-half cent special sales tax is to be used exclusively for regional and local transportation, as well as other transit improvements.
The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recently conducted an investigation of Measure L after reading about concerns regarding the use of the special tax dollars.
“Taxpayers often question if government decision-making exists for the benefit of the public; the SCCGJ wondered the same,” states the sales tax review summary.
The grand jury focused its investigation on the Stanislaus Council of Governments (the agency that administers Measure L funds) and three local jurisdictions, including Turlock.
The grand jury’s overall findings were that both StanCOG and local jurisdictions are implementing Measure L as promised to Stanislaus County residents.
“The Stanislaus County Council of Governments is to be commended for the development of a transportation special tax program of which StanCOG, and all of Stanislaus County, can be proud. Measure L is an efficient program that operates like a well-oiled machine and constitutes an important economic benefit to the county,” states the report.
Stanislaus County Supervisor and StanCOG Board member Vito Chiesa has been an advocate for Measure L from the start, as it allows Stanislaus to be designated a Self-Help county when competing for state and federal transportation funding opportunities.
“Seventy-two percent of people wanted their roads fixed, coming in many different forms, but most important was our ability to leverage state and federal funding that we didn’t have before — that’s more than $50 million since its inception,” said Chiesa.
Turlock, which is allocated 15.26 percent of Measure L funds, received $4,386,697 in fiscal year 2017-18. Measure L funds are being used for the reconstruction project currently underway along West Main Street and for the design stage of the Golden State Boulevard rehabilitation project.
While the grand jury found that Measure L funds were being used appropriately, they did have two recommendations for Turlock.
Planning and engineering representatives who were interviewed from Turlock lacked detailed knowledge of Measure L financing and relied on finance departments for information. The grand jury recommends that the personnel managing the planning and engineering of Measure L projects be familiar with the budget and finance portions of the special tax.
The City of Turlock also needs to fulfill a Measure L requirement of posting project progress on a webpage for public transparency. The grand jury gave Turlock until Dec. 31 to create a webpage or a link to a department webpage with the required information.
The Civil Grand Jury is empowered to investigate complaints from citizens, civic groups, government employees and others about the operations of county and city governments and the conduct of their officers and employees. The Civil Grand Jury may also investigate complaints within special districts and school districts.
May 7, 2019
Turlock Journal
By Kristina Hacker


[Lake County] Lakeport City Council to appoint airport commission member, award city hall remodel bid

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.
LAKEPORT — On Tuesday, the Lakeport City Council will consider appointing one of its members to the currently inactive airport land use commission tasked with oversight of the Lampson Field Airport.
According to California law, an airport land use commission must be established in any county where there is an airport and must be comprised of seven members: two county and two city representatives as well as a member of the public and two aviation experts.
Lakeport’s appointment will follow a Lake County Civil Grand Jury interim report released in March that called for county and city governments to bring Lampson Field into compliance with state laws—in part by bringing back to life the Lake County Airport Land Use Commission formed in 2004—in order to apply for grant funds available through the Federal Aviation Administration.
“More than 3 billion dollars in general aviation airport funding is currently available,” the grand jury report states.
District 4 Supervisor Tina Scott and District 5 Supervisor Rob Brown have been appointed to the commission as county government representatives. Clearlake Vice Mayor Russ Cremer has been appointed as that city’s representative.
Lampson Field Airport, though operational, has been identified as a target of needed development in a recent strategic economic plan adopted by county and city governments.
“We’d love to see an active airport,” said Lakeport City Manager Margaret Silveira in an interview Monday. “It’s important to the City of Lakeport as much as to the county.” Silveira added that improvements to the airport would be likely to increase tourism in Lakeport, and would be an added convenience for local businesses.
May 6, 2019
Lake County Record-Bee
By Adian Freeman


Monday, May 6, 2019

[San Benito County] Former grand jury members speak out

The San Benito County Board of Supervisors created an ad hoc committee at its April 16 meeting to consider revising a 2015 ordinance that limits payment for services by the county’s civil grand jury. The committee consisted of Supervisors Mark Medina and Jim Gillio.
In the meeting, former civil grand jury members disagreed sharply with statements made by supervisors and County Administrative Officer Ray Espinosa regarding the grand jury’s budget, compensation guidelines and the county’s authority over the grand jury’s activities. In addition, one supervisor condemned remarks by a former grand juror who spoke about the grand jury’s investigation of Espinosa in 2013.
Discussion was delayed by a dispute among the board about when to break for lunch. Medina said at the start of the meeting that the board would go through as many items as possible before breaking for lunch at noon. Minutes past noon, he said the board would continue with two more items because several members of the public had been waiting for three hours to hear them.
Supervisor Peter Hernandez said since the items would take more than 10 minutes each and because staff also needed to have lunch, the board should break for lunch now.
“Well anyway, we will bring up the grand jury,” Medina said.
Hernandez said he was taking his lunch now and Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz joined him.
Supervisor Anthony Botelho said he had an extra orange for “you guys” as the two supervisors left the dias.
“If they don’t want to be part of this they don’t have to be part of this,” Medina said before Hernandez and De La Cruz left the room.
Several members of the public said that employees had six hours from the start of the shift to take a lunch. Though De La Cruz returned to the dias about seven minutes into the grand jury discussion, Hernandez returned half an hour later.
Discussion between former civil grand jury members and county supervisors centered on the ordinance approved in 2015 that set limits on compensation. The grand jury went over its budget by $5,500 that year, which led to the tighter compensation guidelines.
The civil grand jury is not a county department, but an independent group of 19 volunteers mandated by the California State Constitution to research and investigate government departments, agencies and even officers. Nonetheless, it is funded by the county. The county also sets grand jury compensation rates.
Espinosa said the county adopted the following budgets for past grand juries. Figures include what was spent by each grand jury:
  • 2015: $19,500 budgeted; $25,000 spent
  • 2016: $20,500 budgeted; $11,000 spent
  • 2017: $21,00 budgeted; $4,000 spent
  • 2018: $22,200 budgeted; $4,800 spent
  • 2019: $22,000 budgeted; $3,100 spent
Espinosa said the existing compensation guidelines are almost identical to those of Santa Cruz County at $15 a day per member, with a maximum of eight days per month where members get paid only where there is a quorum.
“Ours is very similar with regards to the whole grand jury in attendance, as an example, but we don’t have a limitation on the amount of days,” he said.
Robert Marden, foreman of the 2014-15 San Benito County Civil Grand Jury, said Espinosa’s presentation was inaccurate. San Benito was the only county in California that did not pay for committee work, he said.
Peggy Flynn, forewoman of the current Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury, told BenitoLink that jurors are paid for a maximum of two meetings a week and that normally at least one of them is a committee meeting.
Marden, who is on the BenitoLink board, read part of a 1993 opinion by California Attorney General Dan Lungren on compensation for grand jury members: “The government code section 68091 allows each county to provide compensation for grand jurors while attending other than grand jury sessions of the entire membership.”
Following adoption of the 2015 ordinance, San Benito County Superior Court was forced to subpoena residents to participate on the civil grand jury, which Marden said made it more difficult to find willing jurors.
Ann Ross, forewoman of the 2015-16 San Benito County Civil Grand Jury, said the body’s budget should be in the $30,000s.
“It’s hands-off by the County Board of Supervisors,” Ross told supervisors at the meeting. “All you’re supposed to do is give us the money and that’s it. You don’t get to say anything else about when we meet, how we meet.”
Former grand juror Bill Healy said that Espinosa “put us under” because when the grand jury investigated him in 2013, they found out he was not qualified for the position because he had lied about having a bachelor’s degree.
Responses by the county to the report can be found here.
Before Healy could continue, De La Cruz interrupted his public comment and asked Medina not to allow Healy to “talk personal.”
“To accuse our staff members of doing this and doing that, I won’t accept that,” De La Cruz said as he addressed the concerns of the former grand jurors. “The Board of Supervisors makes the call and the Board of Supervisors get the blame or the credit for the actions that the county does at the board level. Don’t go after staff. That’s not right.”
When Healy resumed speaking, he said the issue wasn’t about the members getting money because they make $30 a month and mileage if they meet twice a month; instead it was about supporting and respecting the grand jury which acts as the “check and balance of this county.” According to previous statements from current grand jury member Cherie Toll, jurors have not been paid even though they have held monthly meetings since July and conducted at least four investigations.
Both Botelho and De La Cruz said they did not want to control or hurt the grand jury, but were holding all the “departments” to the same standard of operating within budget—this despite the fact that the grand jury is not a county department, but an independent state-mandated body.
Botelho told BenitoLink the board understands that the grand jury is not a county department, but that it needs to keep to its budget.
“If there’s something that changes let’s talk about it long before it becomes an issue,” Botelho said. “We’re keeping tabs of how we spend the taxpayers’ money.”
After returning from his lunch break, Hernandez joined the discussion and said he appreciated the grand jury, its intent and role, but that he struggled with its structure.
“How do you fund something that you don’t know how it functions,” Hernandez said, adding that supervisors need to understand how grand jurors manage their time in order to come up with the budget.
Ross told BenitoLink after the meeting that there was no need for bickering because supervisors only needed to reverse the ordinance. She said the the solution involves granting the grand jury essentials like a confidential office; a mailbox and supplies; payment of $20 per meeting; no interference from the county and the posting of all grand jury reports on the county website including responses (these documents have disappeared from the website in the past).
May 3, 2019
BenitoLink
By Noe MagaƱa


[Monterey County] County commits to reducing mental illness in jail

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.
SALINAS — Monterey County has signed onto a nationwide effort to addressing the high numbers of mentally ill inmates in the County Jail.
On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution joining the nationwide Stepping Up Initiative coalition dedicated to the cause, entitled “Stepping Up to Reduce the Number of People with Mental Illnesses in Jails.”
The resolution commits the county, led by the County Administrative Office, Sheriff’s Office, and the Probation and Health Departments, to a “call to action” that includes “sharing lessons” learned from other counties in the state and nationally in support of the national initiative, as well as using “comprehensive resources” available through the Stepping Up Initiative.
According to the resolution, an estimated 2 million people with “serious” mental illnesses are booked into jails nationally every year, three-quarters of them with substance use disorders, and the rate of mental illness is three to six times higher in jails than for the general public. It also points out that county jails spend two or three times as much on adults with mental illnesses than other inmates, and people with mental illnesses tend to end up cycling through the criminal justice system if they don’t have access to treatment and services.
The resolution calls for the county to convene a “diverse” team of area leaders to pursue safe reduction of mentally ill in the jail, collect and review data and assess individual needs to “better identify” adults entering the jail with mental illnesses and their recidivism risk to help guide decision-making, examine local treatment and service capacity and identify state and local policy and funding barriers, develop a plan with measurable outcomes, implement research-based approaches to advancing the plan, and create a process for tracking progress.
It notes the County Jail has already implemented a number of changes aimed at improving mental health services, largely in response to a 2013 class action lawsuit settlement, including with regard to intake screening, suicide risk assessment and mitigation, reduction is the use of safety cells, development of individual treatment plans, medication continuity, mental health clinical staffing levels, and mental health training.
The jail has also undergone a hazard reduction project to reduce jumping or falling locations in high-risk inmate housing areas, and increased time outside of cells, individual program time, group therapy, self-help and socialization skills for high-risk inmates, according to the resolution.
Supervisor Luis Alejo noted the 2016-17 civil grand jury addressed the issue of mental health in the jail in a report entitled “Monterey County Jail Crisis: Our De Facto Mental Health Facility,” which looked into the class action lawsuit challenging conditions in the jail and the resulting changes in the facility.
The grand jury found that about 45 percent of jail inmates deal with mental illness. It recommended the county fund construction of a new mental health facility or find space to serve as a mental health treatment site, and that the county Behavioral Health agency’s services be integrated into the jail rather than relying on independent contractor California Forensic Medical Group.
Supervisor John Phillips, a former Superior Court judge, said defendants with mental illness were the “most difficult” cases and tended to cycle through the court system many times because treatment services were inadequate. Phillips said it was good to see the Sheriff’s Office and Health Department working together on the issue.
Supervisor Chris Lopez, who serves on the county’s Behavioral Health Commission, noted that May is Mental Health Awareness month.
April 30, 2019
Monterey Herald
By Jim Johnson


Nevada County Grand Jury Report: Nevada County Request for Proposal and Procurement Practices

April 30, 2019 – The 2018-2019 Nevada County Grand Jury (Jury) responded to a citizen’s complaint “regarding irregularities in the recent Request for Proposal (RFP) and the selection process for the organization selected to operate the County’s animal shelter.” The Jury conducted an investigation into Nevada County’s (County) RFP process used to select the vendor cited in the complaint. The Jury reviewed pertinent documents and conducted interviews with personnel within County government and the Sheriff’s Office.
During its investigation of the RFP process, the Jury found a number of problems to support its overall conclusion that the County’s procurement practices are not consistent with generally recognized best procurement practices. After conducting several interviews, the Jury determined there was a lack of communication and coordination among the various departments involved with an animal control RFP. The Jury learned that the County does not have comprehensive established policies and procedures regulating its procurement process. Instead the County relies on a Purchasing Guide, dated June 13, 2017; an undated amendment to that Purchasing Guide; and the County Administrative Code (Admin Code). The Jury’s investigation shows that these publications combined with the Admin Code do not adhere to generally available best procurement practices.
The Jury concluded that an adherence to generally recognized best procurement practices by the purchasing department would ensure that County procurement is performed honestly, fairly, effectively, and professionally. In turn, this ensures that best value is obtained and that the County recognizes that the public trust is embodied in the authority to expend County funds. Efforts are underway within Information & General Services (IGS) to update the Admin Code to include policies and procedures that adhere to best procurement practices. The Jury commends this effort. However, the success of this program depends on the support of the Nevada County County Executive Office, County Counsel, and the Nevada County Board of Supervisors. Without this support IGS will not be able to implement any meaningful changes in a timely manner.
April 30, 2019
YubaNet.com
By the Nevada County Civil Grand Jury


Santa Clara County expands mobile mental-health teams to public

On-call clinicians will staff hotline, provide services


Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.
After first helping local police respond more effectively to mental-health emergencies and head off violent outcomes, Santa Clara County’s mobile-crisis response teams are expanding to handle crises reported by the general public.
The county’s Behavioral Health Services Department announced Monday that its squad of on-call clinicians will now also staff a hotline where they can triage psychiatric emergencies and “provide services in the community including crisis screening, intervention, de-escalation services, and connect or refer people to community resources,” according to a county news release.
County officials also revealed that staffing for the mobile-crisis program now stands at seven licensed clinicians and therapists, an increase from four last fall, which at that time had doubled from two when the pilot program launched in January 2018.
County residents in need of mental-health crisis help and intervention can call 800-704-0900 and dial option “2” on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Outside those hours, emergencies reported to the hotline will be answered by a clinician but not necessarily a mobile-crisis team.
The program was initially launched to support county law-enforcement agencies seeking help in dealing with mental-health emergencies that prompted a 911 call and a police response. Both statewide estimates and a civil grand jury report issued last year estimated that nearly 40 percent of police shootings in the county involved a person who exhibited signs of mental illness.
In tandem with the launch of the clinician response teams, two of which are dedicated to the San Jose area and southern Santa Clara County, local police agencies have instituted an increasing amount of crisis-intervention training — usually involving about 40 hours of instruction — given an increasing amount of police calls involve a mental-health emergency.
The county is also using grant money to establish a Psychological Emergency Response Team in Palo Alto that pairs a police officer and clinician to respond to mental-health incidents with teens and other young adults.
April 29, 2019
The Mercury News
By Robert Salonga


Nevada County Grand Jury urges more transparency for special districts

The 2018-2019 Nevada County Grand Jury last week issued a report on 24 special districts, recommending steps be taken to ensure more transparency and outreach.
The districts surveyed include Nevada Irrigation District, eight fire districts including Nevada County Consolidated, and parks and recreation districts including Oak Tree Park and Western Gateway. The grand jury report noted that their combined annual budgets total more than $140 million, with the districts’ budgets ranging from less than $13,000 a year to nearly $60 million.
A previous grand jury found that many special district boards are staffed by well-intentioned volunteers who lack sufficient training or knowledge of their responsibilities. Last year, the grand jury found special district boards needed better training in ethics and the Brown Act, which governs how board meetings are conducted.
“The jury continued its analysis … and found that there were weaknesses in other areas including transparency and outreach,” this year’s report states. “For example, the jury found that not all districts have websites, and that some websites were not updated with current information.”
Existing law requires special districts to have websites with convenient access to board meeting agendas, the report noted. And a new law means that as of 2020, special district websites must clearly list contact information. The report further noted that one way of meeting public records requirements would be to post any requested documents on the district website.
The new report found that not all special districts had a required conflict of interest policy, and recommended adding that policy to their websites as well as financial and code of conduct information as part of their bylaws.
April 29, 2019
The Union of Grass Valley
By the Union staff


[Marin County] Marin grand jury calls for wildfire tax, new agency

A new report by the Marin County Civil Grand Jury recommends the creation of a joint powers authority to coordinate wildfire preparedness and a quarter-cent sales tax to help fund preparedness efforts.
“Considering Marin’s current state of preparedness, citizens should not assume that first responders will be able to save them from the horrors of a wildfire like those experienced during Butte County’s Camp Fire,” the report states, referring to the fire in November that killed an estimated 85 people, destroying the town of Paradise and ravaging communities around it.
“The deadly threat of fire creates an urgent need for new policies for wildfire preparedness which must be implemented without delay,” says the report, which was released Thursday.
Other key recommendations include: creating a countywide vegetation management plan; hiring at least 30 new vegetation inspectors and at least eight crews focused on fuel reduction; developing a streamlined procedure to enforce vegetation citations; converting key alert systems from opt-in to opt-out; and improving evacuation plans and exit routes.
“The report accurately portrays the fire problem we have in Marin County,” said county fire Chief Jason Weber. “The grand jury highlights the fact that we need to look at this differently under the changing circumstances of climate change. I agree with that sentiment.”
As for creating a joint powers authority, Weber said, “I think the regional approach is the best way to deal with this. As for the specifics, I would not want to jump to that conclusion until we have a chance for the cities, towns and other fire agencies to weigh in.”
Weber also agrees with the grand jury’s conclusion that more revenue is needed to address wildfire preparedness. “As to the exact approach, we need to work with all the partners and get community feedback before the decision is made,” he said.
Marin County Administrator Matthew Hymel said, “We also agree that the best solution is a countywide effort that includes all Marin fire and city agencies. We are already working with our cities and fire agencies to develop a potential countywide program to better protect our residents.”
In March, county supervisors authorized the use of about $2.32 million in Measure A funds to pay for a 14-member Marin County wildland fire crew to assist in removing vegetation from county parks and open space over the next two years.
The report highlights four areas in which it says the county is particularly vulnerable to wildfire.
It focuses first on vegetation management, stating that a combination of aggressive fire suppression and environmental policies have created hazardous fuel loads throughout the county.
The grand jury notes that federal and state governments own thousands of acres of ungroomed open space in the county; that the Marin Municipal Water District owns approximately 21,500 acres of wildland and has been clearing only 30 acres per year; and that the Marin County Open Space District owns about 16,000 acres of wildland, 10 percent of which is managed to reduce fire hazard annually.
Some 60,000 acres fall within the wildland urban interface in Marin, and there are an estimated 69,000 living units valued at $59 billion within this area.
The report, however, states, “County and local governments cannot afford to manage vegetation. Property owners must be responsible for doing much of the work.”
That is where the 30 vegetation management inspectors the report recommends hiring would come in. The grand jury envisions the inspectors issuing citations to private property owners who fail to clear a defensible space around their homes and an expedited legal process to make sure the citations are not ignored.
“Evacuation is also a grave concern,” the report states. “Marin’s topography creates great danger for those who live far from the main evacuation routes. Most connecting roads are narrow and overgrown. Some are constricted by traffic calming obstacles such as concrete medians, and bump outs which impede traffic in emergency evacuations.”
The grand jury acknowledges that Marin’s narrow roads can’t all be rebuilt but it says that “existing, wider roads and those that are major evacuation routes should not be narrowed or impeded” with such traffic calming approaches as concrete medians and speed bumps.
The grand jury faults the Transportation Authority of Marin for not helping to plan for mass evacuations or improve the county’s evacuation routes. It recommends that TAM “convene all stakeholders no later than Dec. 31, 2019 to address congestion on escape routes in an evacuation.”
But Dianne Steinhauser, TAM’s executive director, said, “We are really not authorized to plan, fund or implement evacuation needs. We don’t own or operate any transportation facilities. We have no policing authority.”
“We work closely with the Marin County Office of Emergency Services,” Steinhauser added. “If they have any specific needs, we’re open to assisting them.”
The report also concludes that public transit must be included in emergency planning.
“Marin residents who do not have cars cannot simply drive away from the wildfire,” the report observes, “yet planners have not identified how many non-drivers would need rescue.”
Marin County has overlapping alert systems to notify residents in case they need to evacuate due to wildfire. These include the Emergency Alert System, the national warning system used for catastrophic events; Wireless Emergency Alerts, which reach mobile devices by geographically targeting cell towers in a certain area; Nixle, which sends text messages to smartphones by ZIP codes; and Alert Marin, which broadcasts via land lines and cellphones.
The grand jury found that the biggest flaw of Alert Marin, the system deemed the superior choice by public officials, is that it requires cellphone users to opt-in to the system to be contacted. The Marin Office of Emergency Services estimates that only about 10 percent of Marin residents are registered with Alert Marin. Nixle has the same problem.
Weber said new state legislation will be needed to require cellphone users to opt out of Alert Marin, and the county is working with its representatives in the Legislature to make that happen.
Weber said Alert Marin is the system firefighters will use when they need to get an evacuation order out; he said Nixle is more useful for general messages.
Another vulnerability the grand jury identifies is a Marin public largely ignorant of how to prepare for and respond to wildfires.
“Most people do not know how to make their homes fire resistant or create defensible space by cutting back vegetation,” the report states. “Many have failed to collect emergency supplies or plan for evacuations.”
The grand jury says that FireSafe Marin, a local nonprofit focused on wildfire risk prevention and increasing fire-safety awareness, needs to expand its staff and activities from one current part-time employee.
A countywide public forum on wildfire prevention is planned from 10 a.m. to noon Saturday at the Embassy Suites Hotel in San Rafael.
April 29, 2019
Marin Independent Journal
By Richard Halstead


[San Diego County] If the City Doesn't Revisit San Diego Unified Elections, the State Will

Assemblywoman Shirley Weber has introduced a bill that would change San Diego Unified Board of Education races to subdistrict-only elections. The bill is on a two-year track to allow the City Council time to possibly introduce its own reforms sooner.


Blog note: this article references a 2017 grand jury report.
If the San Diego City Council doesn’t pursue a change to how San Diego Unified board members are elected, Assemblywoman Shirley Weber is prepared to do so at the state level.
Weber introduced a bill in late February that would require candidates for the Board of Education to run solely within their subdistricts – a change long sought by many advocates, and recommended by a San Diego County Grand Jury. Right now, candidates run within a subdistrict in the primary, then run districtwide during the general election.
A spokesman for Weber said Thursday they’ve put the bill on a two-year track in order to give the City Council time to move the reform forward itself.
A lawsuit making its way through the court system is also seeking to force the city to move to district-only elections for the school board. It argues that the current system violates the California Voting Rights Act by diluting minority communities’ votes.
Though the San Diego City Council has no oversight over how schools are run, it does have a role in the school board election process because changes to that process require an amendment to the City Charter. Only the City Council or a citizen’s initiative can put changes to the charter on the ballot for voters to consider.
In 2017, the San Diego County Grand Jury determined that requiring candidates to participate in a citywide election, rather than a district-only election, forces them to rely on support and financial backing from special interest groups.
The current election process, the Grand Jury found, “does not always result in board members who reflect the diversity of the district’s population.”
Weber, herself a former San Diego Unified trustee, is especially aware of those issues.
In 2016, one of her top staffers at the time, LaShae Collins, ran for the San Diego Unified board. In the primary, Collins won overwhelmingly – she beat Sharon Whitehurst-Payne by 20 points. But in the citywide general election, where Whitehurst-Payne benefited from union support, Collins lost by 9 points.
“I think it’s clear that most people want these things solved at the local level. But as the Grand Jury pointed out, it hasn’t been solved. It’s still a problem,” said Joe Kocurek, Weber’s spokesman, of the decision to pursue a change at the state level.
The current process has resulted in many trustees strolling onto the school board unopposed or without major challengers. Trustee Mike McQuary won his first term unopposed. When he ran for re-election in 2018, he had a challenger – Marcia Nordstrom – but when he was asked about her by the Union-Tribune editorial board, he couldn’t even remember her name, which is not exactly the sign of a robust contest. Trustee Richard Barrera, who’s dismissed the move to district-only elections as a Republican ploy, has run unopposed in three straight elections.
Over the last two years, the City Council has explored reforms to the San Diego Unified board election process but always stopped short of moving to district-only elections, even as other school boards and city councils across the county have made similar changes.
After collecting feedback from residents last year, San Diego Unified moved forward some election reforms, including limiting trustees to three four-year terms. Voters approved that change in November 2018. But the district – and the Council – decided not to ask voters whether to move to district-only elections.
City Councilman Chris Cate supports the move to district-only elections but seemed wary that the Council will be the body to do it.
He said deliberations with San Diego Unified about further reforms are basically at a standstill.
“I’m appreciative that Dr. Weber has looked into this and has taken it a step further to make sure this becomes a reality,” Cate said. “I’m in support of term limits and sub-district only elections. Because they fall under the purview of the city, school districts should fall under and have the same purview as city officials – no more and no less.”
Though Weber’s office said the assemblywoman hopes the City Council moves forward on the reform, her bill argues that “the dilution of votes of members of a protected class in elections for the Board of Education of the San Diego Unified School District is a matter of statewide concern.”
April 25, 2019
Voice of San Diego
By Sara Libby


Sunday, May 5, 2019

[Kern County] County exploring grand jury's suggestion of impounding unlicensed mobile food vendors' equipment

The Kern County Department of Public Health could soon be strengthening its regulations on mobile food trucks if it follows the recommendations of a Kern County grand jury.
In a recent report, the grand jury suggested that the county department impound equipment of unpermitted food vendors, a practice that would require the establishment of a new county ordinance.
As it stands currently, the county issues cease-and-desist warnings to food vendors that present a low risk of disease transmission, and unpermitted high-risk vendors could have their food confiscated or discarded, according to the grand jury report.
County officials are taking the grand jury’s suggestion seriously, opening up the possibility that new penalties could be levied against the unlicensed vendors.
“Any effort we could make to improve food safety in the community, clearly we’re interested in and want to pursue,” said KCPH Director Matt Constantine. “We’re just trying to explore what we can do.”
A total of 494 mobile food vendors currently have obtained licenses through the Health Department’s Environmental Health Division.
Some licensed food vendors have estimated that there are many unlicensed units throughout the city.
From January 2018 to March 20, 2019, the county issued roughly 127 cease and desist notices to unpermitted food vendors, according to the county. In 69 of those cases, food was voluntarily condemned and destroyed.
“There are a number of individuals that are still unaware of food safety and of obtaining a required permit, so we have some work ahead of us,” Constantine said.
For Mohammed Saphieh, owner of the Pita Paradise food truck, the grand jury’s suggestion would be a welcome change.
“It’s a little drastic maybe, but I think it’s a necessary step to get people to go out and get permitted,” he said. “I think it’s a pretty big problem.”
He said at a recent concert at Fox Theater, he noticed around 20 other food trucks that he did not think were permitted.
“I definitely see that a lot,” he said, referring to unpermitted vendors.
The public can distinguish between permitted and unpermitted vendors by a sticker issued by the county.
Those vendors with licenses receive a sticker that is supposed to be placed in a place viewable by the public.
“As a consumer, you should look at that sticker to make sure that (the vendors) are in compliance, and have been permitted by Environmental Health to serve safe food,” said Michelle Corson, public information officer for the Health Department. “That’s why we put that in place, so that people can check for themselves.”
The county did not have official estimates on how many unlicensed vendors were on city streets.
The grand jury recommended the county “fast-track” the new ordinance that would be required to impound the equipment of unlicensed food vendors, indicating that the jurors believed the issue required quick action.
April 25, 2019
Bakersfield.com – Delano Record
By Sam Morgen