[Solano County] Grand Jury report urges city to stay on top of unfunded liabilities

In 2019, the Solano County Grand Jury issued a report cautioning that the city of Vacaville’s retirement benefits package was “not sustainable” and could result in a loss of employees and services if not addressed.

A followup report, issued Tuesday, opined that even with steps taken to mitigate unfunded liabilities, the city needs to do more to keep its services and fully fund employee benefit obligations in the future.

The 2019 report focused on the city’s retirement package, also known as Other Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB), with recommendations including lowering OPEB costs through updated policies and labor relations strategies, forming a citizen oversight committee to study OPEB and make recommendations to the City Council, simplifying the language to address long-term financial impacts and not placing OPEB-related matters on the council’s consent calendar.

For its followup report, the Grand Jury interviewed a resident, City Council member and a member of the OPEB Advisory Committee that was later formed. It also viewed the Oct. 13 council meeting where the committee’s recommendations were presented, a City Council special OPEB study session on March 2 and a webinar on OPEB liabilities in Contra Costa County, hosted by Marc Joffee of the think tank Reason Foundation, in addition to reviewing several documents.

Regarding the recommendation of an OPEB oversight committee, then-Councilman Mitch Mashburn balked at the idea of it being termed an “oversight” committee at a 2019 meeting but said he was supportive of establishing an advisory committee. This idea was supported by the rest of the council, and the committee first met in Jan. 2020 for a 120-day term to study and provide a report of recommendations to the council. The committee was dissolved at the end of its term.

According to the Grand Jury report, the committee presented its report to the council, which “accepted the report, took no action to address the recommendations, and thanked the committee for its serve.”

One of the confirmations of the OPEB Advisory Committee was that the city was facing “significant fiscal challenges” from its OPEB benefit level. The committee cited a 2020 report by state Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, which ranked all of California’s cities based on financial soundness and placed Vacaville in the bottom 10 percent.

Moreover, a 2020 report by the California State Auditor found Vacaville to be in “high-risk of pension obligations, funding, future pension costs and OPEB funding, per the Grand Jury report.

Currently, the city has two California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) pension plans: one for its public safety employees and another for its other employees. Combined, the two plans had an unfunded liability of $209 million as of June 2019.

“If the City of Vacaville increased its current CalPERS Safety Plan payment by $2 million annually it would save $26 million in interest and retire the unfunded liability within 15 years,” the report’s authors wrote. “If annual payments were increased by $5 million the city would save $2 million in interest and retire the unfunded liability in 10 years.”

Additionally, the report indicated that Family Premium health care rates increased an average of 8.5 percent per year from 1975 to 2020. Vacaville has three compensation tiers for both its active and retired employees, which are dependent on the date an employee was hired and how long they served.

In recent years, the city has adopted a defined contribution model for Tier 3 employees. However, the report’s authors wrote that most current employees and retirees continue to receive defined benefits under the first two tiers.

“The private sector has moved towards defined contribution plans because the costs of defined benefit plans are inherently unpredictable,” the report’s authors wrote.

With seven of the nine current memoranda of understanding between the city and seven of the nine labor groups set to expire Oct. 31, and the remaining two slated to end in 2022, the Grand Jury is recommending that the city convert to a defined contributions benefit model in future negotiations with Tier 1 and 2 employees.

Other recommendations included establishing an annual contribution schedule to retire unfunded liabilities over a 10-to-15-year period, applying for American Rescue Act funds for additional contributions toward decreasing liabilities, negotiating all labor contracts with an independent facilitator, addressing unfunded liabilities in all negotiations, re-establishing the advisory committee and following up on its recommendations and continuing to regularly and publicly review issues affecting pensions and liabilities to ensure the city’s finances remain stable and services are not impacted.

Mayor Ron Rowlett and the City Council are required to issue a formal response to the report. Courtesy copies have also been provided to City Manager Aaron Busch and the Solano County Board of Supervisors.

Kris Concepcion, the city’s interim public information officer, said the city has not thoroughly reviewed the report yet but is taking the matter seriously and will have a formal response ready before the due date. Primarily, he said the city is looking at areas that differed from the 2019 report and will formulate appropriate actions after reviewing the recommendations.

“We will be reviewing it thoroughly, taking into consideration all the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations and studying each one of them and considering them and making sure that each of them get addressed,” he said.

The full report can be read at Solano.courts.ca.gov/divisions/grand-jury/reports/.

Vacaville Reporter
By NICK SESTANOVICH | nsestanovich@thereporter.com |
May 27, 2021

[Orange County] Grand jury suggests added audits in wake of O.C. sheriff’s department evidence-booking problem

 The Orange County Grand Jury is calling for additional audits to make sure sheriff’s deputies are following new department procedures meant to avoid issues with the late booking of evidence that in recent years has led to the dismissal or reduction of charges in dozens of criminal cases.

The county watchdog panel, in a report released Monday, said that the only way to tell if evidence booking deficiencies have been addressed would be by an independently conducted, impartial third-party audit of Orange County Sheriff’s Department reports submitted to prosecutors after March 2018.

The grand jury also suggested that the department set up a formal process for lieutenants to “spot check” evidence booking by deputies in order to increase accountability by department management, as well as integrate three separate electronic systems used in the evidence booking process.

The grand jury report indicated that such moves would help address concerns raised in the panel’s interviews with some prosecutors and defense attorneys regarding whether deputies are following new policies instituted by the sheriff’s department in order to safeguard against the mishandling of evidence.

“Our system of justice relies upon the proper collection and preservation of physical evidence, as well as the honesty and integrity of those who are sworn to ‘tell the truth,’” the grand jury report reads. “Therefore, it is imperative that those responsible for collecting and booking evidence do so in a way that does not compromise the justice system.”

The report acknowledged that “positive steps” have been taken by the department and cited “its willingness to address the problem,” while outlining what the panel believes are “areas that need improvement.”

“The Grand Jury commended OCSD for taking immediate action once evidence booking issues surfaced, initiating policy changes, and holding employees accountable through both discipline and referral to the DA for prosecution,” sheriff’s department spokeswoman Carrie Braun said. “The Orange County Sheriff’s Department is reviewing the Grand Jury’s recommendations and will implement any that we believe will strengthen our current procedures.”

Addressing the recommendation for a third-party audit, Braun noted that the county Office of Independent Review, which monitors the Sheriff’s Department along with other public agencies, has the power to look over the department’s evidence booking systems.

“We welcome OIR’s review of our evidence systems and believe it will confirm the effectiveness of the controls we have put in place,” Braun said. “The test of an organization’s strength is how it responds when problems or shortfalls come to light.  The Grand Jury Report confirms that the Department took swift action to correct the evidence issue.”

A review conducted by Orange County District Attorney’s office with the sheriff’s department, completed earlier this year of cases in which deputies were suspected of mishandling evidence, resulted in the dismissal or reduction of charges in 67 criminal cases.

The district attorney’s office declined to comment Monday on the specifics of the grand jury report, though the office has weighed in on the issue previously.

Officials with the Orange County Public Defender’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

At least four deputies have been fired as a result of the evidence booking scandal. Two deputies have pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, a third is awaiting trial on a felony charge and more than 17 have been added to a Brady list, which means their names are provided to defense attorney’s as having credibility problems.

The joint review followed two internal audits by the sheriff’s department. The first concluded that deputies in nearly on-third of the examined cases were not following the department of booking evidence by the end of their shifts. The second showed deputies were sometimes not booking evidence at all, but were writing in their reports that they had.

Among the evidence at issue was methamphetamine, meth pipes, a switchblade, a stun gun and condoms.

Sheriff Don Barnes previously has said that his department took several steps to implement safeguard in the evidence booking process, including randomized spot checks of booked evidence.

The grand jury report acknowledges many of those new policies, including the move from a lengthy paper-based evidence submission process to electronic templates and increased review by supervising sergeants. The report also acknowledges that some lieutenants have been conducting spot checks of evidence submissions, though they have apparently not been formally documenting those efforts.

Orange County Register
By SEAN EMERY  semery@scng.com
May 24, 2021

[Nevada County] Grand jury urges fleet maintenance

County official says many recommendations already implemented

The Nevada County Grand Jury has a few recommendations for how local governments maintain their vehicle fleets.

Grass Valley and Nevada City could use competition to minimize their fleet costs. The two cities have no vehicle replacement plans, which could help with budgeting.

“One area of concern, we questioned if there are opportunities to reduce fleet (vehicle) maintenance through integration of fleet maintenance,” said David Anderson, grand jury foreperson.

A grand jury report, released this week, focuses on how the governments could improve fleet vehicle maintenance by combining operations. It lists the number of vehicles each government has. Nevada County has 414 vehicles, Grass Valley has 65, and Nevada City has 22.

Report findings note all local governments use fuel cards for cost control. This is more efficient to track fuel costs and different departments, such as the police. Yet the report pointed out, none of the entities had a long term plan for older vehicles.

“It’s a question of planning, if you budget ahead you ensure your budget is adequate for future needs,” said Anderson.

Other findings state that Grass Valley and Nevada City are not exploiting competitive possibilities to minimize costs. Grass Valley and Nevada City maintenance invoice records are identified with the specific department where expenditures are used. But neither Grass Valley or Nevada City track maintenance through online spreadsheets.

“That could better plan and execute maintenance needs. An oil change, for example,” said Anderson.

The grand jury made a number of recommendations. Grass Valley and Nevada City should consider negotiating volume contracts with local repair shops. They also should consider centralizing vehicle expenses. Additionally, both cities should consider implementing automated maintenance software, while Grass Valley should evaluate adding more staff to the fleet services department.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A county official said many of these recommendations already are in place.

Trisha Tillotson, Nevada County Public Works director, said her department will work with the Board of Supervisors on preparing a response to the grand jury.

However, the county is already doing what the grand jury recommends, she added.

“The Sheriff’s Office already mandated an alternative fuel vehicle program, and by 2022 it will begin,” she said. “And by 2025 all transit vehicles will be alternative fuel, as mandated by the state.”

She also pointed out the county, Grass Valley, Nevada City and Truckee will share maintenance operations, though no specific plans currently exist.

“The recommendations are what we want the public to be aware of,” said Anderson. “But we have no power to demand the recommendations be taken. It’s up to the cities and county to accept or reject our recommendations.”

The goal of the report is to ensure effective and efficient government, Anderson said. A grand jury also responds to citizen complaints and inquires to prison operations in each county.

“A grand jury has pretty broad powers requesting information,” said Anderson. “We operate in secrecy, so we can publicize what we do through our reports and we got more coming.”

The Union
By William Roller
May 21, 2021

 

[San Bernardino County] Grand jury probes ‘inappropriate contact’ between Redlands Unified staff, students

Parents are encouraged to email the San Bernardino County panel about what they know

The San Bernardino County Grand Jury is soliciting information from parents of Redlands Unified School District students about concerns involving “suspected inappropriate contact” between students and staff.

In an announcement Tuesday, the grand jury requested that parents email their replies to RUSD@gi.sbcounty.gov by June 7.

Administrators in the grand jury office would not comment Tuesday on the nature of the probe and whether it was prompted by a yearlong investigation by the Southern California News Group into a sex abuse scandal at the district spanning more than a decade.

The SCNG investigation revealed, among other things, that the school district failed to notify police in some cases where students alleged sexual abuse or grooming behaviors by teachers. The district also thwarted criminal investigations of teachers suspected of sexual abuse, destroyed evidence and ordered teachers and other staff not to cooperate with police in criminal investigations.

Redlands Unified paid out more than $30.2 million to settle sex abuse lawsuits with former students during the SCNG investigation, which prompted sweeping reforms at the school district. Those reforms included implementation of the Act Now initiative to enhance student safety and a six-page policy requiring school resource officers at every high school, handbooks for all employees on mandated reporting, and additional school counselors to focus on the “socioemotional” health of students.

For further information or comments, visit the grand jury website at wp.sbcounty.gov/grandjury Or, call the grand jury assistant at 909-387-9120.

San Bernardino Sun
By JOE NELSON | jnelson@scng.com
May 18, 2021 at

Sanchez, Krey and Oberhelman: [Santa Clara County] Crisis intervention training for law enforcement

Blog note: This Op Ed article is by members of the Santa Clara County Grand Jurors Association and refers to a Santa Clara County grand jury report .

SJPD's Mobile Crisis Response Team responds to calls for those experiencing a mental crisis. Photo by Lorraine Gabbert.

Recently, several law enforcement agencies in Santa Clara County have unveiled specialized units designed to de-escalate interactions with citizens who may be in mental health crisis. San Jose PD launched a one-year pilot program in October 2020 that links specially trained officers with clinicians from the County’s Behavioral Health Services (BHS).  BHS has been active with its Mobile Crisis Response Teams (MCRT) since January 2018.

Our government officials are to be applauded for these efforts to improve outcomes between police and citizens in mental health crisis.

But more should be done at a time when this issue has the public’s attention like seldom before, in large part because of the Black Lives Matter and defund-the-police movements.

The 2018 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) focused on this issue in its report, “Police and the Mentally Ill – Improving Outcomes.” The report states 31 individuals were killed in interactions with police agencies in our county from 2013-2017, nine of which were citizens undergoing a mental health crisis.

Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) exposes officers to the varied mental conditions that could be encountered and how to deescalate such encounters. The grand jury discovered that law enforcement agencies were providing CIT beyond the training received in the police academy. The CGJ report recommends that each law enforcement agency continue in their efforts to provide the additional CIT training to every officer. The CGJ report also recommends agencies activate MCRT teams and expand the use of these teams. Nearly every agency responded to the report by stating it intended to give additional CIT training to every officer.

Now, two years after that grand jury report, law enforcement has taken some positive steps, but concerns remain.

Positive developments include the BHS MCRT deployment. Currently there are six available MCRT teams to respond both to calls from a community help line and at the request of law enforcement. Calls for assistance can result in service referrals or field visits.

MCRT delivered 310 field visits in 2019, but the number of responses soared to 675 in the first nine months of 2020, based on a November 2020 status report to a Board of Supervisors subcommittee. Law enforcement made 386 referrals to MCRT in 2019 and 487 between January to September 2020. Nearly every police agency in the county utilized MCRT.

Not so positive is the number of deaths in police encounters. From June 2018 to October 2020, 11 citizens died at the hands of law enforcement in Santa Clara County, five of which involved factors of mental illness based on the website FatalEncounters.

Clearly, this must improve. Our association’s recent survey of selected law enforcement agencies showed incremental progress (Milpitas) and great progress (Gilroy, San Jose, Mountain View and the Sheriff) in exposing every officer to additional CIT training.

But troubling is the county’s decision more than a year ago to reduce Sheriff’s Office CIT training to a 24-hour course from 40 hours. The other major local CIT provider, San Jose PD, continues with a 40-hour course. It is our understanding that the class discussing the various kinds of mental conditions, previously presented by the professional organization NAMI, has been eliminated.

We, the Santa Clara County Grand Jury Association, fear this is the wrong direction for the times.

The Black Lives Matter movement catalyzed a re-examination of the role police should play when confronting persons in mental health crisis. An April study from a Stanford Law School policy practicum, Safety Beyond Policing: Promoting Care Over Criminalization, supports the use of mental health counselors rather than officers in many situations involving the homeless and mentally ill.

Police interactions with people in mental crisis will always be fraught with danger. But the numbers of persons in mental health crisis who die in incidents with law enforcement are still too high. The six MCRT teams are a great achievement, but having CIT trained officers can only increase good outcomes.

County law enforcement agencies must ensure all of their officers receive additional CIT training, while the county boosts funding and deployment for its MRCT teams.

San José Spotlight
Luis Sanchez, Michael Krey and Harry Oberhelman are members of the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jurors Association.
MAY 17, 2021

Q&A with Assemblyman Marc Berman Over Legislation to Change [Santa Clara County] VTA

 Blog note: This blog interview refers to Santa Clara County grand  jury reports

Note: GJEL Accident Attorneys regularly sponsors coverage on Streetsblog San Francisco and Streetsblog California. Unless noted in the story, GJEL Accident Attorneys is not consulted for the content or editorial direction of the sponsored content.

Following the recommendations of a 2019 Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report, Assemblymember Marc Berman introduced legislation earlier this year that would dramatically remake the Board of Directors for the Valley Transit Authority (VTA).

Streetsblogs California and San Francisco have been covering the legislation, but to provide a complete picture we offered the Assemblymember a chance to respond to a Q&A on VTA and the legislation. For more on the bill and the response to it, you can follow the rest of our coverage:

• State Legislation Would Reshape VTA Board, Streetsblog SF, March 2
• Legislative Update, Streetsblog CAL, March 5
• VTA Leaders Express Doubt About Legislation That Would Reshape Board, Streetsblog SF, March 11

Streetsblog: First, could you briefly describe AB 1091, what its goals are and how this legislation will help us get to those goals?

Marc Berman: AB 1091 makes a number of changes to the structure of the VTA Board of Directors. First, it reduces the overall size of the Board from 18 members (12 of whom are voting members) to nine voting members with no alternates. Second, the bill changes who serves on the board. Right now the VTA Board is a rotating group of elected officials: 10 city councilmembers and two members of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. AB 1091 would replace the elected officials on the board with qualified members of the public who have relevant expertise. These members would be appointed by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and city councilmembers. Lastly, AB 1091 would lengthen board members’ terms from two to four years.

Three Civil Grand Jury Reports over the last 17 years have concluded that VTA’s governance structure is a root cause of the agency’s poor performance and is in need of structural reform. The goal of AB 1091 is to create a board with an improved level of expertise and continuity, but additionally to reorient the board towards a regional focus—with board members thinking about the regional transportation network rather than the political interests of the cities or districts they represent. Taxpayers, transit riders, and VTA staff deserve a Board of Directors that has the time and expertise necessary to provide appropriate oversight and meet our region’s complex transportation needs.

SB: Why is now the best time to be considering this legislation?

MB: This legislation is long overdue. A Civil Grand Jury first recommended restructuring the VTA Board in 2004. The 2019 Civil Grand Jury concluded that many of the problems identified in 2004 remain and have only grown deeper. We cannot continue to ignore the structural problems with the VTA Board that have been identified by three Civil Grand Juries over 17 years. I understand that this is a difficult conversation to have, but it’s not serving transit riders, taxpayers, or VTA to keep putting the conversation off.

SB: Is there a plan to overcome the formal opposition from the VTA Board and cities such as San Jose and Cupertino?

MB: Ironically, San Jose opposes the bill because they fear it takes away their power, and some of the non-San Jose cities or local elected officials oppose the bill because they fear it gives San Jose too much power.

Although AB 1091 creates a VTA board that is smaller overall, it does not change the existing balance between how many members are appointed by San Jose and how many are appointed by the non-San Jose cities in the county. Currently, San Jose appoints five voting members to the Board and all other cities appoint five voting members. Under AB 1091, the City of San Jose would appoint two members and the other cities would appoint two members. The other five seats would be appointed by each member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, all of whom represent at least a portion of San Jose. Each Supervisor could appoint a member who lives in San Jose, leading to a VTA Board that could have seven members from San Jose and two members from the non-San Jose cities. I don’t think that will happen, but it’s possible under AB 1091. Regardless of where the Supervisorial appointments live, my hope is that the Supervisors who appoint them will vet them to make sure they see things through a less parochial and more regional approach.

I am open to amending the bill as I continue to hear feedback from stakeholders about how best to improve VTA governance, and I hope that those who oppose it will propose suggested amendments to the bill. That is, unless they believe the current governance structure is working well and they want to defend the performance of VTA, which has consistently ranked at or near the bottom of rankings against peer agencies in a host of performance metrics.

I understand that changing the governance structure will not solve all of the complex issues that VTA faces. But as I’ve said before, we all share the common goal of improving public transportation in Santa Clara County. I would hope that this is something that everyone—even current VTA board members who might have to give up a little personal political power in exchange for better governance—could agree with.

SB: The 2018-2019 Grand Jury report that helped lead to this legislation suggested a number of different options for reforming the membership, one of which was board elections similar to the BART Board model. Why did you choose a different possible reshaping (which was also an option in the report) to a direct election?

MB: I looked at a number of options for reforming VTA based on the recommendations of the most recent Grand Jury report, and I considered a directly elected model like BART. The directly elected model is very rare for transit boards in the United States, and I worry that a directly-elected board would perpetuate the type of parochial and political thinking that has been detrimental to VTA’s regional mission. With an appointed board, we can ensure that transportation-related expertise is represented on the board, and that folks who may be great board members but lack the means to run a political campaign are not excluded from serving.

Streetsblog
By Damien Newton
April 26, 2021

 

[Monterey County] Civil grand jury targets Monterey bike-path project

MONTEREY — An award-winning project along North Fremont Street in Monterey has come under fire by the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury, which has dubbed the project “a bike path to nowhere” in the report’s title.

The report’s key complaint is that the city failed to adequately inform the public of design changes relating to a bicycle path incorporated into the overall upgrades of North Fremont Street between Casa Verde Way and Canyon Del Rey, as well as not finishing the project’s vision when funding became scarce.

“The report by the Monterey Civil Grand Jury has been received by the city and we are preparing the required responses,” said Monterey City Manager Hans Uslar in an email Tuesday. “This award-winning project was completed below budget and followed a thorough public process, which kept stakeholders such as businesses and neighborhoods well informed. We are grateful that the report highlights these facts.

“We are looking forward to responding to the findings in order to help the civil grand jury to gain further insights into the success of this project,” Uslar said.

Indeed, Caltrans awarded the city with its “Excellence in Transportation” award last year for “providing safe, sustainable, integrated and sustainable transportation,” the state agency said in a statement.

The project, called the North Fremont Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project, was launched in 2014 with the idea of connecting the North Fremont bike path with the $31 million Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway, a 30-mile loop for walkers and bicyclists that is funded by a combination of state and local funding through the Transportation Agency for Monterey County.

As the North Fremont project design moved along, at some point the city of Monterey changed the bike path design from one where bicyclists share the street with traffic to one where bicyclists are physically protected from traffic. The grand jury believes the city should have better communicated that change with the public.

But as far back as 2017 and then again in 2018, the Monterey Herald reported on these design changes as well as the fact that budget overruns, which happen frequently in public works projects, resulted in the bike path not connecting to Canyon del Rey and instead stopped at Casanova Avenue.

The city is just waiting on a funding source to finish the connection, the grand jury report stated.

There are four types of bike paths recognized by Caltrans. The original design called for a Class 2 bike lane, which is the one where a  line is painted on the side of a street. But as the project moved forward the city decided to construct barriers between bicyclists and cars and run the lane between the traffic lanes.

That change drew criticism from some members of the public as voiced through letters to the editor in the Herald. Letters to the editor would indicate the public was aware of and involved in the process. The city held several meetings with neighborhood groups and others updating them on the design, including changes. The report even acknowledged that fact.

“The City of Monterey is to be commended for a comprehensive effort to communicate with local stakeholders, including the business community, neighborhood associations, and nearby residents domiciled near North Fremont throughout the planning and construction project,” the report reads.

The Herald reached out to the Monterey County Council’s Office requesting comment but a call was not immediately returned Tuesday.

The report also aimed at a May 2018 resolution to start construction, “but its language did not include anything stating the fact of that the City had changed the plan for construction of Class 4 bike lanes,” according to the report.

However, even as far back as September 2017, the Herald reported that “the plan itself includes the implementation of Class 4 bike lanes in the median of North Fremont Street and is intended to make the intersections between Casa Verde Way and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard both pedestrian-friendly and Americans with Disabilities Act compliant.”

Then again on May 3, 2018, the same month the report said the city failed to notify the broader population of the design change, the Herald reported that the “project, which will include the implementation of Class IV bike lanes in the median of North Fremont Street …”

The report, however, maintained that for there to be adequate communication with the public, designs should go before the city’s Architectural Review Committee so the public would have an opportunity to observe the process before coming before the City Council.

Finally, the report criticized the bike path portion of the project for only being “the tip of the iceberg,” because the project also included other badly needed infrastructure improvements, such as replacing storm drains, pedestrian crosswalks and improved stoplights.

Those improvements were also reported in the Herald in 2018.

At the end of the report, the findings included both compliments and criticisms of the way the project was communicated to the public and recommends:

• For all city projects that contain design elements, the city should hold public hearings before the Architectural Review Committee. This process should begin by Aug. 1,
• On future city projects, the governing body of record should approve revised resolutions to document changes to a project. This process should begin by Aug. 1.
• The city should begin holding public hearings before the Architectural Review Committee for their input on the Gap Project design. This should begin by Aug. 1,
• The city should create a maintenance plan addressing routine and long-term maintenance, as recommended by Caltrans.

Monterey Herald
Dennis L. Taylor | Reporter
May 5, 2021

Orange County had gaps in planning for pandemic, OC grand jury says

Although it has long had emergency plans in case of a pandemic, Orange County was not ready for COVID-19 and was slow to react in a number of ways that hampered its public heath response, the OC grand jury said in a report made public Wednesday, May 12.

The report criticized how the county responded to the pandemic on several fronts, including not having enough resources in place to carry out some of its existing plans.

County spokeswoman Molly Nichelson said the OC Health Care Agency and county leaders are aware of the report and will respond within the time frame laid out under the rules.

Orange County Supervisors Board Chairman Andrew Do said while an official answer will come later from the full board, he personally is proud of the county’s response to the pandemic, though he acknowledged some aspects could be improved.

In Orange County, grand jurors are volunteers who handle oversight of public agencies; they also consider indictments sought by prosecutors against suspects in major criminal investigations.

The grand jury reviewed various county emergency plans and state and national standards for such plans, as well as county budgets, stockpiles of masks and other protective equipment and contracts with community partners for COVID-19 outreach and services.

In the report, the grand jury made nine findings and six recommendations. Among key issues were:

• Some emergency plans were incomplete or not up to date when the pandemic struck, in some cases because planning efforts had been underfunded over time or the OC Health Care Agency’s financial and staff resources had been redirected to other parts of its mission.
• The county was slow to establish partnerships in the community to better serve some harder-to-reach or under-served populations, and creation of a vaccination task force and vaccine distribution plan could have happened earlier than it did, in September 2020.
• Although up to 45% of Orange County residents aren’t  proficient in English, until recently the county fell short at putting out information in other languages, and it didn’t provide enough resources in general to communicate effectively with the media or the community.

 

Recommendations included reviewing and updating preparedness plans within the next year; creating a committee within three months that would get a wider spectrum of the community involved in pandemic planning; and setting up a process to ensure vital information gets translated into key languages and that media resources are adequate.

“Although the Orange County Board of Supervisors declared a ‘pandemic’ in March 2020, the OCHCA has been unable to effectively implement and execute plans to respond to the current pandemic,” the report said, adding that if the problems aren’t addressed, “future pandemics will pose significant challenges for the residents of Orange County.”

The county has 90 days to respond to the report.

Do said the county was among the first public health agencies to reach out specifically to Latino communities when COVID-19 hot spots began to appear, and it also launched an initiative to reach Asian American and Pacific Islander residents fairly early on.

 While non-English options weren’t available when the vaccination app Othena rolled out, Supervisor Don Wagner said, “We were in the community” directly helping people get information and sign up for appointments.

 Wagner said it “could be a very fair complaint” that it was sometimes hard for media to get information and interviews with health agency officials in the initial months of the pandemic.

Some of the local deficiencies stemmed from the confusion, chaos and lack of resources that were seen far beyond Orange County, Do said.

News reports have pointed to shrinking funding and disappearing jobs in the public health field across the country, with an August 2020 article from the Associated Press and Kaiser Health News saying the system has been “starved for decades and lacks the resources to confront the worst health crisis in a century.

As of Wednesday, 5,023 Orange County residents have died from COVID-19 and more than 250,000 cases have been recorded among the county’s 3.2 million residents. Fewer than 100 people are currently hospitalized with the disease, but a spike in severe cases in late December and early January stretched OC hospitals so thin several set up outdoor field tents to hold extra beds.

Vaccination efforts struggled earlier this year because of lack of supply and logistical issues, but as of Sunday nearly 1.3 million residents were fully vaccinated and another 445,000 had gotten a first dose. As of Wednesday, state officials reported Orange County has surpassed having 50% of its residents at least partially vaccinated, and it reached that milestone head of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

“Were our efforts flawless? Clearly, clearly no,” Wagner said. “We’lI use this (grand jury report), I suspect, as a vehicle to hone our performance for the next crisis.”

Orange County Register
By Alicia Robinson
May 12, 2021

Do [Santa Clara] Grand Jury Reports Influence Change In Silicon Valley?

 

The Civil Grand Jury investigates complaints made by county residents, but not all complaints are investigated.

Santa Clara County's Civil Grand Jury for decades has attempted to improve government and investigate corruption, but whether it's meeting those goals isn't so clear.

The Civil Grand Jury investigates complaints made by county residents, but not all complaints are investigated—in fact, few are. Any resident can submit a complaint in person or on the county's website.

Once investigations are complete, 19 jurors present their findings to government agencies and come up with recommendations for improving issues. But those agencies aren't required to act on the recommendations. In fact, they can do nothing at all.

Between 2019-2020, the grand jury received 52 complaints and produced five investigative reports on topics such as conservatorships and gender gaps in local fire departments. Jurors also produced a continuity report, documenting the responses of the 2018-2019 reports and the progress on several reports from previous terms.

According to the report released in December, 11 recommendations from 2018-19 jury reports have been implemented and 23 are in the process of being carried out. Twenty three recommendations from the reports released that year will not be implemented, according to the report.

A summary of civil grand jury reports released in 2018-19 with responses and implemented changes listed, as well as recommendations that will not be implemented or need further analysis. Courtesy of Santa Clara County.

The most recent report focused on the lack of women firefighters in the county, citing hostile work environments and a conscious lack of recruitment. The report found that only 4% of local firefighters are women—far below the 17% target recommended by Women in Fire, an advocacy group.

Local cities pushed back on the jury's findings, and the jury has no legal authority to force change.

"Fire Stations 1, 2, and 5 have multiple dormitory rooms that can be assigned by gender," reads a letter from Mountain View officials, adding that other stations could not be retrofitted and therefore the recommendations would not happen.

So far, San Jose, Mountain View, Palo Alto and the county's central fire protection district are the only entities with listed responses to the reports. Each accepted some recommendations and disagreed or denied others.

Matt Tuttle, president of San Jose Fire Fighters Local 230 union, said systemic change will take time—and funding.

Five women are enrolled in this year's fire academy.

"That is the most we have seen in several years and the five new recruits are both paramedics and EMTs," Tuttle said.

The biggest challenge, he said, which will take the longest, is having a dedicated, well-funded recruitment budget.

Whether a report results in change is a mixed bag. In a 2017-2018 report on the business activities of the Alum Rock Union School District, the report called for the resignation of three of its board members.

The grand jury called out those trustees for allegedly pushing through a deal with construction company Del Terra and creating a conflict of interest by assigning the firm to both program manager and construction manager roles.

Jurors also alleged that the board violated the Brown Act, the state's open meeting law.

After the report was released, nothing happened. Three years later, the trustees named in the report either didn't run for office when up for re-election or were beaten by challengers.

"The public reacted but it took time," said a former grand jury member, who spoke to San José Spotlight on condition of anonymity.

Another 2020 grand jury report alleged that the San Jose Unified School District obscured lobbying activities carried out on its behalf and violated government ethics laws. The district opposed the majority of the jury's findings and refused to implement most suggested changes.

In a written response, district officials asked whether "the empaneled Grand Jury that prepared the report was behaving in the public's interest or was it searching for nonexistent evidence to support a pre-determined conclusion from a group of 'not-in-my-backyard' individuals who knew Grand Jury members."

Lack of diversity

Every year, the presiding judge from the superior court swears in 19 jurors and explains their duties.

Applicants must be 18 years old, citizens of the United States and cannot concurrently be serving as a trial juror. Applications for the next Civil Grand Jury will open this summer.

Last year, more than 100 applications were received for the 19 spots on the jury, with eight "hold over" applicants from 2019.

But despite Silicon Valley's rich diversity, the people lining up to serve on the jury are mostly older, white men.

Santa Clara County officials told San José Spotlight that racial data for the current jury is not available. Only data about applicants for this year's pool are documented and released, they said. Those numbers show applicants are nearly 70% white, 10% Asian, about 2% Black, and 5.5% Hispanic/Latino. The majority—60%—were also men.

According to the United States Census Bureau, only 30% of Santa Clara County residents are white alone. A quarter of the county's residents are Hispanic or Latino, 39% are of Asian descent and about 3% are Black.

Image courtesy of Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The most common age group to apply were residents ages 65 to 74 with 42 applications, followed by ages 55 to 64 with 33 applications.

The former jury member said it's "peculiar" that Santa Clara County claims it doesn't have race and gender information for its current members.

"It would seem to me that the court would have the info for any juror who chose to give out their racial background," the former member said.

In about two years on the Civil Grand Jury, the former member said there were only two African American jurors and one Latino juror.

The reason for the lack of racial diversity, the member believes, is economical.

 

Jurors are required to serve about 25 hours a week, according to the county's website, and only get paid $20 a day. That's why they aren't reaching communities of color and traditionally economically disadvantaged communities to get more representation on the jury, the member said.

"If you're asking someone to clear their calendar for two to three days a week and you're paying them $20 as a per diem, you really have to ask why is one of the wealthiest counties in the state paying an abysmal amount," the member said.

Civil Grand Jury Deputy Manager Britney Huelbig said the court tries to recruit grand juries that reflect a "representative cross-section of the community they serve."

"Those methods include obtaining recommendations for grand jurors who encompass a cross-section of the county's population base," Huelbig said, "solicited from a broad representation of community-based organizations, civic leaders and superior court judges, referees and commissioners, and having the court consider carry-over grand jury selections."

No particular background is necessary to be a grand juror, Huelbig said, and diversity of members "is one of the grand jury's greatest strengths."

But the former jury member said the low pay and time commitment tends to favor older, retired people.

"It's not something random or arbitrary," said William Armaline, director of the Human Rights Collaborative at San Jose State University. "It's supposed to be a jury of one's peers, that's the theoretical principle."

Equitable recruitment is especially difficult during the pandemic, Armaline said.

"Working class people are trying to find time to eat, maybe deal with their family and kids for more than five minutes at a time, pay their bills," Armaline said. He added that officials in the justice system are aware of it, but this is a "genuinely difficult problem."

Patch.com Campbell, CA
San Jose Spotlight, News Partner
By Madelyn Reese
May 13, 2021

[Sutter County] Grand Jury raises development concerns

Report: Officials could be jeopardizing future south Sutter County projects

The Sutter County Grand Jury is raising concerns that officials could be unknowingly jeopardizing development of the Sutter Pointe project and other future development opportunities in south Sutter County due to oversight involving an important conservancy board.

Sutter County and Sacramento each appoint five board members to serve on the nonprofit Natomas Basin Conservancy, which was established to oversee a conservancy plan focused on providing a balance between new development and habitat for 22 plants and wildlife species in a large area of land on the south Sutter County border – an area where plans are in place to develop an eventual city called Sutter Pointe.

The grand jury stated a lack of representation and poor communication by the county in recent years has allowed Sacramento to develop beyond the agreed borders within the conservation plan, and large tracts of land in Sutter County that could’ve been used for county development have now been acquired by the conservancy and other developers as mitigation lands for Sacramento development. Because of that, the grand jury stated it has concerns that there is not enough mitigation land available now for the development of the Sutter Pointe project, which is expected to be a major source of jobs and housing for Sutter County.

“The grand jury recommends that the Sutter County Board of Supervisors be kept fully informed about the Natomas Basin Conservancy plans concerning development impacting Sutter County and ensure full representation at each meeting,” the grand jury stated in the latest investigation’s summary released last week. “The board needs to challenge entities that impact Sutter County’s interest in the Natomas Basin area and should additionally renegotiate the conservation plan to keep the benefits laid out in the current plan for Sutter County.” 

Investigation
The grand jury received a complaint regarding the conservancy and the Sutter County Board of Supervisors’ lack of a response to complaints about the management of conservancy lands, which prompted the investigation that saw members review documents and meetings, and interview county staff and conservancy personnel.

Between August and October 2019, four conservancy board members who were local representatives resigned – some cited differences with management, another cited issues with the conservancy’s policy regarding land rents. The grand jury said proper attention to the resignations should have alerted the board to a potential issue at that time. Grand jury members also reviewed board agendas and couldn’t find evidence that supervisors reacted to the resignations at a meeting, or were even aware of the need to expedite selection of new members. Those interviewed cited a variety of reasons for the delay, one of which was that the process of selecting someone for the conservancy board was different from other board seats.

Sutter County staff that were interviewed were also unaware of who the county-appointed liaison was to the conservancy. The grand jury found little in-depth communication existed between the conservancy and the Sutter County Board of Supervisors in an official capacity.

The investigation also uncovered that Sacramento started development in an incorporated section of the Natomas Basin not shown as permitted development in the conservancy maps and therefore not approved under the conservation plan. With the city circumventing the conservation plan by starting a new development, the grand jury stated there is a need to reevaluate the conservancy plan, as the Sacramento project is using mitigation lands in Sutter County, which further reduces the development and mitigation land available for Sutter County.

With a finite amount of land available in the Natomas Basin for development and mitigation, Sacramento County is further complicating the matter as it has plans to develop two new areas in the basin that will require mitigation land. The original Natomas Basin agreement between the city, Sutter County, and the federal and state agencies concerned was for development of 17,500 acres – if one party exceeds its allotment then the other party’s allotment may be reduced to keep the overall development to 17,500 acres.

“If Sacramento County and the city are allowed to develop at their current rate then Sutter County will not have enough mitigation land to develop their allotment of 7,467 acres,” the grand jury stated. “...One thing is clear: Sacramento is growing faster than south Sutter County. Further development will cause the conservation plan to be reevaluated and Sutter County will inevitably lose current acreage for mitigation lands, as there is only a finite amount of land within these borders. Sutter County must act immediately to lessen the city of Sacramento’s control over mitigation in the basin or lose out on the opportunity to develop in that area.”

Findings/recommendations
The grand jury found that there was a serious communication breakdown between the conservancy, Sutter County officials and the county-appointed liaison, both in the time consuming and unclear method of selecting new board members and ensuring the local liaison representative was actively involved. Jury members found no evidence that the board was informed of the resignations, resulting in a lack of corrective measures being taken to ease concerns about the conservancy’s management and the county’s development interests. Also, past board of directors at the conservancy approved risky investments of Sutter County mitigation funds, which are still in place and could lead to financial problems in the future.

The grand jury also found that commissions representing the city of Sacramento (LAFCO) ignored objections from Sutter County on developing outside conservation plan borders and proceeded with development, which jeopardizes the plan requiring renegotiation and impacting development in south Sutter County. Also, current plans for development in Sacramento County, which is not a member of the conservancy, could disrupt plans for development in the Natomas Basin.

They recommended Sutter County supervisors immediately create a procedure to receive briefings of any letters of resignation sent to the board and have the information relayed during public meetings for full transparency. They asked that the board direct the county administrative officer to create a board and commission appointment procedure that is consistent for all boards and commissions to be completed within a set timeframe. Procedures should also be set up by the board to receive regular annual updates from the conservancy on the impacts of all development in the area within the next 90 days.

The grand jury also recommended the board immediately direct its members to the conservancy board of directors to investigate management of the conservancy endowment fund investments and change procedures to minimize financial impact on Sutter County, as well as immediately start proceedings to renegotiate the plan with Sacramento and other permittees to remediate the encroachment done by the city and its impact on wildlife in the new plan – they stated Sacramento County should be included in its negotiations for a comprehensive conservation plan for the Natomas Basin. Lastly, they recommended supervisors direct county staff to prepare a letter for signatures clarifying their position to both Sacramento County and Sacramento objecting to development not meeting the conservation plan.

To view the latest investigation released by the Sutter County Grand Jury, visit https://bit.ly/2QZZ1of. The report regarding development in south Sutter County is the second report released by the 2020/21 Sutter County Grand Jury. A final report is expected to be released in late June or early July.

Appeal-Democrat
By Jake Abbott jabbott@appealdemocrat.com
May 11, 2021