Virginia Chang Kiraly hates waste. As the forewoman of the San Mateo Civil Grand Jury, she has investigated wasteful spending in the county for the past two years and has weighed in on many other issues.
As the civil grand jury releases its last report of the year today, Chang Kiraly hopes its recommendations will be acted upon.
The civil grand jury, a volunteer group, released 16 reports and one advisory letter this year on topics ranging from garbage contracts, county lands and agriculture, field use at schools, fire alarms and election reform.
Responses to its reports are beginning to return, but it is the grand jury’s report and advice on election reform, however, that Chang Kiraly, 45, hopes will have the biggest county impact.
On June 24, the civil grand jury released a report urging the Board of Supervisors to hold special elections rather than appoint a replacement as it did after Jerry Hill left the board to pursue 19th District state Assembly seat.
The civil grand jury recommended the board allow voters a choice on whether to amend the County Charter so elections will be held to fill a vacated supervisor’s seat if the term remaining is one year or more.
The civil grand jury came to that conclusion after investigating the appointment of Carole Groom, a former San Mateo councilwoman.
People who fill vacancies have the possibility of extended term limits and every incumbent seeking re-election to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors has been re-elected 100 percent of the time since 1980, the civil grand jury reported.
A week later, the civil grand jury released an advisory letter urging the Board of Supervisors to allow voters to decide whether the county should change the way it elects its supervisors.
The civil grand jury is recommending the county elect its supervisors by district election. San Mateo County is the only county in the state that does not elect its supervisors by district election.
Currently, a supervisor candidate in San Mateo County must live in the district he or she represents but must compete across the county for votes.
“This allows a supervisor to be elected to the board when in fact the candidate didn’t even win in his own district,” Chang Kiraly said.
The Board of Supervisors has five seats and two of them have been appointed — Carole Groom in 2008 and Rose Jacobs Gibson in 1999.
“That represents 40 percent of the board,” Chang Kiraly said. “Once appointed, they are almost guaranteed 14 years of service on the board and they have an advantage over other candidates when they actually run for the office for the first time because they can call themselves an incumbent.”
Too many people make important decisions on who to vote for based on name recognition, she said.
“Districtwide elections would create thoughtful debate in the community. Something lacking in the county,” Chang Kiraly said.
The county opted not to hold a special election after Hill vacated his supervisor’s seat. The board cited the high price of an election as a reason for the appointment.
But the civil grand jury stated that price should not impede the democratic process.
“There were 11 people who applied for the job. But the public didn’t get a chance to hear from any one of them. The public should be able to decide who its leaders should be,” she said.
Chang Kiraly just finished up her second term on the civil grand jury. Jurors are compensated about $15 a day and meet twice a month.
The civil grand jury typically has 19 members and must have at least 12 members approve a report before it is released to the public.
Chang Kiraly lives in unincorporated Menlo Park with her husband and two children. She is a University of Texas graduate and has a background in finance and economics.
She ran unsuccessfully for state Assembly in 2006 and intends on running for a school board seat in the Sequoia Union High School District this year.
She was also appointed to the California Commission on Economic Development by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=113093
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Shasta County Grand Jury report touches wide variety of topics
Redding drew strong Shasta County grand jury criticism for failing to build a police station as the panel had recommended three years ago.
The grand jury report, released Monday, urges the city to move the police department out of its cramped, leaking, 61-year-old California Street headquarters temporarily to a safer building.
Meanwhile, the city should quickly move to build or retrofit a larger police station, jurors said.
"Ultimately, it is the city council that is responsible for seeing that the facilities used by RPD are safe, modern and efficient," jurors wrote. "In the past 21 years, the various city councils have failed in meeting that responsibility."
City Manager Kurt Starman declined to comment Monday on the report, saying state law forbids him from saying anything before the document's official release.
Other Shasta County officials were willing to comment Monday.
The report reserves its sharpest barbs for the Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control District, where the grand jury found mismanagement and questionable compensation to a retiring manager.
The report also recommends that:
•Redding tighten its computer security, phase out old software and toughen computer use policy against abuses like those leading to resignation or discipline for eight employees in 2007 for exchanging personal and sometimes pornographic e-mail during working hours.
•The Shasta County Sheriff's Office better account for items in its property/evidence storage building, where 75 percent of the material could be removed since the cases have already been processed.
•Shasta County Adult Protective Services improve training and tracking for its social workers, who sometimes go to remote places where they encounter potentially dangerous situations.
•Shasta County codify its purchase procedures.
Thousands of hours
All told, the grand jury completed 14 reports and recommended improvements in 11 cases.
Superior Court Judge Stephen Baker on Monday praised the jurors for the "thousands of hours" they put into the report.
Not all the jury reports level heavy criticism.
One investigative report, first released in March, generally praises Redding's red light camera program as effective in deterring scofflaws and preventing accidents.
Redding Police Department's system for dealing with complaints against officers generally works as it should, according to the report. The jury recommends only that RPD allow people to file complaints online.
Finally, in another report released earlier this year, the grand jury commends the Shasta County Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measure for its gasoline pump testing.
Redding police station: "Enough study! "
The 2005/2006 grand jury found that RPD’s California Street headquarters downtown is too small. Exposed wiring, cramped work cubicles, congested locker rooms and inadequate handicap access compromise employee and public safety.
That report recommended the city switch from funding recreational projects to public safety and, if necessary, seek a seven-year, half-percent sales tax hike to help fund a new police station.
"A sales tax increase was never placed on the ballot, nor was a new RPD facility build, despite ample funds to construct other city projects over the past 10 years, " the current report states.
Conditions at headquarters have gotten worse over the past four years, according to the report, noting recent problems with a backed-up sewer line and a leaky roof that the city must soon replace.
Redding’s Safety Inspection Team in September flagged several potential Occupational Safety and Health Act violations at RPD headquarters that could expose the city to liability, the report noted. Only some of those violations have been corrected, according to the report.
The City Council in early 2008 appointed a committee to study how Redding could finance a police station large enough for the force out through mid-century. The committee recommended tapping a number of funds, including a sales tax hike.
The council rejected the idea of raising the sales tax to help pay for a new police building.
Earlier this year, the council directed a consultant to prepare a report comparing the cost of building a police station from scratch near City Hall and retrofitting a shampoo plant in north Redding just west of the Highway 273/Interstate 5 interchange.
Despite this activity, the city is moving too slowly, the grand jury charges, saying lack of funds is not an excuse.
Redding should draw down general fund reserves or borrow from other reserves to build or retrofit for a new police station, the report recommends.
Starman has strongly recommended against drawing down fund reserves for any purpose, noting the city must keep a cash cushion for fiscal emergencies.
Insufficient evidence to support Mountain Gate allegations
The Mountain Gate Community Services District came under grand jury scrutiny after allegations surfaced that a board member threatened residents with a lawsuit unless they removed their names from a recall petition.
But jurors could not find sufficient evidence that the threats had been made, according to the report.
"When questioned, residents denied being intimidated or said the issue was resolved to their satisfaction," the report stated.
The grand jury did discover conflicts within the Mountain Gate board, between board members and district employees and between board members and community residents.
The recall petition sparked by board infighting ultimately cost the district nearly $10,000, according to the report.
The grand jury criticized district officers for failing to control audience participation and tolerating outbursts during board meetings.
The district has not completed a municipal service review, which prevents it from expanding its services or service area, the report found. Jurors issued 13 recommendations to improve district operation.
Sheriff's handling of surrendered guns scrutinized
The grand jury investigated a compliant about three handguns that were surrendered to the Shasta County Sheriff's Office by a man put under a restraining order.
Through a "series of missteps," according to the report, the office sold the guns at auction before the man could reclaim them. The Shasta County Risk Management Office then denied the man reimbursement for the guns.
The grand jury recommends that the sheriff's property unit check law enforcement databases before setting guns for auction and log any inquires made by property owners.
Sheriff Tom Bosenko said that during the grand jury's investigation, he recommended that the risk management office reopen the case. It did and Bosenko said the sheriff's office reimbursed the complainant for the reasonable market price for the three guns.
"It was obvious that those guns shouldn't have been sold," Bosenko said Monday after receiving the grand jury report.
Overflowing evidence
The sheriff's property and evidence hold is overflowing with both, according to the grand jury report.
Property and evidence, "from drugs and guns to blood-stained clothing," is "stacked and shelved from the floor to the ceiling in several rooms and hallways," according to the report. The hold has close to 100,000 individual items.
The grand jury recommends that the Sheriff's Office conduct regular audits of property and evidence in the hold, that its personnel assigned to the hold receive ongoing training, and that it develop a plan for disposing of property and evidence that doesn't need to be stored any more.
Sheriff Bosenko said his office is reviewing those recommendations. He said the office has property and evidence dating back to the 1980s that no longer needs to be stored. He said the problem has been finding time for employees to check the outcome of old court cases while also doing their daily duties of processing new property and evidence.
"It’s very detail oriented," Bosenko said.
District Attorney Jerry Benito said his office switched to an automated system that flags cases that have evidence held with the sheriff’s office in April. When the cases are complete an electronic message is sent to the attorney, telling him or her to send a letter to the sheriff’s hold.
"It’s one of those things that can be remedied," Benito said.
Reporter Scott Mobley can be reached at 225-8220 or at smobley@redding.com.
Reporter Jim Schultz can be reached at 225-8223 or at jschultz@redding.com.
Reporter Dylan Darling can be reached at 225-8266 or at ddarling@redding.com.
http://www.redding.com/news/2009/jul/07/grand-jury-report-touches-wide-variety-of-topics/
The grand jury report, released Monday, urges the city to move the police department out of its cramped, leaking, 61-year-old California Street headquarters temporarily to a safer building.
Meanwhile, the city should quickly move to build or retrofit a larger police station, jurors said.
"Ultimately, it is the city council that is responsible for seeing that the facilities used by RPD are safe, modern and efficient," jurors wrote. "In the past 21 years, the various city councils have failed in meeting that responsibility."
City Manager Kurt Starman declined to comment Monday on the report, saying state law forbids him from saying anything before the document's official release.
Other Shasta County officials were willing to comment Monday.
The report reserves its sharpest barbs for the Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control District, where the grand jury found mismanagement and questionable compensation to a retiring manager.
The report also recommends that:
•Redding tighten its computer security, phase out old software and toughen computer use policy against abuses like those leading to resignation or discipline for eight employees in 2007 for exchanging personal and sometimes pornographic e-mail during working hours.
•The Shasta County Sheriff's Office better account for items in its property/evidence storage building, where 75 percent of the material could be removed since the cases have already been processed.
•Shasta County Adult Protective Services improve training and tracking for its social workers, who sometimes go to remote places where they encounter potentially dangerous situations.
•Shasta County codify its purchase procedures.
Thousands of hours
All told, the grand jury completed 14 reports and recommended improvements in 11 cases.
Superior Court Judge Stephen Baker on Monday praised the jurors for the "thousands of hours" they put into the report.
Not all the jury reports level heavy criticism.
One investigative report, first released in March, generally praises Redding's red light camera program as effective in deterring scofflaws and preventing accidents.
Redding Police Department's system for dealing with complaints against officers generally works as it should, according to the report. The jury recommends only that RPD allow people to file complaints online.
Finally, in another report released earlier this year, the grand jury commends the Shasta County Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measure for its gasoline pump testing.
Redding police station: "Enough study! "
The 2005/2006 grand jury found that RPD’s California Street headquarters downtown is too small. Exposed wiring, cramped work cubicles, congested locker rooms and inadequate handicap access compromise employee and public safety.
That report recommended the city switch from funding recreational projects to public safety and, if necessary, seek a seven-year, half-percent sales tax hike to help fund a new police station.
"A sales tax increase was never placed on the ballot, nor was a new RPD facility build, despite ample funds to construct other city projects over the past 10 years, " the current report states.
Conditions at headquarters have gotten worse over the past four years, according to the report, noting recent problems with a backed-up sewer line and a leaky roof that the city must soon replace.
Redding’s Safety Inspection Team in September flagged several potential Occupational Safety and Health Act violations at RPD headquarters that could expose the city to liability, the report noted. Only some of those violations have been corrected, according to the report.
The City Council in early 2008 appointed a committee to study how Redding could finance a police station large enough for the force out through mid-century. The committee recommended tapping a number of funds, including a sales tax hike.
The council rejected the idea of raising the sales tax to help pay for a new police building.
Earlier this year, the council directed a consultant to prepare a report comparing the cost of building a police station from scratch near City Hall and retrofitting a shampoo plant in north Redding just west of the Highway 273/Interstate 5 interchange.
Despite this activity, the city is moving too slowly, the grand jury charges, saying lack of funds is not an excuse.
Redding should draw down general fund reserves or borrow from other reserves to build or retrofit for a new police station, the report recommends.
Starman has strongly recommended against drawing down fund reserves for any purpose, noting the city must keep a cash cushion for fiscal emergencies.
Insufficient evidence to support Mountain Gate allegations
The Mountain Gate Community Services District came under grand jury scrutiny after allegations surfaced that a board member threatened residents with a lawsuit unless they removed their names from a recall petition.
But jurors could not find sufficient evidence that the threats had been made, according to the report.
"When questioned, residents denied being intimidated or said the issue was resolved to their satisfaction," the report stated.
The grand jury did discover conflicts within the Mountain Gate board, between board members and district employees and between board members and community residents.
The recall petition sparked by board infighting ultimately cost the district nearly $10,000, according to the report.
The grand jury criticized district officers for failing to control audience participation and tolerating outbursts during board meetings.
The district has not completed a municipal service review, which prevents it from expanding its services or service area, the report found. Jurors issued 13 recommendations to improve district operation.
Sheriff's handling of surrendered guns scrutinized
The grand jury investigated a compliant about three handguns that were surrendered to the Shasta County Sheriff's Office by a man put under a restraining order.
Through a "series of missteps," according to the report, the office sold the guns at auction before the man could reclaim them. The Shasta County Risk Management Office then denied the man reimbursement for the guns.
The grand jury recommends that the sheriff's property unit check law enforcement databases before setting guns for auction and log any inquires made by property owners.
Sheriff Tom Bosenko said that during the grand jury's investigation, he recommended that the risk management office reopen the case. It did and Bosenko said the sheriff's office reimbursed the complainant for the reasonable market price for the three guns.
"It was obvious that those guns shouldn't have been sold," Bosenko said Monday after receiving the grand jury report.
Overflowing evidence
The sheriff's property and evidence hold is overflowing with both, according to the grand jury report.
Property and evidence, "from drugs and guns to blood-stained clothing," is "stacked and shelved from the floor to the ceiling in several rooms and hallways," according to the report. The hold has close to 100,000 individual items.
The grand jury recommends that the Sheriff's Office conduct regular audits of property and evidence in the hold, that its personnel assigned to the hold receive ongoing training, and that it develop a plan for disposing of property and evidence that doesn't need to be stored any more.
Sheriff Bosenko said his office is reviewing those recommendations. He said the office has property and evidence dating back to the 1980s that no longer needs to be stored. He said the problem has been finding time for employees to check the outcome of old court cases while also doing their daily duties of processing new property and evidence.
"It’s very detail oriented," Bosenko said.
District Attorney Jerry Benito said his office switched to an automated system that flags cases that have evidence held with the sheriff’s office in April. When the cases are complete an electronic message is sent to the attorney, telling him or her to send a letter to the sheriff’s hold.
"It’s one of those things that can be remedied," Benito said.
Reporter Scott Mobley can be reached at 225-8220 or at smobley@redding.com.
Reporter Jim Schultz can be reached at 225-8223 or at jschultz@redding.com.
Reporter Dylan Darling can be reached at 225-8266 or at ddarling@redding.com.
http://www.redding.com/news/2009/jul/07/grand-jury-report-touches-wide-variety-of-topics/
Grand jury report disputed by Orosi Public Utility District board members
Officials' replacement decision may violate spirit of open-meeting law
BY VALERIE GIBBONS • vgibbons@visalia.gannett.com • July 7, 2009
Board members for the Orosi Public Utilities District are rebutting what they call an unfair grand jury report accusing them of violating the spirit of open-meetings laws.
An attorney for the district blasted the jury's findings in a response to its final report, which was made public June 27. The grand jury took issue with the appointment of Leonard Hutchinson to the utility district board after board member Manuel Cerda resigned suddenly on Jan. 8, 2008.
Cerda announced his resignation, stepped down and immediately took a seat in the audience, according to the meeting's minutes. The board's counsel, Colleen Carlson, advised the panel that it had two choices: appoint a member or have a representative chosen in a special election.
The board voted at that same meeting to appoint Cerda's replacement. Three members of the 2007 grand jury were in the audience at the Jan. 8 meeting.
Board members advertised the vacancy for a month and accepted applications at their next meeting a month later. On Feb. 12, the board appointed Leonard Hutchinson who had lost a 2007 election to Cerda by 10 votes to fill the vacant position.
"While the letter of the law concerning the addition of an item to the Jan. 8 meeting agenda may have been observed, the spirit of the law which demands openness was not," the grand jury wrote in its final report. "Nothing would have been lost by dealing with the replacement appointment at a later meeting. Board members need to operate with transparency and cooperation among themselves and with the district."
But Carlson, the district's legal counsel, disagrees. She said she was surprised by the grand jury's recommendation after all of the interviews and material she had provided it.
"I don't know how they came to that conclusion," she said. "They had all of the documentation. Somehow they didn't connect all of the dots."
Emergency or no?
California's open-meetings law requires a majority of the board to determine that an emergency situation exists before a board can act on an item not on the agenda. Absent an emergency, the law requires agendas to be posted at least 72 hours before a regular meeting of the legislative body of a local agency.
Carlson said the board had to make a decision at the January 2008 meeting because local elections officials had to be notified whether the seat would be filled by an appointee or by a special election.
"It was urgent that they chose which process they would use," she said.
The attorney said she has filed an official response and is waiting on word from the county counsel's office as to where the responses will be posted publicly. All responses from the other agencies investigated by this year's grand jury are required within 60 days.
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20090707/NEWS01/907070319/1002/Grand-jury-report-disputed-by-Orosi-Public-Utility-District-board-members
BY VALERIE GIBBONS • vgibbons@visalia.gannett.com • July 7, 2009
Board members for the Orosi Public Utilities District are rebutting what they call an unfair grand jury report accusing them of violating the spirit of open-meetings laws.
An attorney for the district blasted the jury's findings in a response to its final report, which was made public June 27. The grand jury took issue with the appointment of Leonard Hutchinson to the utility district board after board member Manuel Cerda resigned suddenly on Jan. 8, 2008.
Cerda announced his resignation, stepped down and immediately took a seat in the audience, according to the meeting's minutes. The board's counsel, Colleen Carlson, advised the panel that it had two choices: appoint a member or have a representative chosen in a special election.
The board voted at that same meeting to appoint Cerda's replacement. Three members of the 2007 grand jury were in the audience at the Jan. 8 meeting.
Board members advertised the vacancy for a month and accepted applications at their next meeting a month later. On Feb. 12, the board appointed Leonard Hutchinson who had lost a 2007 election to Cerda by 10 votes to fill the vacant position.
"While the letter of the law concerning the addition of an item to the Jan. 8 meeting agenda may have been observed, the spirit of the law which demands openness was not," the grand jury wrote in its final report. "Nothing would have been lost by dealing with the replacement appointment at a later meeting. Board members need to operate with transparency and cooperation among themselves and with the district."
But Carlson, the district's legal counsel, disagrees. She said she was surprised by the grand jury's recommendation after all of the interviews and material she had provided it.
"I don't know how they came to that conclusion," she said. "They had all of the documentation. Somehow they didn't connect all of the dots."
Emergency or no?
California's open-meetings law requires a majority of the board to determine that an emergency situation exists before a board can act on an item not on the agenda. Absent an emergency, the law requires agendas to be posted at least 72 hours before a regular meeting of the legislative body of a local agency.
Carlson said the board had to make a decision at the January 2008 meeting because local elections officials had to be notified whether the seat would be filled by an appointee or by a special election.
"It was urgent that they chose which process they would use," she said.
The attorney said she has filed an official response and is waiting on word from the county counsel's office as to where the responses will be posted publicly. All responses from the other agencies investigated by this year's grand jury are required within 60 days.
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20090707/NEWS01/907070319/1002/Grand-jury-report-disputed-by-Orosi-Public-Utility-District-board-members
Calaveras County Grand jury looks into jail property financing method
By Claudette Langley
Posted: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 10:23 AM CDT
July's grand jury report was decidedly less explosive than last year's, which heavily criticized several county departments, the big question raised this year concerned financing for the jail property.
The grand jury looked into the use of certificates of participation to purchase about 58 acres of land that will house the county's new criminal justice center, which includes a new courthouse, a new detention facility and a new sheriff's administration building.
“A certificate of participation is a method of funding used by governing agencies for construction or improvement of public facilities,” the grand jury report reads.
The report goes on to say COPs do not constitute public debt and therefore do not require voter approval.”
The grand jury findings include, that without a public vote, the county has assumed an obligation of $14,645,749 with a 30-year payback schedule; the cost of issuance and underwriting discount for the COP was $253,454 and that there appears to be little understanding or awareness of this type of financing on the part of the public.
The $14.6 million figure contained in the grand jury report may have led some residents to believe it was the cost for the purchase of the property, however, according to Assistant County Administrator Shirley Ryan, it is actually the cost to pay back the $7.7 million that was raised by the sale of COPs.
For the complete story, see Tuesday’s print edition of the Calaveras Enterprise or our e-Edition online. You can subscribe to e-Edition by clicking this link: e_Edition. View the whole paper online anytime in a digital format. If you already subscribe to the print version of the Calaveras Enterprise you can register for a password and get e-Edition access for free.
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/articles/2009/07/07/news/news02_jury.txt
Posted: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 10:23 AM CDT
July's grand jury report was decidedly less explosive than last year's, which heavily criticized several county departments, the big question raised this year concerned financing for the jail property.
The grand jury looked into the use of certificates of participation to purchase about 58 acres of land that will house the county's new criminal justice center, which includes a new courthouse, a new detention facility and a new sheriff's administration building.
“A certificate of participation is a method of funding used by governing agencies for construction or improvement of public facilities,” the grand jury report reads.
The report goes on to say COPs do not constitute public debt and therefore do not require voter approval.”
The grand jury findings include, that without a public vote, the county has assumed an obligation of $14,645,749 with a 30-year payback schedule; the cost of issuance and underwriting discount for the COP was $253,454 and that there appears to be little understanding or awareness of this type of financing on the part of the public.
The $14.6 million figure contained in the grand jury report may have led some residents to believe it was the cost for the purchase of the property, however, according to Assistant County Administrator Shirley Ryan, it is actually the cost to pay back the $7.7 million that was raised by the sale of COPs.
For the complete story, see Tuesday’s print edition of the Calaveras Enterprise or our e-Edition online. You can subscribe to e-Edition by clicking this link: e_Edition. View the whole paper online anytime in a digital format. If you already subscribe to the print version of the Calaveras Enterprise you can register for a password and get e-Edition access for free.
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/articles/2009/07/07/news/news02_jury.txt
Tehama County Animal Shelter gets good report
By GEOFF JOHNSON -DN Staff Writer
Posted: 07/08/2009 07:33:10 AM PDT
Updated: 07/08/2009 09:07:35 AM PDT
An investigation by the Tehama County 2008-2009 Grand Jury into the Tehama County Animal Shelter not only gave the shelter a glowing review, but may result in a policy targeting the source of the complaint that prompted the investigation.
The Grand Jury, a group of Tehama County citizens picked by Tehama County Superior Court Presiding Judge Dennis Murray from a random pool of residents, is convened each year to investigate local government agencies.
When a county employee voiced concern over Animal Shelter Manager Scott Alsteen's education and the lack of an on-site premise permit from the Veterinary Medical Board, the jury added the shelter to its list of agencies to investigate.
The jury concluded that Alsteen has education sufficient for the job and said he has addressed the second complaint by obtaining an on-site premise permit from the state.
The report maintains Alsteen has done an excellent job in refining the Animal Services department, having lowered the canine kill rate from 22.7 percent in 2004 to 15.5 percent in 2007 and the feline kill ratio from 63.8 percent in 2004 to 52.6 percent in 2007.
The source, identified only as a female Tehama County employee, allegedly has a history of using a county computer and county e-mail address to complain about Alsteen.
The jury recommends a new policy prohibiting the use of county computers, e-mail addresses and working time to manage personal business, a policy the county is now required to evaluate.
If the policy is rejected, the county will have to present its rationale for doing so to the 2009-2010 Grand Jury.
The report also commends Alsteen for:
* Switching from cat litter to allergen-free wood pellets
* Using a biodegradable enzyme sanitizer to break down the odor of cat waste
* No longer using cheap, damaged or donated dog food, resulting in healthier animals
* Increasing the number of volunteers from 3 to 80
* Recruiting 11 Tehama County veterinarians to assist the shelter, seven of whom will perform free post-adoption exams
* Being quick to assist the staff in all aspects of the shelter and putting the staff's mental and physical well-being first at all times .
The only problems found at the Animal Shelter were an aging concrete drainage system, an exercise yard and lack of video surveillance at the north and west sides of the facility, all which the county will also be required to evaluate or explain to the 2009-2010 Grand Jury.
-----
Staff Writer Geoff Johnson can be reached at 527-2153, extension 114, or at gjohnson@redbluffdailynews.com
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_12775927?nclick_check=1
Posted: 07/08/2009 07:33:10 AM PDT
Updated: 07/08/2009 09:07:35 AM PDT
An investigation by the Tehama County 2008-2009 Grand Jury into the Tehama County Animal Shelter not only gave the shelter a glowing review, but may result in a policy targeting the source of the complaint that prompted the investigation.
The Grand Jury, a group of Tehama County citizens picked by Tehama County Superior Court Presiding Judge Dennis Murray from a random pool of residents, is convened each year to investigate local government agencies.
When a county employee voiced concern over Animal Shelter Manager Scott Alsteen's education and the lack of an on-site premise permit from the Veterinary Medical Board, the jury added the shelter to its list of agencies to investigate.
The jury concluded that Alsteen has education sufficient for the job and said he has addressed the second complaint by obtaining an on-site premise permit from the state.
The report maintains Alsteen has done an excellent job in refining the Animal Services department, having lowered the canine kill rate from 22.7 percent in 2004 to 15.5 percent in 2007 and the feline kill ratio from 63.8 percent in 2004 to 52.6 percent in 2007.
The source, identified only as a female Tehama County employee, allegedly has a history of using a county computer and county e-mail address to complain about Alsteen.
The jury recommends a new policy prohibiting the use of county computers, e-mail addresses and working time to manage personal business, a policy the county is now required to evaluate.
If the policy is rejected, the county will have to present its rationale for doing so to the 2009-2010 Grand Jury.
The report also commends Alsteen for:
* Switching from cat litter to allergen-free wood pellets
* Using a biodegradable enzyme sanitizer to break down the odor of cat waste
* No longer using cheap, damaged or donated dog food, resulting in healthier animals
* Increasing the number of volunteers from 3 to 80
* Recruiting 11 Tehama County veterinarians to assist the shelter, seven of whom will perform free post-adoption exams
* Being quick to assist the staff in all aspects of the shelter and putting the staff's mental and physical well-being first at all times .
The only problems found at the Animal Shelter were an aging concrete drainage system, an exercise yard and lack of video surveillance at the north and west sides of the facility, all which the county will also be required to evaluate or explain to the 2009-2010 Grand Jury.
-----
Staff Writer Geoff Johnson can be reached at 527-2153, extension 114, or at gjohnson@redbluffdailynews.com
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_12775927?nclick_check=1
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Editorial: San Bernardino Grand Jury Has Good Advice
CASSIE MACDUFF
You've got to hand it to the recently adjourned 2008-09 San Bernardino County grand jury.
It identified the county's chronic ethical problems as warranting an entire, separate section in the grand jury report, which is usually organized by dry divisions: administrative, audit/fiscal, human services, law and justice and the like.
The new section is called "governmental reform." Its recommendations include campaign contribution limits for county supervisors, monthly rather than yearly filing of gift reports by top county officials, and an ethics commission to act as watchdog.
It's up to future grand juries whether they continue the practice of recommending governmental reforms, but 2008-09 grand jury foreman Burrel Woodring told me he hopes they do.
It might help save millions of dollars spent on lawyers, as the county has done in recent years.
Here's my take on the grand jury's governmental reform recommendations:
Contribution limits: Some of the supervisors already are expressing skepticism about limiting the amount of money that people and political action committees can give to campaigns.
They say it would give an advantage to wealthy people who can fund their own campaigns. And the grand jury itself pointed out that earlier efforts to limit campaign contributions ran afoul of the First Amendment.
So why not attack the conflict-of-interest problem from the other end: Bar supervisors from voting on matters that benefit their campaign contributors who give over a certain amount, say $500? It avoids trampling the First Amendment and doesn't favor wealthy candidates. Many elected bodies do it.
Burt Southard, spokesman for Board of Supervisors Chairman Gary Ovitt, said that approach is being considered.
Form 700s: These so-called statements of economic interest are only filed once a year by state law (commendably, the county posts them online). The grand jury recommends monthly filing. Nobody knows how much that will cost.
If monthly filing proves too expensive, why not quarterly? It would be often enough to keep officials from forgetting gifts and trips they've received but cut the cost by 75 percent. Southard said that is being considered, too.
Ethics commission: It's a great idea, but the price tag -- $500,000 -- seems excessive, especially given that the economic crisis is forcing spending cuts everywhere.
The county already is spending a lot of money on ethics. The post of "ethics resource officer" was created in 2002 with pay of about $57,000 a year. The first ethics officer lasted 3½ years.
The position morphed into "chief county compliance and ethics officer" in 2006, at a salary between $88,000 and $113,000.
The first person to hold that title lasted two years.
Her successor was paid between $98,000 and $125,000. He retired after one year. By then the office had added an assistant at $66,000 to $84,000.
Despite the spiraling costs, county officials' ethics don't seem to have improved measurably.
Many of the questionable things that have happened were approved by the Board of Supervisors:
Then-Assessor Bill Postmus' larding of his office with seven political appointees;
Supervisor-elect Neil Derry's 90-day, $101,343 transition staff;
Former Purchasing Director Jim Lindley's promotion to public health director with no experience or training in public health.
All the ethics officers and ethics commissioners in the world can't impart good judgment on people who are impervious to the lesson.
Cassie MacDuff can be reached at 951-368-9470 or cmacduff@PE.com
http://www.pe.com/columns/cassiemacduff/stories/PE_News_Local_N_ncass08.47b22bf.html
You've got to hand it to the recently adjourned 2008-09 San Bernardino County grand jury.
It identified the county's chronic ethical problems as warranting an entire, separate section in the grand jury report, which is usually organized by dry divisions: administrative, audit/fiscal, human services, law and justice and the like.
The new section is called "governmental reform." Its recommendations include campaign contribution limits for county supervisors, monthly rather than yearly filing of gift reports by top county officials, and an ethics commission to act as watchdog.
It's up to future grand juries whether they continue the practice of recommending governmental reforms, but 2008-09 grand jury foreman Burrel Woodring told me he hopes they do.
It might help save millions of dollars spent on lawyers, as the county has done in recent years.
Here's my take on the grand jury's governmental reform recommendations:
Contribution limits: Some of the supervisors already are expressing skepticism about limiting the amount of money that people and political action committees can give to campaigns.
They say it would give an advantage to wealthy people who can fund their own campaigns. And the grand jury itself pointed out that earlier efforts to limit campaign contributions ran afoul of the First Amendment.
So why not attack the conflict-of-interest problem from the other end: Bar supervisors from voting on matters that benefit their campaign contributors who give over a certain amount, say $500? It avoids trampling the First Amendment and doesn't favor wealthy candidates. Many elected bodies do it.
Burt Southard, spokesman for Board of Supervisors Chairman Gary Ovitt, said that approach is being considered.
Form 700s: These so-called statements of economic interest are only filed once a year by state law (commendably, the county posts them online). The grand jury recommends monthly filing. Nobody knows how much that will cost.
If monthly filing proves too expensive, why not quarterly? It would be often enough to keep officials from forgetting gifts and trips they've received but cut the cost by 75 percent. Southard said that is being considered, too.
Ethics commission: It's a great idea, but the price tag -- $500,000 -- seems excessive, especially given that the economic crisis is forcing spending cuts everywhere.
The county already is spending a lot of money on ethics. The post of "ethics resource officer" was created in 2002 with pay of about $57,000 a year. The first ethics officer lasted 3½ years.
The position morphed into "chief county compliance and ethics officer" in 2006, at a salary between $88,000 and $113,000.
The first person to hold that title lasted two years.
Her successor was paid between $98,000 and $125,000. He retired after one year. By then the office had added an assistant at $66,000 to $84,000.
Despite the spiraling costs, county officials' ethics don't seem to have improved measurably.
Many of the questionable things that have happened were approved by the Board of Supervisors:
Then-Assessor Bill Postmus' larding of his office with seven political appointees;
Supervisor-elect Neil Derry's 90-day, $101,343 transition staff;
Former Purchasing Director Jim Lindley's promotion to public health director with no experience or training in public health.
All the ethics officers and ethics commissioners in the world can't impart good judgment on people who are impervious to the lesson.
Cassie MacDuff can be reached at 951-368-9470 or cmacduff@PE.com
http://www.pe.com/columns/cassiemacduff/stories/PE_News_Local_N_ncass08.47b22bf.html
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Tehama County Grand Jury uncovers misplaced funding
By JULIE ZEEB -DN Staff Writer
Updated: 07/06/2009 06:56:48 AM PDT
GERBER A number of things were discovered and revealed regarding the Gerber-Las Flores Community Service District when the Tehama County Grand Jury released it's 2008-2009 report, including a bank account the board knew nothing about containing money that was not the board's.
All the money should have been turned over to the Chamber of Commerce when the community hall was turned over, said CSD Chairman Larry Long.
The money found, about $3,200, was in an account that had been set up for the community club, but when the club disbanded it was given to the CSD to take care of the building.
Some of it was used for repairs, but what was left should have been given to the Chamber of Commerce, which assumed responsibility for the building's upkeep when the other account was handed over.
I want to thank you guys for doing that (investigative work), Chamber Secretary Debbie Humphreys said to CSD board members Long and Tom Humphreys, who were the bearers of the good news on behalf of the rest of the board.
The CSD had been in receipt of the information about the account since June 22, but had been ordered by Tehama County Superior Court Presiding Judge Dennis Murray not to reveal it until the information was released to the public in the grand jury report on June 30.
After hearing about the account, the board members began looking through paperwork until Humphreys found a deposit slip for an account at a bank that wasn't the one used by the community club.
It was discovered the account had been opened under a former general manager who was terminated by the district earlier this year. On her last day, while filling out other paperwork at the bank for a credit card for the district's office manager, one of the papers signed by the office manager was to be put on this account.
The $3,365 was returned Thursday at a special Chamber of Commerce meeting at the community hall in the form of a check along with $2,028 in rental fees for a total of $5,263.77.
It was a lot of work to get the money back, said Chamber President Earlene Cullison. I know Tom (Humphreys), the Pattersons and others know how much we need to repair this place.
Tehama County Supervisor Ron Warner gave an update on several projects.
The Gerber Pool is completely gone, but when the project, which will include new basketball and volleyball courts, tables and benches, would go out to bid was unknown, he said.
I couldn't tell you tomorrow if we'll have funding the day after tomorrow with what's going on in Sacramento, Warner said.
The Gerber Chamber of Commerce meets at 6 p.m. on the second Monday of the month at the community hall, but will be taking a break for July and August.
Regularly scheduled meetings will resume in September.
-----
Staff Writer Julie Zeeb can be reached at 527-2153, extension 115, or at jzeeb@redbluffdailynews.com
http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/news/ci_12761366
Updated: 07/06/2009 06:56:48 AM PDT
GERBER A number of things were discovered and revealed regarding the Gerber-Las Flores Community Service District when the Tehama County Grand Jury released it's 2008-2009 report, including a bank account the board knew nothing about containing money that was not the board's.
All the money should have been turned over to the Chamber of Commerce when the community hall was turned over, said CSD Chairman Larry Long.
The money found, about $3,200, was in an account that had been set up for the community club, but when the club disbanded it was given to the CSD to take care of the building.
Some of it was used for repairs, but what was left should have been given to the Chamber of Commerce, which assumed responsibility for the building's upkeep when the other account was handed over.
I want to thank you guys for doing that (investigative work), Chamber Secretary Debbie Humphreys said to CSD board members Long and Tom Humphreys, who were the bearers of the good news on behalf of the rest of the board.
The CSD had been in receipt of the information about the account since June 22, but had been ordered by Tehama County Superior Court Presiding Judge Dennis Murray not to reveal it until the information was released to the public in the grand jury report on June 30.
After hearing about the account, the board members began looking through paperwork until Humphreys found a deposit slip for an account at a bank that wasn't the one used by the community club.
It was discovered the account had been opened under a former general manager who was terminated by the district earlier this year. On her last day, while filling out other paperwork at the bank for a credit card for the district's office manager, one of the papers signed by the office manager was to be put on this account.
The $3,365 was returned Thursday at a special Chamber of Commerce meeting at the community hall in the form of a check along with $2,028 in rental fees for a total of $5,263.77.
It was a lot of work to get the money back, said Chamber President Earlene Cullison. I know Tom (Humphreys), the Pattersons and others know how much we need to repair this place.
Tehama County Supervisor Ron Warner gave an update on several projects.
The Gerber Pool is completely gone, but when the project, which will include new basketball and volleyball courts, tables and benches, would go out to bid was unknown, he said.
I couldn't tell you tomorrow if we'll have funding the day after tomorrow with what's going on in Sacramento, Warner said.
The Gerber Chamber of Commerce meets at 6 p.m. on the second Monday of the month at the community hall, but will be taking a break for July and August.
Regularly scheduled meetings will resume in September.
-----
Staff Writer Julie Zeeb can be reached at 527-2153, extension 115, or at jzeeb@redbluffdailynews.com
http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/news/ci_12761366
Monday, July 6, 2009
Fort Bragg police: neat, clean, organized'
Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 07/06/2009 12:00:04 AM PDT
Editor's note: This is among the last of the wrap-up stories on the 2008-09 Mendocino County Grand Jury, which issued its final reports at the end of June.
Grand jurors conducted a study of the Fort Bragg Police Department, resulting in the release of the grand jury report "Neat, Clean and Organized."
To research operations at the Fort Bragg Police Department, grand jurors looked at police cars and toured other aspects of the department including an evidence room, a holding cell and spoke with employees of FBPD.
The grand jury makes six recommendations in its report on Fort Bragg police. The grand jury says that a bilingual officer is on each shift, continue to provide training to school resource officers before assignment, get funding for a police dog, provide and make mandatory counseling for officers when they have a traumatic experience, continue the acquisition of money for forensics and booking programs and get money for computers and cameras in police cars.
Fort Bragg Police Department employees "consist of the chief, one lieutenant, three sergeants, 12 officers (nine men and three woman), two community service officers and four support staff. This constitutes a full staff. One community service officer position is frozen due to budget restrictions," stated the grand jury.
Officers of the Fort Bragg police department drive their patrol cars home and are required to keep police cars clean while the public works department of the city does maintenance work.
FBPD, like the Sheriff's Office's coast station, does not have a "K-9" dog trained to sniff for drugs. The grand jury states that a money shortage is to blame for the absence of a police dog.
FBPD does not publish an annual report of crime in Fort Bragg, but they are developing s police cadet program for boys, girls, men and women age 16 to 20, the grand jury stated.
Like the Fort Bragg station of the Sheriff's Office, FBPD sent officers to school for users of a Taser (stun-gun like device) so that they can train others in the department on how to use a Taser.
The grand jury finds that Fort Bragg police are having to deal with animal control calls because FBPD does not have an officer dedicated to animal control, stated the report.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_12760682?source=most_viewed
Updated: 07/06/2009 12:00:04 AM PDT
Editor's note: This is among the last of the wrap-up stories on the 2008-09 Mendocino County Grand Jury, which issued its final reports at the end of June.
Grand jurors conducted a study of the Fort Bragg Police Department, resulting in the release of the grand jury report "Neat, Clean and Organized."
To research operations at the Fort Bragg Police Department, grand jurors looked at police cars and toured other aspects of the department including an evidence room, a holding cell and spoke with employees of FBPD.
The grand jury makes six recommendations in its report on Fort Bragg police. The grand jury says that a bilingual officer is on each shift, continue to provide training to school resource officers before assignment, get funding for a police dog, provide and make mandatory counseling for officers when they have a traumatic experience, continue the acquisition of money for forensics and booking programs and get money for computers and cameras in police cars.
Fort Bragg Police Department employees "consist of the chief, one lieutenant, three sergeants, 12 officers (nine men and three woman), two community service officers and four support staff. This constitutes a full staff. One community service officer position is frozen due to budget restrictions," stated the grand jury.
Officers of the Fort Bragg police department drive their patrol cars home and are required to keep police cars clean while the public works department of the city does maintenance work.
FBPD, like the Sheriff's Office's coast station, does not have a "K-9" dog trained to sniff for drugs. The grand jury states that a money shortage is to blame for the absence of a police dog.
FBPD does not publish an annual report of crime in Fort Bragg, but they are developing s police cadet program for boys, girls, men and women age 16 to 20, the grand jury stated.
Like the Fort Bragg station of the Sheriff's Office, FBPD sent officers to school for users of a Taser (stun-gun like device) so that they can train others in the department on how to use a Taser.
The grand jury finds that Fort Bragg police are having to deal with animal control calls because FBPD does not have an officer dedicated to animal control, stated the report.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_12760682?source=most_viewed
Tulare County Grand jury: Board of Supervisor's raises were 'public, legal'
Foreman explains report on supervisors, says ethics weren't for panel to decide
BY VALERIE GIBBONS • vgibbons@visalia.gannett.com • July 3, 2009
The foreman of the Tulare County grand jury said jurors' investigation of the county Board of Supervisors' 2008 pay raise began and ended with whether it was against the law.
The investigation found nothing illegal. But the jury's foreman, Gene Mooers, said any further recommendations from the three-month-long investigation would have had to be approved by the county counsel, Kathleen Bales-Lange.
"If we had tried to get that report to say anything stronger than that, we would have run into trouble with the county counsel's office," Mooers said.
Mooers said the jury's charge was not to decide whether the pay raises which supervisors ultimately voted not to accept were ethical or appropriate.
"The ordinance is very clear," he said. "What our supervisors did was totally legal."
On Sept. 30, the supervisors approved unanimously what was described on the agenda as "changes for employees in Units 9, 10, 11, 19, 20 and 21." It turned out that included raises for the county's elected officials.
What went unmentioned as the supervisors bundled the change along with 19 other items on a single vote was a county ordinance that gave supervisors automatic raises any time they approved them for other elected officials.
The raises, coming amid a budget crisis and layoffs of county employees, amounted to 4.56 percent and were disclosed only several months later in a legal notice the county was required to publish.
When the supervisors' raises became public, there was a sustained public outcry. The supervisors voted Feb. 10 not to accept the raises.
Phil Cox, the chairman of the Board of Supervisors, called the grand jury report on the matter accurate and thorough.
"I'm glad to see they found it was a legal and transparent process," he said.
All grand jury reports are approved by Bales-Lange, who is an employee of the Board of Supervisors, and Tulare County Superior Court Judge Melinda Reed, who oversees the grand jury, Mooers said.
Libel against public officials is a key concern for Reed. It played a major role in her instructions to this year's incoming grand jury on Wednesday.
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20090703/NEWS01/907030321/1002/Grand-jury--Board-of-Supervisor-s-raises-were--public--legal-
BY VALERIE GIBBONS • vgibbons@visalia.gannett.com • July 3, 2009
The foreman of the Tulare County grand jury said jurors' investigation of the county Board of Supervisors' 2008 pay raise began and ended with whether it was against the law.
The investigation found nothing illegal. But the jury's foreman, Gene Mooers, said any further recommendations from the three-month-long investigation would have had to be approved by the county counsel, Kathleen Bales-Lange.
"If we had tried to get that report to say anything stronger than that, we would have run into trouble with the county counsel's office," Mooers said.
Mooers said the jury's charge was not to decide whether the pay raises which supervisors ultimately voted not to accept were ethical or appropriate.
"The ordinance is very clear," he said. "What our supervisors did was totally legal."
On Sept. 30, the supervisors approved unanimously what was described on the agenda as "changes for employees in Units 9, 10, 11, 19, 20 and 21." It turned out that included raises for the county's elected officials.
What went unmentioned as the supervisors bundled the change along with 19 other items on a single vote was a county ordinance that gave supervisors automatic raises any time they approved them for other elected officials.
The raises, coming amid a budget crisis and layoffs of county employees, amounted to 4.56 percent and were disclosed only several months later in a legal notice the county was required to publish.
When the supervisors' raises became public, there was a sustained public outcry. The supervisors voted Feb. 10 not to accept the raises.
Phil Cox, the chairman of the Board of Supervisors, called the grand jury report on the matter accurate and thorough.
"I'm glad to see they found it was a legal and transparent process," he said.
All grand jury reports are approved by Bales-Lange, who is an employee of the Board of Supervisors, and Tulare County Superior Court Judge Melinda Reed, who oversees the grand jury, Mooers said.
Libel against public officials is a key concern for Reed. It played a major role in her instructions to this year's incoming grand jury on Wednesday.
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20090703/NEWS01/907030321/1002/Grand-jury--Board-of-Supervisor-s-raises-were--public--legal-
San Bernardino supervisors are skeptical of Grand Jury reform recommendations
Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Posted: 07/02/2009 07:13:24 PM PDT
Members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors weighed in Thursday on the Grand Jury's recommendations for limits on campaign contributions and establishment of an ethics commission to help thwart corruption and the perception of it.
The Grand Jury's 2008-2009 report released Wednesday included for the first time a special section on proposed governmental reform.
After learning that the Board of Supervisors raised more than $2.3 million, collectively, over a five-year period from special interest groups, land developers and others, the panel recommended the county put a cap on campaign contributions.
Board Chairman Gary Ovitt said Thursday he doesn't have a problem with that recommendation, but also believes there is nothing wrong with the reporting system the county has in place.
The campaign finance forms used by elected officials, called 460s, list each contributor and the amount they contribute. They are available online or at the county Registrar of Voters, Ovitt said.
Like some of his colleagues on the board, Ovitt said the problem with putting a cap on contributions is that it can force the money underground.
"The only issue that caps bring is that you wind up with political action committees (PACS) playing a bigger role," said Ovitt, adding that the general voter is typically not aware of most PACS, what they stand for and who's behind them. And typically, Ovitt said, it is difficult to research them.
A political action committee is a committee formed by a special-interest group to raise money for their favorite political candidates. Committees can also be formed by political candidates to benefit their political allies.
Nonetheless, putting a cap on campaign contributions could help restore public trust, Ovitt said.
"I don't really have a problem with looking at some real caps in supervisorial races," he said.
He believes an ethics commission would be prudent, and said he's been looking at other counties that have them including Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.
The main problem, he said, is cost. Each of the commissions he researched had overheads of more than $1 million annually, and some cost more than $2 million to operate.
"A million dollars right now would be a tough nut to crack because of the budget issues that exist," said Ovitt, adding that the other issue to grapple with is how commission members would be selected and ensuring they are immune to political influence.
He said the board should bring the issues of both campaign finance reform and the feasibility of an ethics commission to the table no later than the fall. First, the county has to deal with its budget issues, appointing a new treasurer/tax collector and a permanent assessor.
In addition, the county is suing former Assessor Bill Postmus, four former members of his executive support staff and political consultant Mike Richman in connection with a scandal involving reports of widespread timecard fraud and political shenanigans in the Assessor's Office that occurred in 2007 and 2008. It reportedly cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, money the county is trying to recoup in its litigation.
"Maybe at the end of summer we can start looking at this more earnestly," Ovitt said of the Grand Jury's recommendations.
Third District Supervisor Neil Derry said he hopes the Grand Jury's recommendations will provide the momentum to get an ethics commission up and running, despite the county's budget woes.
He and Second District Supervisor Paul Biane have been researching the feasibility of such a commission for several months.
"We're going to come up with a number of proposals. We were hoping to have a workshop, but were hit by the budget," said Derry, who said Los Angeles County's ethics commission has received a lot of positive feedback.
Derry, however, isn't sold on the idea of putting a cap on campaign contributions. He said the state has campaign finance limits in place and it has had no bearing on the amount of money spent on state elections.
Like Derry and Ovitt, Supervisor Paul Biane believes that political action committees and other third parties would drive the money underground if limits were placed on campaign contributions.
"I think the same thing has happened at the state level as well," Biane said. "I think if you look at San Bernardino County and the way we do our reporting . . . it's pretty transparent about who's supporting which candidates."
Though he is all for an ethics commission, he cautions it will not eliminate the problem of unethical behavior.
"I still think you're going to have issues arise in the future. It goes on in every organization," said Biane. "In my opinion, it would not bring to an end the large problems that tend to creep up in counties."
First District Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt was unavailable for comment, as was Fifth District Supervisor Josie Gonzales.
Bob Stern, executive director of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, said more than a dozen counties across the state have set limits on campaign contributions for elected officials, and the time has come for San Bernardino County to do the same.
"They're behind the curve on a lot of things, and I think the (Grand Jury's) recommendation is a solid recommendation," said Stern.
While not the panacea of political reform, limits on campaign contributions help significantly in restoring public trust in their elected officials. They are crucial in supervisorial races, which typically are noncompetitive, and ensure candidates cannot raise exorbitant amounts of money, Stern said.
First and foremost, the county should put in place an ethics commission, Stern said.
"They need to have a group that is just designed to look at ethical questions in the county," he said. "It's a very important signal to the public that they get that they have to change the way they've done business."
joe.nelson@inlandnewspapers.com, (909) 386-3874
http://www.sbsun.com/search/ci_12744929?IADID=Search-www.sbsun.com-www.sbsun.com
Posted: 07/02/2009 07:13:24 PM PDT
Members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors weighed in Thursday on the Grand Jury's recommendations for limits on campaign contributions and establishment of an ethics commission to help thwart corruption and the perception of it.
The Grand Jury's 2008-2009 report released Wednesday included for the first time a special section on proposed governmental reform.
After learning that the Board of Supervisors raised more than $2.3 million, collectively, over a five-year period from special interest groups, land developers and others, the panel recommended the county put a cap on campaign contributions.
Board Chairman Gary Ovitt said Thursday he doesn't have a problem with that recommendation, but also believes there is nothing wrong with the reporting system the county has in place.
The campaign finance forms used by elected officials, called 460s, list each contributor and the amount they contribute. They are available online or at the county Registrar of Voters, Ovitt said.
Like some of his colleagues on the board, Ovitt said the problem with putting a cap on contributions is that it can force the money underground.
"The only issue that caps bring is that you wind up with political action committees (PACS) playing a bigger role," said Ovitt, adding that the general voter is typically not aware of most PACS, what they stand for and who's behind them. And typically, Ovitt said, it is difficult to research them.
A political action committee is a committee formed by a special-interest group to raise money for their favorite political candidates. Committees can also be formed by political candidates to benefit their political allies.
Nonetheless, putting a cap on campaign contributions could help restore public trust, Ovitt said.
"I don't really have a problem with looking at some real caps in supervisorial races," he said.
He believes an ethics commission would be prudent, and said he's been looking at other counties that have them including Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.
The main problem, he said, is cost. Each of the commissions he researched had overheads of more than $1 million annually, and some cost more than $2 million to operate.
"A million dollars right now would be a tough nut to crack because of the budget issues that exist," said Ovitt, adding that the other issue to grapple with is how commission members would be selected and ensuring they are immune to political influence.
He said the board should bring the issues of both campaign finance reform and the feasibility of an ethics commission to the table no later than the fall. First, the county has to deal with its budget issues, appointing a new treasurer/tax collector and a permanent assessor.
In addition, the county is suing former Assessor Bill Postmus, four former members of his executive support staff and political consultant Mike Richman in connection with a scandal involving reports of widespread timecard fraud and political shenanigans in the Assessor's Office that occurred in 2007 and 2008. It reportedly cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, money the county is trying to recoup in its litigation.
"Maybe at the end of summer we can start looking at this more earnestly," Ovitt said of the Grand Jury's recommendations.
Third District Supervisor Neil Derry said he hopes the Grand Jury's recommendations will provide the momentum to get an ethics commission up and running, despite the county's budget woes.
He and Second District Supervisor Paul Biane have been researching the feasibility of such a commission for several months.
"We're going to come up with a number of proposals. We were hoping to have a workshop, but were hit by the budget," said Derry, who said Los Angeles County's ethics commission has received a lot of positive feedback.
Derry, however, isn't sold on the idea of putting a cap on campaign contributions. He said the state has campaign finance limits in place and it has had no bearing on the amount of money spent on state elections.
Like Derry and Ovitt, Supervisor Paul Biane believes that political action committees and other third parties would drive the money underground if limits were placed on campaign contributions.
"I think the same thing has happened at the state level as well," Biane said. "I think if you look at San Bernardino County and the way we do our reporting . . . it's pretty transparent about who's supporting which candidates."
Though he is all for an ethics commission, he cautions it will not eliminate the problem of unethical behavior.
"I still think you're going to have issues arise in the future. It goes on in every organization," said Biane. "In my opinion, it would not bring to an end the large problems that tend to creep up in counties."
First District Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt was unavailable for comment, as was Fifth District Supervisor Josie Gonzales.
Bob Stern, executive director of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, said more than a dozen counties across the state have set limits on campaign contributions for elected officials, and the time has come for San Bernardino County to do the same.
"They're behind the curve on a lot of things, and I think the (Grand Jury's) recommendation is a solid recommendation," said Stern.
While not the panacea of political reform, limits on campaign contributions help significantly in restoring public trust in their elected officials. They are crucial in supervisorial races, which typically are noncompetitive, and ensure candidates cannot raise exorbitant amounts of money, Stern said.
First and foremost, the county should put in place an ethics commission, Stern said.
"They need to have a group that is just designed to look at ethical questions in the county," he said. "It's a very important signal to the public that they get that they have to change the way they've done business."
joe.nelson@inlandnewspapers.com, (909) 386-3874
http://www.sbsun.com/search/ci_12744929?IADID=Search-www.sbsun.com-www.sbsun.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)