If disaster strikes, Orange County is in pretty good shape to respond, says a recent grand jury report looking at the county’s disaster preparedness.
But OC residents need to do more to be more proactive about preparing for the next big earthquake or fire or flood, says the grand jury.
The group looked at emergency operations across the county. Despite glowing reviews of many of the programs, which you can read in the report here, they did call out a couple minor deficiencies.
Here they are, pulled directly from the report. (A note about acronyms: EOC means Emergency Operations Center.)
* Westminster’s EOC is located in the A/B room of the Community Services Building and it takes approximately two hours to set up for an emergency incident. A new police building is under construction and upon completion, the EOC will relocate to that location. This new location will provide everything a modern EOC requires: emergency backup power, central storage for emergency supplies, on-site staffing, and the latest in communications capabilities. The city does not include staff in its quarterly “tabletop” exercises.
* Costa Mesa’s immediate backup EOC is located either in the Police Department Communications room or at Fire Station #5, both located in the same area as the primary EOC. If the primary EOC should be damaged due to earthquake or fire, this could also affect the backup EOC at either location.
* In an emergency, the City of Santa Ana will use firefighters from Station #3 to assist in setting up the EOC on the second deck of the Public Works Administration Building. Backup EOC locations include the Police Headquarters, Red Cross Building, tents and a mobile command center.
* The San Clemente EOC is set up from scratch in a multi-use conference room in the Utilities Administration building. That location was chosen because the structure was constructed to state required earthquake specifications and supported by the Utilities Yard emergency generator. All the requisite equipment to support a disaster response is stored in a secure closet and readily transportable.
* Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD) has an EOC that complies with the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), and mobile EOC outfitted with all the equipment, communications, and resources of its primary EOC, sufficient to support emergency functions should any incident occur. CUSD has an extensive data base, virtual mapping and photographs of each school in the district, and has individual job descriptions for each position.
* California has tried to raise public awareness of earthquake dangers by holding an annual drill called the Great California Shake Out (first conducted in 2008). But emergency services officials say they are worried that residents have lost the sense of urgency, particularly as people change residences, forget to refresh supplies and assume local, state and federal government agencies will provide for them.
http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2010/06/15/grand-jury-county-is-prepared-for-disaster/59165/
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
San Diego May Use Bankruptcy to Roll Back Benefits: Joe Mysak
San Diego May Use Bankruptcy to Roll Back Benefits: Joe Mysak
Commentary by Joe Mysak
June 16 (Bloomberg) -- The city of San Diego should consider Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy to help it reduce fringe benefits, pension and health obligations.
That’s one of the suggestions made by the San Diego County Grand Jury, which does the normal duties of recommending indictments as well as reporting on local governments and special districts.
San Diego is the fifth major city in the U.S. this year, and the second in California, where people are talking about bankruptcy as a means to “restructure and reorganize their assets and debts while providing relief from current and future obligations,” in the words of the grand jury’s 22-page report, published on June 8.
San Diego has unfunded liabilities of $2.2 billion in its pension plan and $1.3 billion for health care, which the report calls “unsustainable.”
More than two years of cutting budgets and the mounting public pension crisis have made the unthinkable an option, maybe even an attractive one.
“Municipalities are not required to raise taxes or cut costs to the bone before filing for reorganization under Chapter 9,” the grand jury report says, quoting from a presentation at an October 2009, San Diego County Taxpayers Association seminar.
Open Discussion San Diego has been wrestling with pension and benefits costs for years. In 2006, the city settled fraud allegations by the Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to disclose to investors that its pension system was underfunded.
The recommendation that the mayor and city council convene a panel of municipal bankruptcy experts to talk about it is the last of 16 suggestions made by the grand jury. That it was made at all, in a wealthy city like San Diego, is disturbing.
“It will be difficult to make the case that the city is insolvent,” said Natalie Cohen of National Municipal Research Inc. in New York in an e-mail this week. “It seems the grand jury report is looking to bust open the discussion about the irrevocable nature of pension obligations -- which will continue to eat up the city’s budget.”
As the report says in its introduction: “One of the underlying causes of the current structural imbalance is the underfunding of the city’s pension obligation by previous city administrations.”
This is a familiar story, both in California and around the country. As of June 30, 2009, the San Diego City Employees Retirement System has only 66.5 percent of the money needed to pay for future pension obligations, according to the report.
Punish the Public
The report contains an extensive discussion of San Diego’s retirement system, and recommends that the city investigate replacing it with some sort of alternative.
Among the report’s other recommendations are having someone else run the libraries, selling portions of parks and charging for trash collection: a fairly standard grab bag.
There’s also a little discussion on how to reduce headcount.
Did you ever have a feeling that there’s a vindictive element to some of the cuts governments do manage to make? That is, when they are absolutely at the end of their tethers and are forced to fire people, did you ever think that the government somehow (and unbelievably, if you ask me) tries to punish the public? It’s almost as though those in charge say, “Fine, we’ll cut back, but you’ll never have clean streets again.”
In other words, if the city makes cuts as painful and obvious as possible, we’ll all learn our lesson. I’m not sure what the lesson is. I suspect it depends upon who you are. Don’t lose your job? Offer to pay more taxes? Don’t ask if government might run more efficiently ever again?
There’s a hint of this in the grand jury report.
Too Many Managers
The city, it says, acted “improvidently” in cutting the public safety workforce, such as mounted patrolmen and the canine unit. Meanwhile, “there are now anywhere from seven to nine layers of costly management between the mayor and a blue- collar worker in the field.”
The recommendations: “Eliminate redundant positions and extraneous levels of management and supervision as employees leave city service through attrition,” and “Restore the cuts to public safety personnel as a priority.”
There’s a startling level of clarity in the grand jury report on the city of San Diego’s financial crisis. I just hope it hasn’t come too late.
--Editors: James Greiff, Steven Gittelson
Click on the “Send Comment” in the sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.
To contact the writer of this column: Joe Mysak in New York at jmysakjr@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this column: James Greiff at jgreiff@bloomberg.ne
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-15/san-diego-may-use-bankruptcy-to-roll-back-benefits-joe-mysak.html
Commentary by Joe Mysak
June 16 (Bloomberg) -- The city of San Diego should consider Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy to help it reduce fringe benefits, pension and health obligations.
That’s one of the suggestions made by the San Diego County Grand Jury, which does the normal duties of recommending indictments as well as reporting on local governments and special districts.
San Diego is the fifth major city in the U.S. this year, and the second in California, where people are talking about bankruptcy as a means to “restructure and reorganize their assets and debts while providing relief from current and future obligations,” in the words of the grand jury’s 22-page report, published on June 8.
San Diego has unfunded liabilities of $2.2 billion in its pension plan and $1.3 billion for health care, which the report calls “unsustainable.”
More than two years of cutting budgets and the mounting public pension crisis have made the unthinkable an option, maybe even an attractive one.
“Municipalities are not required to raise taxes or cut costs to the bone before filing for reorganization under Chapter 9,” the grand jury report says, quoting from a presentation at an October 2009, San Diego County Taxpayers Association seminar.
Open Discussion San Diego has been wrestling with pension and benefits costs for years. In 2006, the city settled fraud allegations by the Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to disclose to investors that its pension system was underfunded.
The recommendation that the mayor and city council convene a panel of municipal bankruptcy experts to talk about it is the last of 16 suggestions made by the grand jury. That it was made at all, in a wealthy city like San Diego, is disturbing.
“It will be difficult to make the case that the city is insolvent,” said Natalie Cohen of National Municipal Research Inc. in New York in an e-mail this week. “It seems the grand jury report is looking to bust open the discussion about the irrevocable nature of pension obligations -- which will continue to eat up the city’s budget.”
As the report says in its introduction: “One of the underlying causes of the current structural imbalance is the underfunding of the city’s pension obligation by previous city administrations.”
This is a familiar story, both in California and around the country. As of June 30, 2009, the San Diego City Employees Retirement System has only 66.5 percent of the money needed to pay for future pension obligations, according to the report.
Punish the Public
The report contains an extensive discussion of San Diego’s retirement system, and recommends that the city investigate replacing it with some sort of alternative.
Among the report’s other recommendations are having someone else run the libraries, selling portions of parks and charging for trash collection: a fairly standard grab bag.
There’s also a little discussion on how to reduce headcount.
Did you ever have a feeling that there’s a vindictive element to some of the cuts governments do manage to make? That is, when they are absolutely at the end of their tethers and are forced to fire people, did you ever think that the government somehow (and unbelievably, if you ask me) tries to punish the public? It’s almost as though those in charge say, “Fine, we’ll cut back, but you’ll never have clean streets again.”
In other words, if the city makes cuts as painful and obvious as possible, we’ll all learn our lesson. I’m not sure what the lesson is. I suspect it depends upon who you are. Don’t lose your job? Offer to pay more taxes? Don’t ask if government might run more efficiently ever again?
There’s a hint of this in the grand jury report.
Too Many Managers
The city, it says, acted “improvidently” in cutting the public safety workforce, such as mounted patrolmen and the canine unit. Meanwhile, “there are now anywhere from seven to nine layers of costly management between the mayor and a blue- collar worker in the field.”
The recommendations: “Eliminate redundant positions and extraneous levels of management and supervision as employees leave city service through attrition,” and “Restore the cuts to public safety personnel as a priority.”
There’s a startling level of clarity in the grand jury report on the city of San Diego’s financial crisis. I just hope it hasn’t come too late.
--Editors: James Greiff, Steven Gittelson
Click on the “Send Comment” in the sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.
To contact the writer of this column: Joe Mysak in New York at jmysakjr@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this column: James Greiff at jgreiff@bloomberg.ne
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-15/san-diego-may-use-bankruptcy-to-roll-back-benefits-joe-mysak.html
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Another Voice - The Mendocino County grand jury is right on
By John G Dickerson
Updated: 06/15/2010 08:18:31 AM PDT
The Mendocino county Grand Jury released a report on our county's retiree benefit debt on June 3. They are absolutely correct in their core implicit findings:
Something is terribly wrong in the financial management of our county's retiree benefits. Our county has shoved a huge and unfair unfunded retiree benefit debt onto our children. Most county and retirement officials have ignored all criticisms from many quarters for years. It appears laws may have been broken. And it's way past time for county officials to take these criticisms seriously and answer questions.
I take no position on what retiree benefits should be. I absolutely take the position that whatever they are, they should be properly funded and their true cost and debt should be reported to the public.
The finances of the county's retiree benefits can be explained to concerned citizens in fairly simple terms. But county and retirement officials have never done that.
Pensions or Public Services?
Our county today is having a financial wreck at the intersection of services and retiree benefit obligations. Services are being cut and jobs are being destroyed to pay retiree benefit debt. Retirees didn't cause this problem. The people responsible to manage our county's finances in the public's interest caused this problem.
Public employee pensions are protected by the California Constitution. However, how far would the voting public be willing to go in seeing public services destroyed because of the need to pay pensions earned in the past? At some point I believe the people would rebel - and at that point pensions would be in jeopardy. Constitutions can be changed.
This situation was entirely unnecessary and is a direct consequence of deeply flawed financial management - especially in our county.
Four Financial Duties
I say there are four fundamental financial duties of county officials: 1) Tell us the financial truth. 2) Manage our money competently and transparently. 3) Protect and build our county's financial strength. 4) Don't put unfair burdens on our kids.
All four have been spectacularly violated at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the people of our county.
"Politicians think only of the next election. Statesmen, of the next generation." (An abolitionist preacher said that just after the Civil War.)
We've had a boat load of politicians. Where are our statesmen?
Mendocino County politicians promised more than they could deliver and shoved the part they couldn't deliver as far into the future as possible. We are now in that future.
Official Denial
There are some county officials who realize the depths of our problems. But most county and retirement officials say our problems are all caused by forces outside their control - the stock market, the economy, the state - anyone but themselves or their predecessors.
Before you can solve a problem, you have to first admit you have one. Then you need to understand what the problem really is.
There are many things that can be done. But we can't get there as long as county officials - including the Board of Supervisors - continue to deny what the problem really is. The problem is deeper than any policy fix - the fundamental problem is there isn't a commitment to live up to those four duties - and the public (including retirees and employees) has never held officials accountable.
Our main immediate problem is the refusal of county and retirement officials to admit the extent and nature of the problem. Until they cop to the truth, they can't really solve the problem.
And it's the public that must do our duty to force our elected officials to tell us the truth.
The longer that takes - the worse it gets.
John Dickerson, a Redwood Valley resident, has long reported on the county's Debt on his website www.YourPublicMoney.Com.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15300746
Updated: 06/15/2010 08:18:31 AM PDT
The Mendocino county Grand Jury released a report on our county's retiree benefit debt on June 3. They are absolutely correct in their core implicit findings:
Something is terribly wrong in the financial management of our county's retiree benefits. Our county has shoved a huge and unfair unfunded retiree benefit debt onto our children. Most county and retirement officials have ignored all criticisms from many quarters for years. It appears laws may have been broken. And it's way past time for county officials to take these criticisms seriously and answer questions.
I take no position on what retiree benefits should be. I absolutely take the position that whatever they are, they should be properly funded and their true cost and debt should be reported to the public.
The finances of the county's retiree benefits can be explained to concerned citizens in fairly simple terms. But county and retirement officials have never done that.
Pensions or Public Services?
Our county today is having a financial wreck at the intersection of services and retiree benefit obligations. Services are being cut and jobs are being destroyed to pay retiree benefit debt. Retirees didn't cause this problem. The people responsible to manage our county's finances in the public's interest caused this problem.
Public employee pensions are protected by the California Constitution. However, how far would the voting public be willing to go in seeing public services destroyed because of the need to pay pensions earned in the past? At some point I believe the people would rebel - and at that point pensions would be in jeopardy. Constitutions can be changed.
This situation was entirely unnecessary and is a direct consequence of deeply flawed financial management - especially in our county.
Four Financial Duties
I say there are four fundamental financial duties of county officials: 1) Tell us the financial truth. 2) Manage our money competently and transparently. 3) Protect and build our county's financial strength. 4) Don't put unfair burdens on our kids.
All four have been spectacularly violated at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the people of our county.
"Politicians think only of the next election. Statesmen, of the next generation." (An abolitionist preacher said that just after the Civil War.)
We've had a boat load of politicians. Where are our statesmen?
Mendocino County politicians promised more than they could deliver and shoved the part they couldn't deliver as far into the future as possible. We are now in that future.
Official Denial
There are some county officials who realize the depths of our problems. But most county and retirement officials say our problems are all caused by forces outside their control - the stock market, the economy, the state - anyone but themselves or their predecessors.
Before you can solve a problem, you have to first admit you have one. Then you need to understand what the problem really is.
There are many things that can be done. But we can't get there as long as county officials - including the Board of Supervisors - continue to deny what the problem really is. The problem is deeper than any policy fix - the fundamental problem is there isn't a commitment to live up to those four duties - and the public (including retirees and employees) has never held officials accountable.
Our main immediate problem is the refusal of county and retirement officials to admit the extent and nature of the problem. Until they cop to the truth, they can't really solve the problem.
And it's the public that must do our duty to force our elected officials to tell us the truth.
The longer that takes - the worse it gets.
John Dickerson, a Redwood Valley resident, has long reported on the county's Debt on his website www.YourPublicMoney.Com.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15300746
Monday, June 14, 2010
Mendocino County GJ: County water agencies need a joint authority
Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 06/14/2010 12:00:16 AM PDT
Consolidation of fragmented districts would form a strong voice in the face of new regulations, demand
The Daily Journal
To strengthen its voice and conservation efforts, Mendocino County should merge its multiple water providers into a joint powers authority (JPA), the county Grand Jury recommended this week.
"The county is at an extreme disadvantage communicating its needs with regulatory agencies because there are many entities with competing interests, voices and territorial disputes," states the GJ report. "There is no centralized governance over the management of water in this county and no one agency speaks for (its) water needs."
According to the report, the Russian River watershed is "is facing a number of legal and regulatory challenges which will question the ownership and management of water coming from Lake Mendocino," which is the major collector and distributor of water for the Russian River.
Due to recent concerns regarding water flow below the Coyote Valley Dam, hearings were chaired by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the board plans to begin monitoring frost control management in 2011.
"County water districts lack the funding they need for effective management and capital improvements, (though) each of the small districts has something to offer that could be shared and utilized for the good of county water users."
The different districts and agencies include: Calpella Water District Service Agreement Area; Hopland Public Utility District; Potter Valley Irrigation District; Russian River Food Control District; City of Ukiah Water Service Area; Millview Water District; Redwood Valley Water District; Willow Water District, along with the Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission, Upper Russian River Sustainability Alliance, and the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, serving as the Mendocino County Water Agency (MCWA).
However, the GJ reports, the MCWA, a special district created by the California State Legislature, "has no water rights and little authority or funding."
The GJ recommends that the MCWA "become more involved (with the numerous water districts) by providing guidance on conservation measure, public training, uniform controls and legislative assistance. The staff must provide leadership in the process of consolidating water districts and/or establishing a JPA."
"The people and agencies of the Mendocino County Russian River watershed resist change because of turf wars amd egos," the GJ continues. "It is only through the effect of environmental lobbies, recent lawsuits and state legislation that agricultural and urban interests have realized the need for realignment of a vision and strategy."
The recent legislation, regulation and "water demand by stronger entities are putting our water supply and economy at risk," the GJ warns. "County residents do not speak with enough authority to safeguard our water supply and our quality of life. Our economic vitality is at risk."
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15292596
Updated: 06/14/2010 12:00:16 AM PDT
Consolidation of fragmented districts would form a strong voice in the face of new regulations, demand
The Daily Journal
To strengthen its voice and conservation efforts, Mendocino County should merge its multiple water providers into a joint powers authority (JPA), the county Grand Jury recommended this week.
"The county is at an extreme disadvantage communicating its needs with regulatory agencies because there are many entities with competing interests, voices and territorial disputes," states the GJ report. "There is no centralized governance over the management of water in this county and no one agency speaks for (its) water needs."
According to the report, the Russian River watershed is "is facing a number of legal and regulatory challenges which will question the ownership and management of water coming from Lake Mendocino," which is the major collector and distributor of water for the Russian River.
Due to recent concerns regarding water flow below the Coyote Valley Dam, hearings were chaired by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the board plans to begin monitoring frost control management in 2011.
"County water districts lack the funding they need for effective management and capital improvements, (though) each of the small districts has something to offer that could be shared and utilized for the good of county water users."
The different districts and agencies include: Calpella Water District Service Agreement Area; Hopland Public Utility District; Potter Valley Irrigation District; Russian River Food Control District; City of Ukiah Water Service Area; Millview Water District; Redwood Valley Water District; Willow Water District, along with the Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission, Upper Russian River Sustainability Alliance, and the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, serving as the Mendocino County Water Agency (MCWA).
However, the GJ reports, the MCWA, a special district created by the California State Legislature, "has no water rights and little authority or funding."
The GJ recommends that the MCWA "become more involved (with the numerous water districts) by providing guidance on conservation measure, public training, uniform controls and legislative assistance. The staff must provide leadership in the process of consolidating water districts and/or establishing a JPA."
"The people and agencies of the Mendocino County Russian River watershed resist change because of turf wars amd egos," the GJ continues. "It is only through the effect of environmental lobbies, recent lawsuits and state legislation that agricultural and urban interests have realized the need for realignment of a vision and strategy."
The recent legislation, regulation and "water demand by stronger entities are putting our water supply and economy at risk," the GJ warns. "County residents do not speak with enough authority to safeguard our water supply and our quality of life. Our economic vitality is at risk."
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15292596
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Report questions tough arrest protocol in Marin domestic cases
Gary Klien
Posted: 06/13/2010 05:57:36 PM PDT
Marin police agencies should reconsider their inflexible "pro-arrest" protocol in domestic violence cases because it discourages victims from coming forward and "may drive the crime further underground," the Marin County Civil Grand Jury said.
The aggressive policy also causes unintended consequences for the abused and other family members when a household breadwinner is incarcerated or even deported, the grand jury said.
"The protocol makes no distinction between minor, first-time infractions and incidents of egregious battery," the jury said.
The grand jury, a 19-member citizens' watchdog group empowered by the local judiciary, reported the findings in its latest report, "Domestic Violence: Marin's Number One Violent Crime." The grand jury said its interest was sparked by a July 2009 article in the Marin Independent Journal following two domestic violence-related homicides in Sausalito and Novato.
The jury, citing information from the district attorney's office, said "violent family felonies" constitute nearly a third of violent felonies in Marin. In 2009, prosecutors handled 815 domestic violence reports and filed charges in 369 cases.
But because an estimated 75 percent of domestic assaults go unreported, the actual number of incidents could top 3,200 a year in Marin, the grand jury noted.
The watchdog group learned that Marin law enforcement takes a "pro-arrest" approach to domestic violence that some officers interpret as a mandatory arrest policy.
While California law "encourages" an arrest in domestic violence cases, the county has a tougher protocol that tells police to identify the dominant aggressor and make an arrest. The county protocol also discourages dual arrests, putting additional pressure on police to sort through confusing events and pin the primary blame on one combatant.
"A court official related an incident in which an arrest was made after one frustrated party with no prior arrests threw a wet sponge at his partner," the report said.
The grand jury recommends that local police be given the discretion, depending on the circumstances, to give a suspect a misdemeanor citation instead of a jail booking. The citation still requires the suspect to appear in court, and prosecutors can file whatever charges they deem appropriate.
"Issuance of citations, in some exceptional cases, would minimize the impact of arrest on victims and families, while at the same time promoting early intervention and education in an effort to stop the cycle of abusive behavior before it escalates," the jury said.
The grand jury's report also recommends increased domestic violence training for officers and involvement by command staff; funding by the Board of Supervisors for a countywide prevention campaign; and the designation of a domestic violence specialist at the county's three largest law enforcement agencies, the sheriff's department and the San Rafael and Novato police departments.
Formal responses to the report are due in the next 60 to 90 days by the Board of Supervisors, the district attorney's office, the sheriff's department and the city councils of San Rafael and Novato.
The watchdog group also invited responses from the county's police chiefs, public defender and chief probation officer, as well as the Marin Domestic Violence Coordinating Council and Marin Abused Women's Services, or MAWS.
Donna Garske, executive director of MAWS, said the nonprofit was still studying the report Friday and would respond to the grand jury.
"Marin Abused Women's Services applauds the grand jury's effort to study the problem of domestic violence in Marin, review the solutions under way and identify areas for improvement," she said.
"This issue affects all of us to some degree and the impact on children cannot be underestimated," said Deputy District Attorney Charles Cacciatore, a domestic violence specialist. "It is important to raise awareness around this violent yet ultimately preventable crime."Ê
Contact Gary Klien via e-mail at gklien@marinij.com
http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_15290530
Posted: 06/13/2010 05:57:36 PM PDT
Marin police agencies should reconsider their inflexible "pro-arrest" protocol in domestic violence cases because it discourages victims from coming forward and "may drive the crime further underground," the Marin County Civil Grand Jury said.
The aggressive policy also causes unintended consequences for the abused and other family members when a household breadwinner is incarcerated or even deported, the grand jury said.
"The protocol makes no distinction between minor, first-time infractions and incidents of egregious battery," the jury said.
The grand jury, a 19-member citizens' watchdog group empowered by the local judiciary, reported the findings in its latest report, "Domestic Violence: Marin's Number One Violent Crime." The grand jury said its interest was sparked by a July 2009 article in the Marin Independent Journal following two domestic violence-related homicides in Sausalito and Novato.
The jury, citing information from the district attorney's office, said "violent family felonies" constitute nearly a third of violent felonies in Marin. In 2009, prosecutors handled 815 domestic violence reports and filed charges in 369 cases.
But because an estimated 75 percent of domestic assaults go unreported, the actual number of incidents could top 3,200 a year in Marin, the grand jury noted.
The watchdog group learned that Marin law enforcement takes a "pro-arrest" approach to domestic violence that some officers interpret as a mandatory arrest policy.
While California law "encourages" an arrest in domestic violence cases, the county has a tougher protocol that tells police to identify the dominant aggressor and make an arrest. The county protocol also discourages dual arrests, putting additional pressure on police to sort through confusing events and pin the primary blame on one combatant.
"A court official related an incident in which an arrest was made after one frustrated party with no prior arrests threw a wet sponge at his partner," the report said.
The grand jury recommends that local police be given the discretion, depending on the circumstances, to give a suspect a misdemeanor citation instead of a jail booking. The citation still requires the suspect to appear in court, and prosecutors can file whatever charges they deem appropriate.
"Issuance of citations, in some exceptional cases, would minimize the impact of arrest on victims and families, while at the same time promoting early intervention and education in an effort to stop the cycle of abusive behavior before it escalates," the jury said.
The grand jury's report also recommends increased domestic violence training for officers and involvement by command staff; funding by the Board of Supervisors for a countywide prevention campaign; and the designation of a domestic violence specialist at the county's three largest law enforcement agencies, the sheriff's department and the San Rafael and Novato police departments.
Formal responses to the report are due in the next 60 to 90 days by the Board of Supervisors, the district attorney's office, the sheriff's department and the city councils of San Rafael and Novato.
The watchdog group also invited responses from the county's police chiefs, public defender and chief probation officer, as well as the Marin Domestic Violence Coordinating Council and Marin Abused Women's Services, or MAWS.
Donna Garske, executive director of MAWS, said the nonprofit was still studying the report Friday and would respond to the grand jury.
"Marin Abused Women's Services applauds the grand jury's effort to study the problem of domestic violence in Marin, review the solutions under way and identify areas for improvement," she said.
"This issue affects all of us to some degree and the impact on children cannot be underestimated," said Deputy District Attorney Charles Cacciatore, a domestic violence specialist. "It is important to raise awareness around this violent yet ultimately preventable crime."Ê
Contact Gary Klien via e-mail at gklien@marinij.com
http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_15290530
A Matter of Respect - Humboldt County
Letters to the Editor
Posted: 06/13/2010 01:15:31 AM PDT
The Grand Jury Association of Humboldt County was discouraged to see the response from some members of the Board of Supervisors, following a report issued by the current Grand Jury. As you are aware, the Grand Jury does extensive investigations following complaints submitted by citizens of Humboldt County. The jury does not take this responsibility lightly, and each juror recognizes the impact a written report may have on a governmental agency. This report is the conclusion of the sitting Grand Jury after many hours of interviews, investigations, discussions, and research. Furthermore, the report was vetted by the county counsel and the presiding judge of the Superior Court.
While the Board of Supervisors may not agree with the findings, to imply the Grand Jury deliberately avoided certain information that didn't tell the story they didn't want to tell (Supervisor Lovelace) makes no sense. It also shows a lack of respect for the system.
The purpose of this letter is not to challenge or comment on the findings of the Grand Jury, but to remind the supervisors of the responsibilities charged to the Grand Jury. While you may not agree with the findings, it is important that you support this system. Both the Grand Jury and the Board of Supervisors have parts to play toward our common goal of better local government.
We are hopeful that in the future you will recognize the years of experience and education of each juror, and the hours of work put into these reports. We expect you to give credit to the professionalism and credibility of the jury. We further expect you to proffer the respect to the Grand Jury that you assume for the Board of Supervisors.
Suzi Fregeau, Chairwoman Grand Jury Association
Loleta
http://www.times-standard.com/letters/ci_15288372
Posted: 06/13/2010 01:15:31 AM PDT
The Grand Jury Association of Humboldt County was discouraged to see the response from some members of the Board of Supervisors, following a report issued by the current Grand Jury. As you are aware, the Grand Jury does extensive investigations following complaints submitted by citizens of Humboldt County. The jury does not take this responsibility lightly, and each juror recognizes the impact a written report may have on a governmental agency. This report is the conclusion of the sitting Grand Jury after many hours of interviews, investigations, discussions, and research. Furthermore, the report was vetted by the county counsel and the presiding judge of the Superior Court.
While the Board of Supervisors may not agree with the findings, to imply the Grand Jury deliberately avoided certain information that didn't tell the story they didn't want to tell (Supervisor Lovelace) makes no sense. It also shows a lack of respect for the system.
The purpose of this letter is not to challenge or comment on the findings of the Grand Jury, but to remind the supervisors of the responsibilities charged to the Grand Jury. While you may not agree with the findings, it is important that you support this system. Both the Grand Jury and the Board of Supervisors have parts to play toward our common goal of better local government.
We are hopeful that in the future you will recognize the years of experience and education of each juror, and the hours of work put into these reports. We expect you to give credit to the professionalism and credibility of the jury. We further expect you to proffer the respect to the Grand Jury that you assume for the Board of Supervisors.
Suzi Fregeau, Chairwoman Grand Jury Association
Loleta
http://www.times-standard.com/letters/ci_15288372
San Luis Obispo Grand jury wants tax bill details
It wants taxpayers to know specifically where their money is going; officials say OK, but it will be costly
By Bob Cuddy | bcuddy@thetribunenews.com
When a county homeowner receives a property tax bill, the document does not say in any detail where the tax dollars are going. The county civil grand jury would like to change that.
Top county fiscal administrators are open to the change, but are not sure whether those same taxpayers would be willing to foot the bill to pay for the added staffing and updated technology that they say they believe would be needed.
The grand jury raised the question last week in a report titled “Your property tax bill: The devil is in the details — but there are no details.”
“The typical county property tax bill tells us almost nothing about which agencies get our cash or how much each receives,” the grand jury wrote.
As they investigated, the grand jury said it learned that 90 distinct government agencies receive some or all of their financial support from property taxes collected from within the county’s 407 tax-rate areas.
It also learned that the current general breakdown for disbursements is: school districts, 46 percent; the county government’s general fund, 30 percent; incorporated cities, 12 percent; Cuesta College and special districts, 4 percent each; and redevelopment agencies spread throughout the county, 3 percent.
Grand jurors spoke with County Auditor-Controller Gere Sibbach and Tax Collector-Treasurer Frank Freitas.
“Both suggested that calculating the specific dollar amount that each taxpayer pays to each agency and printing that information on our individual tax bill might be both burdensome and costly,” grand jurors wrote. “The grand jury does not accept their arguments.”
They said that using existing data, “it should not be difficult to compute where our individual tax payments are disbursed.”
There is room on tax bills for the information and, at a minimum, those bills “should provide a good-faith estimate of how much goes to support at least the six government agencies that receive the largest share thereof.”
In separate e-mails to The Tribune, Sibbach and Freitas said they are working on formal responses to the grand jury report, which they must provide by Sept. 7.
“I always take grand jury comments very seriously,” Sibbach wrote, “and want to use a little time to think things through and brainstorm on what can be done to meet their request in a reasonable and cost-effective way.”
He said he will coordinate this response with Freitas.
Freitas, who stressed that his comments are preliminary and based on “a quick review,” wrote that “We can provide this information, but the question is: Would this be the best use of very limited resources?
“We have a group of 24-plus-year-old tax programs that have the data, but I believe it would take a significant effort to build the program to generate this information.
“It would also take at least one additional page to get the data on a bill. The data would be relatively useless, as the distribution is very complicated and every taxpayer pays something in to every taxing agency in the county.
“If we decided to do this,” Freitas continued, “it would have to compete for resources with other needed software updates. I doubt that it would get to the top of the list at any time soon.”
Freitas added that in his 35 years in the Tax Collector’s Office, “No one has ever asked for this information.”
Nonetheless, he wrote that he and Sibbach are “looking at alternatives that would provide the information in some other format for those taxpayers who may be interested. I would support that if the resources to do it don’t take away from other updates that are more important and/or are required by statute.”
Read more: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/06/12/1176230/grand-jury-wants-tax-bill-details.html#ixzz0qm5RhcJP
By Bob Cuddy | bcuddy@thetribunenews.com
When a county homeowner receives a property tax bill, the document does not say in any detail where the tax dollars are going. The county civil grand jury would like to change that.
Top county fiscal administrators are open to the change, but are not sure whether those same taxpayers would be willing to foot the bill to pay for the added staffing and updated technology that they say they believe would be needed.
The grand jury raised the question last week in a report titled “Your property tax bill: The devil is in the details — but there are no details.”
“The typical county property tax bill tells us almost nothing about which agencies get our cash or how much each receives,” the grand jury wrote.
As they investigated, the grand jury said it learned that 90 distinct government agencies receive some or all of their financial support from property taxes collected from within the county’s 407 tax-rate areas.
It also learned that the current general breakdown for disbursements is: school districts, 46 percent; the county government’s general fund, 30 percent; incorporated cities, 12 percent; Cuesta College and special districts, 4 percent each; and redevelopment agencies spread throughout the county, 3 percent.
Grand jurors spoke with County Auditor-Controller Gere Sibbach and Tax Collector-Treasurer Frank Freitas.
“Both suggested that calculating the specific dollar amount that each taxpayer pays to each agency and printing that information on our individual tax bill might be both burdensome and costly,” grand jurors wrote. “The grand jury does not accept their arguments.”
They said that using existing data, “it should not be difficult to compute where our individual tax payments are disbursed.”
There is room on tax bills for the information and, at a minimum, those bills “should provide a good-faith estimate of how much goes to support at least the six government agencies that receive the largest share thereof.”
In separate e-mails to The Tribune, Sibbach and Freitas said they are working on formal responses to the grand jury report, which they must provide by Sept. 7.
“I always take grand jury comments very seriously,” Sibbach wrote, “and want to use a little time to think things through and brainstorm on what can be done to meet their request in a reasonable and cost-effective way.”
He said he will coordinate this response with Freitas.
Freitas, who stressed that his comments are preliminary and based on “a quick review,” wrote that “We can provide this information, but the question is: Would this be the best use of very limited resources?
“We have a group of 24-plus-year-old tax programs that have the data, but I believe it would take a significant effort to build the program to generate this information.
“It would also take at least one additional page to get the data on a bill. The data would be relatively useless, as the distribution is very complicated and every taxpayer pays something in to every taxing agency in the county.
“If we decided to do this,” Freitas continued, “it would have to compete for resources with other needed software updates. I doubt that it would get to the top of the list at any time soon.”
Freitas added that in his 35 years in the Tax Collector’s Office, “No one has ever asked for this information.”
Nonetheless, he wrote that he and Sibbach are “looking at alternatives that would provide the information in some other format for those taxpayers who may be interested. I would support that if the resources to do it don’t take away from other updates that are more important and/or are required by statute.”
Read more: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/06/12/1176230/grand-jury-wants-tax-bill-details.html#ixzz0qm5RhcJP
Mendocino County Grand jury report criticizes Retirement Association; Sakowicz threatens lawsuit
By Mike A'Dair/TWN Staff Writer
Posted: 06/11/2010 11:37:40 AM PDT
A Mendocino County Grand Jury report critical is calling for establishment of a financial oversight committee to monitor the effect of Mendocino County Employees Retirement Association board transactions on the county.
The grand jury report said in 1996 the county authorized the issuance of $30.7 million in pension obligation bonds, and followed up with an issuance of $92 million in bonds in 2002.
Mendocino County, the report said, is "one of the few 1937 Act counties where excess earnings from investments have continued to be used to provide health insurance funding for retirees."
Supervisors voted to discontinue that practice in April of this year.
The grand jury report found the MCREA actuary uses "smoothing" to round off the short-term impacts of stock market volatility and pointed out association has based its financial assumptions on an 8 percent return on investment projected through the year 2026, whereas "economic experts have said the 30-year rolling average for a stock market portfolio is 4.4 percent."
The report offers seven recommendations to MCERA and the county, including the establishment of a citizens' financial oversight committee to monitor the work of MCERA and the retirement board.
The grand jury also suggested the MCERA administrator pay more attention to the "impact of the retirement fund on the county budget, rather than comparing [its financial performance] with that of other counties."
It also wants MCERA financial reports to be structured so "both the actuarial value of assets and the market value of the pension fund assets [can] be made public."
One of the potentially most explosive findings in the report is that "from 2004 to 2006, MCERA diverted over $9.6 million from the county pension fund to pay retiree healthcare costs."
It report states "this was a questionable action; MCERA devised this as a way to solve funding issues for a shortfall in retiree health care. It may have been in conflict with California Government Codes Section 31584 and Section 31587."
Locally based independent financial analyst John Sakowicz warned the board of supervisors Tuesday he is planning to sue MCERA in connection with that $9.6 million, and asked the board to join him in the lawsuit.
Sakowicz said he believes former MCERA Administrator Tim Knudsen diverted the money from MCERA to pay for retiree healthcare benefits, then balanced the books by claiming "unrealized actuarial gains," which Sakowicz claims is tantamount to inventing the money.
In a separate discussion with The Willits News, Sakowicz likened Knudsen's alleged action to that of Bernard Ebbers, former CEO of communications giant WorldCom, who was notorious for capitalzing expenses. "What should have been a liability was turned into revenue," Sakowicz explained, speaking of Ebbers' actions. "Basically, what he did was he didn't call it expenses."
Ebbers is currently serving a 25-year sentence in federal prison in Louisiana.
Sakowicz said he is planning discussions with County Counsel Jeanine Nadel, as well as with two supervisors, on this subject this week.
Tuesday, he asked the board to join him in the suit, warning if the county did not join him, it might find itself named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
http://www.willitsnews.com/ci_15277947
Posted: 06/11/2010 11:37:40 AM PDT
A Mendocino County Grand Jury report critical is calling for establishment of a financial oversight committee to monitor the effect of Mendocino County Employees Retirement Association board transactions on the county.
The grand jury report said in 1996 the county authorized the issuance of $30.7 million in pension obligation bonds, and followed up with an issuance of $92 million in bonds in 2002.
Mendocino County, the report said, is "one of the few 1937 Act counties where excess earnings from investments have continued to be used to provide health insurance funding for retirees."
Supervisors voted to discontinue that practice in April of this year.
The grand jury report found the MCREA actuary uses "smoothing" to round off the short-term impacts of stock market volatility and pointed out association has based its financial assumptions on an 8 percent return on investment projected through the year 2026, whereas "economic experts have said the 30-year rolling average for a stock market portfolio is 4.4 percent."
The report offers seven recommendations to MCERA and the county, including the establishment of a citizens' financial oversight committee to monitor the work of MCERA and the retirement board.
The grand jury also suggested the MCERA administrator pay more attention to the "impact of the retirement fund on the county budget, rather than comparing [its financial performance] with that of other counties."
It also wants MCERA financial reports to be structured so "both the actuarial value of assets and the market value of the pension fund assets [can] be made public."
One of the potentially most explosive findings in the report is that "from 2004 to 2006, MCERA diverted over $9.6 million from the county pension fund to pay retiree healthcare costs."
It report states "this was a questionable action; MCERA devised this as a way to solve funding issues for a shortfall in retiree health care. It may have been in conflict with California Government Codes Section 31584 and Section 31587."
Locally based independent financial analyst John Sakowicz warned the board of supervisors Tuesday he is planning to sue MCERA in connection with that $9.6 million, and asked the board to join him in the lawsuit.
Sakowicz said he believes former MCERA Administrator Tim Knudsen diverted the money from MCERA to pay for retiree healthcare benefits, then balanced the books by claiming "unrealized actuarial gains," which Sakowicz claims is tantamount to inventing the money.
In a separate discussion with The Willits News, Sakowicz likened Knudsen's alleged action to that of Bernard Ebbers, former CEO of communications giant WorldCom, who was notorious for capitalzing expenses. "What should have been a liability was turned into revenue," Sakowicz explained, speaking of Ebbers' actions. "Basically, what he did was he didn't call it expenses."
Ebbers is currently serving a 25-year sentence in federal prison in Louisiana.
Sakowicz said he is planning discussions with County Counsel Jeanine Nadel, as well as with two supervisors, on this subject this week.
Tuesday, he asked the board to join him in the suit, warning if the county did not join him, it might find itself named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
http://www.willitsnews.com/ci_15277947
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Santa Barbara County Grand Jury report finds county jail system overcrowded, unsafe
The Santa Barbara County jail system continues to be overcrowded and unsafe for both officers and inmates, according to a new report from the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury,
Although programs and services have been implemented to thin out the Goleta main jail population over the years, the grand jury concluded that the county should construct a 300-bed jail in Santa Maria.
The independent, volunteer grand jury urged the Board of Supervisors to secure the estimated $24 million needed to build the jail and to work with the sheriff to fund the approximate $17 million needed in annual operating expenses.
Sheriff Bill Brown is scheduled to approach the board June 22 with funding options, such as a safety sales tax.
http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/local/article_e74465b0-74ef-11df-867f-001cc4c002e0.html
Although programs and services have been implemented to thin out the Goleta main jail population over the years, the grand jury concluded that the county should construct a 300-bed jail in Santa Maria.
The independent, volunteer grand jury urged the Board of Supervisors to secure the estimated $24 million needed to build the jail and to work with the sheriff to fund the approximate $17 million needed in annual operating expenses.
Sheriff Bill Brown is scheduled to approach the board June 22 with funding options, such as a safety sales tax.
http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/local/article_e74465b0-74ef-11df-867f-001cc4c002e0.html
Sacramento grand jury: Child agency needs to refocus to protect kids
By Marjie Lundstrom
mlundstrom@sacbee.com
Published: Friday, Jun. 11, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1B
A disproportionately high number of foster children in Sacramento are shuffled in assembly-line fashion through numerous placements, too many social workers and a disjointed medical system that even insiders don't understand, the Sacramento County grand jury has found.
As a result, the 19-member panel concluded the safety and well-being of Sacramento's most vulnerable children remain in jeopardy.
County Child Protective Services "has been structured for the convenience of the organization, not in a way that works best for the children," according to the latest grand jury report, released Thursday. "For CPS to succeed in its mission, it must change. It must focus on children."
The report marks the second time in two years that the grand jury has drilled into the inner-workings of the county's child protection agency, the subject of an ongoing Bee investigation that began in 2007.
Yet unlike last year's scathing report, titled "Nothing Ever Changes – Ever," the new report indicates the agency is beginning to move in the right direction.
Agency leadership "is attempting to implement systems that will make it more effective and efficient," the panel concluded, in spite of deep budget cuts and layoffs. Among the improvements cited is a reorganization to allow a single social worker to follow a child throughout the CPS system.
However, "while CPS has made changes in the last year to improve its operations, it has a substantial way to go," the grand jury cautioned.
Following up on a Bee investigation of the deaths of children whose families had prior involvement with CPS, the previous grand jury focused on the agency's procedures in deciding when to remove a child from a potentially dangerous home.
The current grand jury turned its attention to what happens once a child has been removed.
Earlier this year, The Bee examined the case of 4 1/2-year-old Amariana Crenshaw, whose mysterious death in foster care raised questions about the quality of her care and how well it was monitored. Amariana's story was among the materials examined by the grand jury.
Among the concerns highlighted in "The State of Foster Care in Sacramento County":
• Sacramento has ranked at the bottom of California's 20 largest counties in placement stability for foster children. A November 2009 CPS report showed that more than 30 percent of the county's foster children were in at least their fourth placement – and many had been moved six or more times.
• Foster children are being passed among too many social workers, making it "extremely difficult" for them to even know their workers, let alone establish a "trusting relationship."
• The agency's monitoring of medical care for foster children is "disjointed and ineffective for recognizing potential problems; few in the organization understand it, and even fewer can explain it," the grand jury found.
• The private foster family agencies that collect money to oversee the care of many Sacramento children have a vested interest in preserving their placements. "This does not always serve the best interest of the child if a home is not working well," the grand jury said.
In a prepared statement, CPS Director Laura Coulthard said the agency agrees "with many of the grand jury's observations about how the foster care system should improve and (its) recommended solutions," noting that many already are "in place or in progress."
"We share the grand jury's concerns that lack of resources will make continuing improvements a challenge," Coulthard added.
Grand jury forewoman Rosemary Kelley declined to comment, saying, "The report speaks for itself."
In her cover letter to the report, Kelley, a local attorney, wrote, "CPS is trying to change, but it needs the cooperation of the entire agency and the necessary financial resources."
The grand jury's concerns mirror many of the conditions that existed for Amariana Crenshaw before her Jan. 11, 2008, death. Amariana's foster mother, Tracy Dossman, was affiliated with a series of private foster family agencies.
While Amariana lived in only one foster home, her care was monitored by numerous social workers and supervisors with the county and private agencies. Medical records reveal she was injured at least 17 times before her death, yet no one seemed to question whether that signaled a pattern.
The grand jury also noted that CPS has no way of tracking whether a child on its watch is growing properly, a basic indicator of well-being. In one of the most stunning revelations in Amariana's case, The Bee pieced together medical records to determine that she grew 3 inches yet gained only one pound in her last three years of life, most of which she spent in foster care.
After Amariana's charred body was removed from a burning rental home owned by Dossman, her foster family agency described Dossman as a "model foster parent." She continued to provide foster care until early this year, when the state ordered that agency to decertify her.
County officials have conducted an internal investigation into CPS' handling of Amariana's case and are expected to make their findings public later this month.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/11/2814577/sacramento-grand-jury-child-agency.html#ixzz0qhrP0uZa
mlundstrom@sacbee.com
Published: Friday, Jun. 11, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1B
A disproportionately high number of foster children in Sacramento are shuffled in assembly-line fashion through numerous placements, too many social workers and a disjointed medical system that even insiders don't understand, the Sacramento County grand jury has found.
As a result, the 19-member panel concluded the safety and well-being of Sacramento's most vulnerable children remain in jeopardy.
County Child Protective Services "has been structured for the convenience of the organization, not in a way that works best for the children," according to the latest grand jury report, released Thursday. "For CPS to succeed in its mission, it must change. It must focus on children."
The report marks the second time in two years that the grand jury has drilled into the inner-workings of the county's child protection agency, the subject of an ongoing Bee investigation that began in 2007.
Yet unlike last year's scathing report, titled "Nothing Ever Changes – Ever," the new report indicates the agency is beginning to move in the right direction.
Agency leadership "is attempting to implement systems that will make it more effective and efficient," the panel concluded, in spite of deep budget cuts and layoffs. Among the improvements cited is a reorganization to allow a single social worker to follow a child throughout the CPS system.
However, "while CPS has made changes in the last year to improve its operations, it has a substantial way to go," the grand jury cautioned.
Following up on a Bee investigation of the deaths of children whose families had prior involvement with CPS, the previous grand jury focused on the agency's procedures in deciding when to remove a child from a potentially dangerous home.
The current grand jury turned its attention to what happens once a child has been removed.
Earlier this year, The Bee examined the case of 4 1/2-year-old Amariana Crenshaw, whose mysterious death in foster care raised questions about the quality of her care and how well it was monitored. Amariana's story was among the materials examined by the grand jury.
Among the concerns highlighted in "The State of Foster Care in Sacramento County":
• Sacramento has ranked at the bottom of California's 20 largest counties in placement stability for foster children. A November 2009 CPS report showed that more than 30 percent of the county's foster children were in at least their fourth placement – and many had been moved six or more times.
• Foster children are being passed among too many social workers, making it "extremely difficult" for them to even know their workers, let alone establish a "trusting relationship."
• The agency's monitoring of medical care for foster children is "disjointed and ineffective for recognizing potential problems; few in the organization understand it, and even fewer can explain it," the grand jury found.
• The private foster family agencies that collect money to oversee the care of many Sacramento children have a vested interest in preserving their placements. "This does not always serve the best interest of the child if a home is not working well," the grand jury said.
In a prepared statement, CPS Director Laura Coulthard said the agency agrees "with many of the grand jury's observations about how the foster care system should improve and (its) recommended solutions," noting that many already are "in place or in progress."
"We share the grand jury's concerns that lack of resources will make continuing improvements a challenge," Coulthard added.
Grand jury forewoman Rosemary Kelley declined to comment, saying, "The report speaks for itself."
In her cover letter to the report, Kelley, a local attorney, wrote, "CPS is trying to change, but it needs the cooperation of the entire agency and the necessary financial resources."
The grand jury's concerns mirror many of the conditions that existed for Amariana Crenshaw before her Jan. 11, 2008, death. Amariana's foster mother, Tracy Dossman, was affiliated with a series of private foster family agencies.
While Amariana lived in only one foster home, her care was monitored by numerous social workers and supervisors with the county and private agencies. Medical records reveal she was injured at least 17 times before her death, yet no one seemed to question whether that signaled a pattern.
The grand jury also noted that CPS has no way of tracking whether a child on its watch is growing properly, a basic indicator of well-being. In one of the most stunning revelations in Amariana's case, The Bee pieced together medical records to determine that she grew 3 inches yet gained only one pound in her last three years of life, most of which she spent in foster care.
After Amariana's charred body was removed from a burning rental home owned by Dossman, her foster family agency described Dossman as a "model foster parent." She continued to provide foster care until early this year, when the state ordered that agency to decertify her.
County officials have conducted an internal investigation into CPS' handling of Amariana's case and are expected to make their findings public later this month.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/11/2814577/sacramento-grand-jury-child-agency.html#ixzz0qhrP0uZa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)