7:00am | The Long
Beach Post has learned that the Long Beach Taxpayers Association will file a complaint this week with the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury seeking "judgment on years of corruptive practices that have resulted in the lack of fiscal discipline in managing the City’s finances," according to the Association's leaders Kathy Ryan and Tom Stout.
In a statement released to the Long Beach Post, Ryan and Stout claim, "The recent labor negotiation between the Police Officers Association and the City of Long Beach has added insult to injury. The lack of will by management to negotiate meaningful pension reform for the people became the last straw..."
The Civil Grand Jury, according to their web site, "acts in a 'watch-dog' capacity, by examining carefully and completely, the operations of various government agencies within Los Angeles County...Any private citizen, county official, or county employee may present a complaint in writing to the Civil Grand Jury. The Civil Grand Jury limits its investigations to possible felonies and to charges of malfeasance (wrong doing) or misfeasance (doing a lawful act in an unlawful manner) by public officials. Any request for an investigation must include detailed evidence supporting the complaint. If the grand jurors believe that the evidence submitted is sufficient, a detailed investigation will be held."
According to Ryan, the Association will present a complaint claiming that Long Beach city leaders:
- "Allowed the unfunded pension liability to get to an unmanageable $1.2 billion dollars without notifying the citizens of Long Beach before February of 2011."
- "Allowed the in-lieu pick up by the city/citizens to continue until the present, written into each subsequent contract, when it was meant as a concession in one contract instead of raises. This has cost the city/citizens millions over the years in services and infrastructure."
- "Approved new retirement ages in 2002, when the City Charter states the ages to retire to be 65 for miscellaneous employees and 55 for police and fire. Even though the options given by CalPERS, when the pensions were enhanced by the City Council in 2002 did not include retirement ages of 65 and 55, but the City Council had an alternative; they could have done nothing and left the status quo and not enhanced the pensions, leaving the retirement ages as is."
More to come...
http://www.lbpost.com/news/staffreports/12260
Monday, August 29, 2011
Claim denied: Wholesaler says (Siskiyou) Grand Jury report was incorrect
By Jamie Gentner
Siskiyou Daily News
Posted Aug 29, 2011 @ 08:58 AM
Siskiyou County —
Though it has been a year since the incident began unfolding, the details surrounding a repossession of vehicles from the Yreka Auto Center (YAC) keep coming.
In a Thursday, Aug. 25 story, the Daily News outlined the 2010-2011 Siskiyou County Civil Grand Jury’s findings regarding the Aug. 26 incident as published in their report that was released Tuesday.
The Grand Jury investigated the situation after receiving a complaint contending that the Yreka Police Department and Siskiyou County District Attorney’s Office failed to adequately help YAC and several residents after cars were taken from the lot at 1425 S. Main St. in Yreka.
In the report, and detailed in the Daily News article, the Grand Jury says that a wholesaler who had six vehicles on the YAC lot to be sold became involved in a civil lawsuit with Express Auto Funding, the company that had loaned YAC money to buy cars to sell on its lot and ultimately ordered the repossession for lack of payment.
The report says the Grand Jury was advised in January 2011 that Express Auto won the lawsuit and was granted a writ of possession that resulted in Express Auto obtaining legal rights to the vehicles.
But the wholesaler – Todd Williamson of Williamson Motor Company – called the Daily News on Friday and denied the claim.
Williamson said he has not gone to court with Express Auto. Despite their efforts to obtain the titles to the vehicles, they have not, he said.
While Express Auto has not returned the cars, “I still possess the titles and ownership of the cars,” Williamson said.
He said Express Auto is scheduled for court appearances with YAC – set in Sonoma County Superior Court for a summary judgment conference Sept. 20 at 8:30 a.m., settlement conference Sept. 26 at 9 a.m. and trial Oct. 21 at 8:30 a.m. – and he is waiting to see how that case pans out before doing much more on his end.
Express Auto Funding Director David Lachtman told the Daily News Friday that, “Officially, we have no comment.”
A Grand Jury representative could not be contacted by press time to determine where the Grand Jury had received the information.
“Everything is still up in the air,” Williamson said.
– Jamie Gentner can be reached at jgentner@siskiyoudaily.com
Siskiyou Daily News
Posted Aug 29, 2011 @ 08:58 AM
Siskiyou County —
Though it has been a year since the incident began unfolding, the details surrounding a repossession of vehicles from the Yreka Auto Center (YAC) keep coming.
In a Thursday, Aug. 25 story, the Daily News outlined the 2010-2011 Siskiyou County Civil Grand Jury’s findings regarding the Aug. 26 incident as published in their report that was released Tuesday.
The Grand Jury investigated the situation after receiving a complaint contending that the Yreka Police Department and Siskiyou County District Attorney’s Office failed to adequately help YAC and several residents after cars were taken from the lot at 1425 S. Main St. in Yreka.
In the report, and detailed in the Daily News article, the Grand Jury says that a wholesaler who had six vehicles on the YAC lot to be sold became involved in a civil lawsuit with Express Auto Funding, the company that had loaned YAC money to buy cars to sell on its lot and ultimately ordered the repossession for lack of payment.
The report says the Grand Jury was advised in January 2011 that Express Auto won the lawsuit and was granted a writ of possession that resulted in Express Auto obtaining legal rights to the vehicles.
But the wholesaler – Todd Williamson of Williamson Motor Company – called the Daily News on Friday and denied the claim.
Williamson said he has not gone to court with Express Auto. Despite their efforts to obtain the titles to the vehicles, they have not, he said.
While Express Auto has not returned the cars, “I still possess the titles and ownership of the cars,” Williamson said.
He said Express Auto is scheduled for court appearances with YAC – set in Sonoma County Superior Court for a summary judgment conference Sept. 20 at 8:30 a.m., settlement conference Sept. 26 at 9 a.m. and trial Oct. 21 at 8:30 a.m. – and he is waiting to see how that case pans out before doing much more on his end.
Express Auto Funding Director David Lachtman told the Daily News Friday that, “Officially, we have no comment.”
A Grand Jury representative could not be contacted by press time to determine where the Grand Jury had received the information.
“Everything is still up in the air,” Williamson said.
– Jamie Gentner can be reached at jgentner@siskiyoudaily.com
Friday, August 26, 2011
City responds to (Orange County) Grand Jury report on salaries
Salary information is more transparent on website, but city manager takes issue with other jury recommendations.
By Barbara Diamond, coastlinepilot@latimes.com
August 25, 2011 | 4:39 p.m.
Information about city employees' salaries are easier to find after the Orange County Grand Jury in June dinged the city for its lack of transparency.
The information, which was formerly available but scattered on the city's website, has been consolidated into a single-page format, with hyperlinks to help folks more easily find salaries and benefits.
But that doesn't mean the city agreed with all of the Grand Jury's conclusions or recommendations.
"It is important to question the amount spent on personnel and municipal services to ensure they are appropriate in the light of a city's particular service demands, the market, local economy and community preferences," said City Manager John Pietig. "However, to effectively compare personnel costs, the Grand Jury would have to undertake a more in-depth analysis of services provided by each city in Orange County."
Pietig's comments on the Grand Jury findings and recommendations were included in a response to the Orange County Superior Court, as requested by presiding Judge Thomas J. Borris.
The recommendations included conducting a review of the need for what the jury deemed a relatively high number of upper-level — or highly-paid — positions in relation to the city's population of less than 25,000.
Pietig responded that staffing and service levels are subject to annual review in the budget process.
Moreover, in the last three years, 10 positions have been eliminated, three of them with salaries of $95,000 or more a year, he said.
Pietig also took exception to the jury's conclusion that population was a proper basis for evaluating staffing levels. Pietig said an equitable evaluation must take into consideration the types and numbers of services provided and the number of people for whom the services are performed.
He pointed out in his response to Borris that Laguna is the only city in South County with its own year-round municipal transit system, among other services that many other cities do not provide.
"Residential population does not represent service population," Pietig said. "Laguna Beach frequently serves over 100,000 people a day."
The Grand Jury report also focused on possible abuses related to compensation paid to elected officials in the wake of the Bell financial scandal.
None were found.
http://www.coastlinepilot.com/news/tn-cpt-0826-salaries-20110825,0,679468.story
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Maricopa responds to grand jury reports
By Jose Gaspar, Eyewitness News and BakersfieldNow.com
Published: Aug 24, 2011 at 12:49 PM PDT
MARICOPA, Calif. — The city of Maricopa released its long-awaited response to scathing reports by the Kern County Grand Jury. While the city agreed on some points raised by the grand jury, it rejected others and flatly disagreed on one key point: Maricopa will not disincorporate.
A series of reports by the grand jury questioned city financial practices, the professionalism of its police department as well as the city granting an exclusive contract with Randy's Towing, in which the city received 25 percent of impound storage fees.
Eric Ziegler, former city manager of Taft, was brought on staff to help the ailing city, and it was Ziegler who drafted the city's response to the grand jury. City council members adopted his recommended response.
They agreed to follow some the recommendations made by the grand jury, such as developing a plan for debt payment.
The grand jury also recommended disbanding the police department, calling its two-man force "unprofessional and lacking integrity."
But Ziegler maintained doing away with the police department was premature, and noted that some in the community were not happy with the level of service previously provided by the Kern County Sheriff's Office when Maricopa contracted with the county for police services.
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/128299548.html
Published: Aug 24, 2011 at 12:49 PM PDT
MARICOPA, Calif. — The city of Maricopa released its long-awaited response to scathing reports by the Kern County Grand Jury. While the city agreed on some points raised by the grand jury, it rejected others and flatly disagreed on one key point: Maricopa will not disincorporate.
A series of reports by the grand jury questioned city financial practices, the professionalism of its police department as well as the city granting an exclusive contract with Randy's Towing, in which the city received 25 percent of impound storage fees.
Eric Ziegler, former city manager of Taft, was brought on staff to help the ailing city, and it was Ziegler who drafted the city's response to the grand jury. City council members adopted his recommended response.
They agreed to follow some the recommendations made by the grand jury, such as developing a plan for debt payment.
The grand jury also recommended disbanding the police department, calling its two-man force "unprofessional and lacking integrity."
But Ziegler maintained doing away with the police department was premature, and noted that some in the community were not happy with the level of service previously provided by the Kern County Sheriff's Office when Maricopa contracted with the county for police services.
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/128299548.html
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Editorial: Councilman who ripped (Marin) grand jury was dead wrong
Marin Independent Journal Editorial
Posted: 08/23/2011 02:00:00 AM PDT
MICHAEL Lappert has earned a reputation for speaking his mind during his two terms on the Corte Madera Town Council.
He did that last week when he ripped into the Marin County civil grand jury, essentially questioning what right "housewives and hardware store owners" serving on the grand jury have to criticize the way Corte Madera conducts its business.
Lappert could use a civics lesson. And he owes the members of the grand jury, a panel of volunteer government watchdogs appointed by the Marin Courts, an apology. And more respect.
The 2010-11 grand jury examined Corte Madera's finances and expressed alarm that the town has maintained a slim reserve, far below the 10 percent to 15 percent most towns seek to have.
The grand jury's report was particularly critical of the town's purchase of the Park Madera shopping center for $10 million — a price that exceeded the town's appraisal. The property has been a drain on the city's budget for years. This is not a revelation.
Lappert has maintained the purchase made sense because the land could someday be part of expanding the town park. He may be right — some day.
The grand jury also questioned the wisdom of the town, once flush with tax revenue thanks to its two regional shopping centers and car dealerships, failing to maintain prudent reserves.
Lappert dismissed the grand jury's findings as a "hit piece," rather than showing respect for the effort of 19 independent residents who studied the facts and did the math, coming up with a sum different than did Lappert and other council members.
Lappert is part of an unfortunate Marin trend. In recent years local leaders too often have attacked the grand jury's motives and even its right to exist rather than doing the right thing, which is to thoughtfully respond to the grand jury's honest criticisms and questions. After all, a civil grand jury is appointed each year by a judge to keep an eye on local government for the rest of us.
Here's what Lappert said:
"One day they're mowing their lawn and they go to work at PG&E and the next day they're on the grand jury?" he asked, attempting to dismiss their work.
Grand jurors could easily say this of Lappert: "One day he's running an ice cream store and the next day he's on the Town Council."
They won't. They have more respect for community service than that.
The grand jury is supposed to reflect a broad range of perspectives, professions, areas of expertise and political priorities.
Grand jurors don't expect everyone to agree with their findings or recommendations, but they look into local issues and problems brought to their attention and, collectively, give their opinion and advice in the form of reports.
Lappert is outspoken, interesting and, often, entertaining. Sometimes, he's even right. But in ridiculing the grand jury, he was disrespectful of citizens serving their community — the same thing he does as a Town Council member.
He was wrong.
Perhaps some day he will step forward and join other citizens on a civil grand jury and find out just how wrong.
http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_18735101
(Sacramento) Grand Jury Discusses Scathing Report On Twin Rivers
POSTED: 10:37 pm PDT August 22, 2011
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- In a rare meeting with members of a Sacramento County Grand Jury, concerned parents, teachers and district employees from the Twin Rivers Unified School District asked about the jury’s findings.
The meeting was organized by community activists who said the report has outraged many and created many questions. More than a hundred people showed up at the Robertson Community Center in Del Paso Heights for the meeting.
“Maybe this is a wake up call to say ‘hey, you need to be involved,’” said Derrell Roberts, with the African American Leadership Coalition.
The report came out at the end of June, but Monday’s meeting was the first chance concerned parents could come and discuss the findings together in a public setting.
Three members of the grand jury explained how they determined the Twin Rivers Unified School District had uncontrolled spending, was plagued with animosity, and had costly lawsuits.
“It’s unprecedented,” said John Ennis, a teacher in the district who came to the meeting. “We have three grand jurors in there answering questions and educating the public about their report.”
Parents who live in the district said the meeting was necessary.
“I didn’t really know what to expect,” said Willie Bennett, a concerned parent. “Now that I am here, my ears are getting bigger.”
The Twin Rivers School Board is in the process of forming a response to the Grand Jury Report.
One of the board members at the meeting, who didn’t want to go on camera, told KCRA 3, he thought the changes recommended by the grand jury are appropriate.
Read more: http://www.kcra.com/news/28945929/detail.html#ixzz1W0ZgKwVZ
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- In a rare meeting with members of a Sacramento County Grand Jury, concerned parents, teachers and district employees from the Twin Rivers Unified School District asked about the jury’s findings.
The meeting was organized by community activists who said the report has outraged many and created many questions. More than a hundred people showed up at the Robertson Community Center in Del Paso Heights for the meeting.
“Maybe this is a wake up call to say ‘hey, you need to be involved,’” said Derrell Roberts, with the African American Leadership Coalition.
The report came out at the end of June, but Monday’s meeting was the first chance concerned parents could come and discuss the findings together in a public setting.
Three members of the grand jury explained how they determined the Twin Rivers Unified School District had uncontrolled spending, was plagued with animosity, and had costly lawsuits.
“It’s unprecedented,” said John Ennis, a teacher in the district who came to the meeting. “We have three grand jurors in there answering questions and educating the public about their report.”
Parents who live in the district said the meeting was necessary.
“I didn’t really know what to expect,” said Willie Bennett, a concerned parent. “Now that I am here, my ears are getting bigger.”
The Twin Rivers School Board is in the process of forming a response to the Grand Jury Report.
One of the board members at the meeting, who didn’t want to go on camera, told KCRA 3, he thought the changes recommended by the grand jury are appropriate.
Read more: http://www.kcra.com/news/28945929/detail.html#ixzz1W0ZgKwVZ
San Bernardino airport officials respond to Grand Jury criticism
Josh Dulaney, Staff Writer
Posted: 08/22/2011 03:38:25 PM PDT
SAN BERNARDINO -- Airport officials have submitted their formal response to a blistering Grand Jury report that second-guessed some of their decisions in the effort to turn the former Norton Air Force Base into a civilian airfield.
The San Bernardino International Airport Authority board's nearly 600-page response -- essentially a compilation of its own findings -- contains several capitulations to the Grand Jury's recommendations, as well as a defense of its work at the former air base.
"While the SBIAA recognizes the tangible benefits and value of all of the recommendations contained in the document, it is essential that the foundational errors be addressed to ensure the integrity of this process," wrote Mayor Pat Morris, who also is president of the authority board, in a letter to the Grand Jury that accompanied the response.
The airport authority board -- a joint-powers authority composed of San Bernardino County and the cities of San Bernardino, Colton, Loma Linda and Highland -- has spent weeks condemning the Grand Jury for how it went about examining the board's financial practices, construction management and developer contracts.
A Grand Jury-commissioned audit by the San Francisco-based auditor Harvey M. Rose Associates also raised questions about the airport's relationship with Scot Spencer, a convicted felon who has served time in federal prison for bankruptcy fraud and has been banned from the aviation industry.
At one point, airport officials said the civil Grand jury report, released June 30, repeated several errors that are far from "anything resembling reality."
Airport officials have argued that the auditors did not look at all the information given to them by airport management.
The airport's formal response was submitted Thursday, nearly two weeks before an Aug. 30 deadline.
Notable agreements with the Grand Jury's recommendations include:
Developing comprehensive policies and procedures, and refining efforts to ensure in-depth documentation of business processes and transactions.
Rotating financial auditing firms every five years and seeking a reputable, independent auditing firm to look at all expenses connected with the airport terminal project and other projects.
Reviewing contracts for construction services and operations managed by Spencer and making any changes necessary to protect the airport from future risks.
The authority board said many of the recommendations already have been addressed, and all will be undertaken within the 12 months suggested by the Grand Jury.
Morris wrote that the recommendations already implemented "are now a part of our annual evaluation matrix."
The airport board also put into place its own set of updated procedures, including an annual performance review of executive management and staff.
In defending their efforts, officials have pointed to Boeing Co.'s test work at the airfield as an example of the airport's viability.
They also cite a joint research project by Cal State San Bernardino and Cal State Fullerton that shows the airport is expected to produce an estimated $1.2billion in annual economic activity, including 9,355 jobs and $500million in annual payroll.
josh.dulaney@inlandnewspapers.com, 909-386-3885
Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_18734211#ixzz1W0ZCG4uK
Marysville takes issue with grand jury report
August 23, 2011 11:43:00 PM
By Nancy Pasternack/Appeal-Democrat
Marysville officials take issue with complaints outlined in a Yuba County grand jury report regarding the city's use of a police vehicle, and transparency with public records.
The City Council approved Marysville's response letters to the 2010-11 report Tuesday, including one that calls the jury's findings and recommendations "deeply flawed" and "not based on fact."
The document at issue was a portion of the report titled "Police Car Not in Compliance" which, the report explains, was an investigation of a resident's report of an unmarked, unlicensed vehicle being driven by police personnel.
"Grand Jurors made an unannounced visit to the Marysville Police Department. The vehicle in question was in the parking lot and was in violation of California Vehicle Code," the report reads.
It was determined that the vehicle had recently been purchased from another jurisdiction, the report goes on to say, and the Police Department was in the process of obtaining permanent license plates.
"Marysville Police Department must comply with even the most basic of laws, or risk losing public confidence in their integrity and commitment to uphold the law," the report chided.
The city's response concluded that the jury's recommendations, "will not be implemented because they are not warranted and they are in part, diatribe."
A second grand jury report issue received a mixed response from the city.
According to the jury's findings, "no consistent written minutes exist for Marysville City Council meetings."
City officials responded that all minutes for all 2010 and 2011 meetings are available.
Those for 2008 and 2009 were incomplete — according to the city's response — after a decrease in staffing left the clerk's office shorthanded. Those, "are in the process of being completed," reads the response letter.
The grand jury report accuses the city of granting access to available recordings of city council meetings to a grand jury member, and of denying access to a regular citizen making the same request.
City officials flatly denied the charge, and said a policy that allows citizens to set up appointments to access such recordings is adequate.
The city recently implemented one grand jury recommendation regarding the provision of a "dedicated device to be used by the public," to view electronically recorded meetings.
CONTACT reporter Nancy Pasternack at 749-4781
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/report-109386-marysville-police.html
By Nancy Pasternack/Appeal-Democrat
Marysville officials take issue with complaints outlined in a Yuba County grand jury report regarding the city's use of a police vehicle, and transparency with public records.
The City Council approved Marysville's response letters to the 2010-11 report Tuesday, including one that calls the jury's findings and recommendations "deeply flawed" and "not based on fact."
The document at issue was a portion of the report titled "Police Car Not in Compliance" which, the report explains, was an investigation of a resident's report of an unmarked, unlicensed vehicle being driven by police personnel.
"Grand Jurors made an unannounced visit to the Marysville Police Department. The vehicle in question was in the parking lot and was in violation of California Vehicle Code," the report reads.
It was determined that the vehicle had recently been purchased from another jurisdiction, the report goes on to say, and the Police Department was in the process of obtaining permanent license plates.
"Marysville Police Department must comply with even the most basic of laws, or risk losing public confidence in their integrity and commitment to uphold the law," the report chided.
The city's response concluded that the jury's recommendations, "will not be implemented because they are not warranted and they are in part, diatribe."
A second grand jury report issue received a mixed response from the city.
According to the jury's findings, "no consistent written minutes exist for Marysville City Council meetings."
City officials responded that all minutes for all 2010 and 2011 meetings are available.
Those for 2008 and 2009 were incomplete — according to the city's response — after a decrease in staffing left the clerk's office shorthanded. Those, "are in the process of being completed," reads the response letter.
The grand jury report accuses the city of granting access to available recordings of city council meetings to a grand jury member, and of denying access to a regular citizen making the same request.
City officials flatly denied the charge, and said a policy that allows citizens to set up appointments to access such recordings is adequate.
The city recently implemented one grand jury recommendation regarding the provision of a "dedicated device to be used by the public," to view electronically recorded meetings.
CONTACT reporter Nancy Pasternack at 749-4781
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/report-109386-marysville-police.html
Monday, August 22, 2011
Oakland Building Services Division
City Issues Preliminary Response to Alameda County Grand Jury Report
By Barbara Grady
Published on Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Over the weekend, the city of Oakland released its preliminary response to the 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Report about problems in the city's Building Services Division, as well as about Oakland's parking bureau and regional emergency communications.
The bulk of the response focused on Building Services - the subject of reportedly thousands of complaints against Oakland City Hall in the past couple years.
The city said it already addressed the problems about parking and emergency communications with new equipment and systems. It also said it "is committed to transforming its code enforcement" processes and its Building Services operations. It said it will make "immediate change efforts" to improve transparency in its operations and customer service; create a data management system that the public can access to look up property issues; revise its due process procedures so there is a predictable timeline between notices and liens and fees; and fix its appeals process.
Responding point-by-point to the Alameda County Grand Jury's findings, the city said it concurs with many of the findings, specifically that building inspectors need to be better trained, that the department's citations need to describe a violation rather than just cite a number of a code - something that leaves many small property owners bewildered - and that Building Services establish and adhere to deadlines for responding to fined property owners.
Some say these three changes would go a long way in answering thousands of complaints the city reportedly received about Building Services in recent years. These include being charged that it issues confusing notices that anyone without sufficient Internet skills for searching the city's ordinances would not understand, that its inspectors sometimes bully and intimidate property owners and that it doesn't answer inquiries or requests for appeals.
The grand jury found that building inspectors often operated in an atmosphere of "hostility and intimidation" when dealing with property owners. Oakland Local reporting found that some Building Services inspectors allegedly would threaten property owners, saying they'd run them out of business, or slap higher fees on unless the property owner complied to an abatement notice without trying to appeal. One inspector was said to have thrown out all the furnishings and contents of a home, leaving the resident nothing. The city agreed that it needed a training program for inspectors so that, among other things, they will be "working with - not against - property owners."
The city also agreed it must fix the appeal process and with the need to establish a "clear, simple, effective appeals process" after the grand jury found that its appeals process was "broken" and many property owners said was non-existent. The city also said it would follow a grand jury recommendation that it develop a centralized case management system accessible to building inspectors and property owners alike.
In its weekend response, dated today, Aug. 15, the city said it only "partially concurs" with several other grand jury recommendations. One of the items it agrees with is that going forward, it makes sure that the actual property owners receive the violation and lien notices. The city blamed the fact that property owners often don't get these notices on the county's property records, and then said the city would have its own new data system installed and implemented in 18 months.
For complete story go to: http://oaklandlocal.com/tags/alameda-county-grand-jury
County CPS, Sheriff responds to (Nevada County) Grand Jury report
By Kyle Magin
Staff Writer
Nevada County has released its responses to Grand Jury reports filed earlier this year calling for some policy changes and infrastructure upgrades at two county departments.
In June, Jurors released a report finding a breakdown in communication at Child Protective Services, which allowed one case of child abuse that was reported to the office to go unrecorded and, subsequently, not followed up by staffers. Once the Grand Jury brought it to CPS attention, the agency immediately followed up on the claim, Grand Jury records show.
In its response, the county agreed it dropped the ball on the report in question, which was made last year in person at the CPS' office. But, county officials said the report was an isolated event, given its rigorous standards for following up on such reports.
“There is inconclusive evidence that other reports of suspected child abuse may have gone unrecorded,” county officials said in the report.
Cases are intensively followed up on, said Social Services Director Alison Lehman, who oversees CPS. Phone reports of abuse are immediately recorded by social workers and reviewed and reconciled with written reports received and those that come from law enforcement, she added.
In 2010-11, the 15.5-employee office received 950 reports of child abuse, Lehman said.
To correct the problem, by Sept. 30 the office will implement a system requiring all walk-ins filing an abuse report to log in, so the matter is documented and followed up on, she said.
“The safety of children in our community is our highest priority,” Lehman said. “Our social workers have chosen this field because of their commitment to keep children safe.”
Sheriff's Office
The Grand Jury also recommended the Sheriff's Office move immediately to improve security and video surveillance at the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility in Nevada City. The facility houses all county jail inmates.
Jurors found the facility lacked adequate video surveillance, proper locks on some doors and the minimum secutiry area has drop ceilings where inmates could potentially hide contraband materials.
In its response to the report, county officials agreed with the report.
The Grand Jury's report recommended the county “immediately” invest in a new security system. The Sheriff's Office recently put the system, which includes increased camera surveillance, out to bid, said Sheriff Keith Royal.
Estimated cost is about $875,000, he added.
Supervisors are scheduled to consider and potentially approve the new system at their Tuesday, Aug. 30, meeting.
To contact Staff Writer Kyle Magin, e-mail kmagin@theunion.com or call 530-477-4239.
http://www.theunion.com/article/20110818/NEWS/110819820/1001&parentprofile=1053
Staff Writer
Nevada County has released its responses to Grand Jury reports filed earlier this year calling for some policy changes and infrastructure upgrades at two county departments.
In June, Jurors released a report finding a breakdown in communication at Child Protective Services, which allowed one case of child abuse that was reported to the office to go unrecorded and, subsequently, not followed up by staffers. Once the Grand Jury brought it to CPS attention, the agency immediately followed up on the claim, Grand Jury records show.
In its response, the county agreed it dropped the ball on the report in question, which was made last year in person at the CPS' office. But, county officials said the report was an isolated event, given its rigorous standards for following up on such reports.
“There is inconclusive evidence that other reports of suspected child abuse may have gone unrecorded,” county officials said in the report.
Cases are intensively followed up on, said Social Services Director Alison Lehman, who oversees CPS. Phone reports of abuse are immediately recorded by social workers and reviewed and reconciled with written reports received and those that come from law enforcement, she added.
In 2010-11, the 15.5-employee office received 950 reports of child abuse, Lehman said.
To correct the problem, by Sept. 30 the office will implement a system requiring all walk-ins filing an abuse report to log in, so the matter is documented and followed up on, she said.
“The safety of children in our community is our highest priority,” Lehman said. “Our social workers have chosen this field because of their commitment to keep children safe.”
Sheriff's Office
The Grand Jury also recommended the Sheriff's Office move immediately to improve security and video surveillance at the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility in Nevada City. The facility houses all county jail inmates.
Jurors found the facility lacked adequate video surveillance, proper locks on some doors and the minimum secutiry area has drop ceilings where inmates could potentially hide contraband materials.
In its response to the report, county officials agreed with the report.
The Grand Jury's report recommended the county “immediately” invest in a new security system. The Sheriff's Office recently put the system, which includes increased camera surveillance, out to bid, said Sheriff Keith Royal.
Estimated cost is about $875,000, he added.
Supervisors are scheduled to consider and potentially approve the new system at their Tuesday, Aug. 30, meeting.
To contact Staff Writer Kyle Magin, e-mail kmagin@theunion.com or call 530-477-4239.
http://www.theunion.com/article/20110818/NEWS/110819820/1001&parentprofile=1053
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)