Saturday, March 31, 2012
CGJA: Learn more about YOUR county's citizen grand jury and share that knowledge with others!
See our FREE Education Package at www.cgja.org/education-package!
Friday, March 30, 2012
San Mateo County: Grand Jury Report Notes 'Missed Opportunities'
Report on fire services says San Carlos would have saved more partnering with Cal Fire.
By Kenny Porpora - San Carlos Patch
In a notice sent to the city, the San Mateo County Grand Jury found missed opportunities within the city’s failed attempts to partner with Cal Fire after interference from political bodies and stalling from the County Board of Supervisors.
The report said the city’s pursuit to subcontract with Cal Fire would have been more cost-effective, an option shot down by the Board of Supervisors in favor of reconciliation between San Carlos and then-partner Belmont.
The 2011-2012 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends to the County Board of Supervisors that it should renew its contract with Cal Fire by June 2012, unless they show a fiscal reason not to do so, and include a provision in future contracts to allow all qualified cities to subcontract for Cal Fire services through the county.
The jury also recommends that Cal Fire be considered as an alternative when assessing changes to local-agency fire protection. San Carlos must respond to the letter by May 15.
The initial break with Belmont
On April 12, 2010, San Carlos notified Belmont that it would be ending their 31-year Joint Power Agreement, a separation that had been in the works since 2004. San Carlos’ decision, according to city officials at the time, was a cost-saving measure.
The Grand Jury report notes that the City of Good Living’s fire expenses had increased more than 30 percent between 2005 and 2010, and under the complicated cost-sharing formula it had worked out with Belmont, the city went from paying 47 percent of all costs to 53 percent.
San Carlos and Belmont experienced many failed negotiations and the decision to dissolve the relationship became official.
Searching for options
On September 16, 2010, the city hired TriData Consulting Firm out of Arlington, Va. to analyze options for thee city. About a month later, TriData submitted an 85-page report to the city, outlining several options, the best of which, they said, would be Cal Fire, due to their ability to hire displaced employees, soething other partnering cities
could not do.
"That may be a deciding factor, said assistant city manager Brian Moura in October of 2010. "But it may not be. It depends on what the formal and final proposals look like. This is all still in the early stages."
The fire union took concern with Cal Fire's hiring of all fire personnel, however, due to their significantly lower salaries; salaries city employees would inherit should they contract with the county.
According to the Grand Jury report, often times, firefighters salaries are maintained even when picked up by Cal Fire.
Other suggestions from the consultant firm included the city's partnering with neighbor Redwood City, or possibly a three way split among San Carlos, Redwood City, and Cal Fire.
This distribution of services among the three, had it happened, would have limited station and equipment costs and would have allowed for more personnel to be hired, making it possible for the station to respond to more than one call at a time, said assistant city manager Brian Moura, at the time.
San Carlos sent out a call for RFP’s, and sought out proposals from North County Fire, San Mateo, and Menlo Park, in addition to Redwood City and Cal Fire.
A change of heart
On November 19, 2010, the city received a fax from Cal Fire director Ken Pilmott saying Cal Fire will not be submitting a bid for proposal, a decision that has surprised San Carlos officials.
“To be successful, it is imperative that there is support for these agreements amongst all the stakeholders, including public officials, local citizens and labor organizations,” said Ken Pimlott, the Cal Fire director in a fax sent to assistant city manager Brian Moura.
“In the case of the City of San Carlos, there is concern from regional Legislative members and significant opposition from local labor organizations. Lacking support from these stakeholders, a proposed partnership could face legal challenges and be cast in a negative light by the media and the community.”
The letter sent concern through government officials, who were expecting a bid from Cal Fire due to previous interest, and an unofficial bid sent back in March of 2010.
“Something changed in the last seven days,” said assistant city manager Brian Moura told San Carlos Patch at the time the letter was sent. “Cal Fire submitted an unofficial proposal in March of this year, and two others in previous years when we’ve attempted this, so something changed in the last few days and I don’t know what it is.”
San Carlos looks to Board of Supervisors for help
On January 17, 2011, city officials sat before the Boards Finance and Operations Committee and asked to contract with Cal Fire. The County instead wanted to see the city work out its relationship wih Belmont. Mediation between the two cities was suggested by Supervisors Carole Groom and Adrienne Tissier.
Mediation failed. The city went on to contract with Redwood City. The Grand Jury report states that while savings were made, the savings would have been greater had the city been allowed to subcontract with Cal Fire under the county’s contract.
By Kenny Porpora - San Carlos Patch
In a notice sent to the city, the San Mateo County Grand Jury found missed opportunities within the city’s failed attempts to partner with Cal Fire after interference from political bodies and stalling from the County Board of Supervisors.
The report said the city’s pursuit to subcontract with Cal Fire would have been more cost-effective, an option shot down by the Board of Supervisors in favor of reconciliation between San Carlos and then-partner Belmont.
The 2011-2012 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends to the County Board of Supervisors that it should renew its contract with Cal Fire by June 2012, unless they show a fiscal reason not to do so, and include a provision in future contracts to allow all qualified cities to subcontract for Cal Fire services through the county.
The jury also recommends that Cal Fire be considered as an alternative when assessing changes to local-agency fire protection. San Carlos must respond to the letter by May 15.
The initial break with Belmont
On April 12, 2010, San Carlos notified Belmont that it would be ending their 31-year Joint Power Agreement, a separation that had been in the works since 2004. San Carlos’ decision, according to city officials at the time, was a cost-saving measure.
The Grand Jury report notes that the City of Good Living’s fire expenses had increased more than 30 percent between 2005 and 2010, and under the complicated cost-sharing formula it had worked out with Belmont, the city went from paying 47 percent of all costs to 53 percent.
San Carlos and Belmont experienced many failed negotiations and the decision to dissolve the relationship became official.
Searching for options
On September 16, 2010, the city hired TriData Consulting Firm out of Arlington, Va. to analyze options for thee city. About a month later, TriData submitted an 85-page report to the city, outlining several options, the best of which, they said, would be Cal Fire, due to their ability to hire displaced employees, soething other partnering cities
could not do.
"That may be a deciding factor, said assistant city manager Brian Moura in October of 2010. "But it may not be. It depends on what the formal and final proposals look like. This is all still in the early stages."
The fire union took concern with Cal Fire's hiring of all fire personnel, however, due to their significantly lower salaries; salaries city employees would inherit should they contract with the county.
According to the Grand Jury report, often times, firefighters salaries are maintained even when picked up by Cal Fire.
Other suggestions from the consultant firm included the city's partnering with neighbor Redwood City, or possibly a three way split among San Carlos, Redwood City, and Cal Fire.
This distribution of services among the three, had it happened, would have limited station and equipment costs and would have allowed for more personnel to be hired, making it possible for the station to respond to more than one call at a time, said assistant city manager Brian Moura, at the time.
San Carlos sent out a call for RFP’s, and sought out proposals from North County Fire, San Mateo, and Menlo Park, in addition to Redwood City and Cal Fire.
A change of heart
On November 19, 2010, the city received a fax from Cal Fire director Ken Pilmott saying Cal Fire will not be submitting a bid for proposal, a decision that has surprised San Carlos officials.
“To be successful, it is imperative that there is support for these agreements amongst all the stakeholders, including public officials, local citizens and labor organizations,” said Ken Pimlott, the Cal Fire director in a fax sent to assistant city manager Brian Moura.
“In the case of the City of San Carlos, there is concern from regional Legislative members and significant opposition from local labor organizations. Lacking support from these stakeholders, a proposed partnership could face legal challenges and be cast in a negative light by the media and the community.”
The letter sent concern through government officials, who were expecting a bid from Cal Fire due to previous interest, and an unofficial bid sent back in March of 2010.
“Something changed in the last seven days,” said assistant city manager Brian Moura told San Carlos Patch at the time the letter was sent. “Cal Fire submitted an unofficial proposal in March of this year, and two others in previous years when we’ve attempted this, so something changed in the last few days and I don’t know what it is.”
San Carlos looks to Board of Supervisors for help
On January 17, 2011, city officials sat before the Boards Finance and Operations Committee and asked to contract with Cal Fire. The County instead wanted to see the city work out its relationship wih Belmont. Mediation between the two cities was suggested by Supervisors Carole Groom and Adrienne Tissier.
Mediation failed. The city went on to contract with Redwood City. The Grand Jury report states that while savings were made, the savings would have been greater had the city been allowed to subcontract with Cal Fire under the county’s contract.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Kern County: Public Employee Accused Of Misspending Taxpayer Money
Camila Bastidas - 23ABC - North County Reporter
DELANO, Calif. -- Gary Johnson, the general manager at the Delano Mosquito Abatement District, is on administrative leave after the Kern County grand jury began investigating the District's spending practices.
The Grand Jury report states that Johnson used more $15,000 in District credit cards for purchases without turning in actual receipts. He also took a total of 86 days, of vacation with full pay when he should have only had 25 days but everything was approved by the board of directors.
The Grand Jury report states that Johnson would often go to conferences throughout the United States and to Europe. He would leave several days before and or stay several days after the conference, all of which were paid for by the district with taxpayer money, and those conference days were not counted as vacation time. Board officials said he should have never gone to Europe because the conference there dealt with issues that he wasn't qualified to deal with.
"He was a very persuasive person, and he misrepresented himself, and he led this board to believe that he was required to be there, that he needed to attend that conference, and we believed him," said Aguirre.
The board of directors is responsible for allowing Johnson to get away with his actions. Now, the five members are planning to create and enforce new rules.
"Starting with the contractual agreement with the next general manager in identifying the required dates of employment, vacation time and how we are going to be acquiring vehicles and disposing of vehicles,” said Aguirre.
Officials know that the public’s trust has been violated, but now they want to fix things and move forward.
"Are the taxpayers upset? They should be, and if they are not, then they will be because it is very upsetting, and this isn’t going away easily. But, we are not going to run from this. We are going to run to it," said Aguirre.
The District was formed in 1944 under provisions of the California Health and Safety Code. The objectives of the District are the elimination of mosquito breeding-grounds, education of the public at large about mosquito control measures and establishment of processes for mosquito source reduction.
The District is located at 11282 Garzoli Ave. in Delano and services the northern part of Kern County including Delano, McFarland, Pond and Richgrove. The District also extends into southern Tulare County.
DELANO, Calif. -- Gary Johnson, the general manager at the Delano Mosquito Abatement District, is on administrative leave after the Kern County grand jury began investigating the District's spending practices.
The Grand Jury report states that Johnson used more $15,000 in District credit cards for purchases without turning in actual receipts. He also took a total of 86 days, of vacation with full pay when he should have only had 25 days but everything was approved by the board of directors.
The Grand Jury report states that Johnson would often go to conferences throughout the United States and to Europe. He would leave several days before and or stay several days after the conference, all of which were paid for by the district with taxpayer money, and those conference days were not counted as vacation time. Board officials said he should have never gone to Europe because the conference there dealt with issues that he wasn't qualified to deal with.
"He was a very persuasive person, and he misrepresented himself, and he led this board to believe that he was required to be there, that he needed to attend that conference, and we believed him," said Aguirre.
The board of directors is responsible for allowing Johnson to get away with his actions. Now, the five members are planning to create and enforce new rules.
"Starting with the contractual agreement with the next general manager in identifying the required dates of employment, vacation time and how we are going to be acquiring vehicles and disposing of vehicles,” said Aguirre.
Officials know that the public’s trust has been violated, but now they want to fix things and move forward.
"Are the taxpayers upset? They should be, and if they are not, then they will be because it is very upsetting, and this isn’t going away easily. But, we are not going to run from this. We are going to run to it," said Aguirre.
The District was formed in 1944 under provisions of the California Health and Safety Code. The objectives of the District are the elimination of mosquito breeding-grounds, education of the public at large about mosquito control measures and establishment of processes for mosquito source reduction.
The District is located at 11282 Garzoli Ave. in Delano and services the northern part of Kern County including Delano, McFarland, Pond and Richgrove. The District also extends into southern Tulare County.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
My turn: Grand Juror’s view
By Chuck MacLean - MOUNTAIN DEMOCRAT
Grand Juries have been in existence in England since the 12th century and came to the colonies with the early settlers in the 1600s. As a check against improper conduct by elected officials, the Grand Jury system grew to be established throughout the United States. Gradually, to avoid oversight, state legislatures across our country voted to eliminate them; only California and Nevada now have full time Civil Grand Juries. The effort to eliminate this oversight function continues in some California counties with support by some in the state legislature.
A recent effort by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) was the introduction of Assembly Bill 622 which would significantly reduce the investigative powers of Grand Juries. The timing of his Assembly Bill introduction followed a Sacramento County Grand Jury investigation of a complaint regarding alleged improprieties at the Sacramento County Library. Mr. Dickinson, then a Sacramento County Supervisor, vigorously defended the integrity of the Sacramento Library Facilities Director and Library Security Chief. They were later convicted of embezzling $780,000 and defined by the prosecutor as “a classic case of public corruption.”
Assemblyman Dickinson was obviously wrong in his defense of these now convicted criminals, yet sought to make the Grand Jury system more restrictive in its investigative procedures. It is hard to determine Dickinson’s real intent, but to many it appears to be a move to reduce oversight of government officials.
With hard work by the California Grand Juror’s Association and many local county juror groups, some of the most cutting and restrictive features of AB 622 were diluted during its path to a vote. Unfortunately, AB 622 was in fact passed by the Legislature (primarily along partisan lines) and signed by Governor Brown on Oct. 9, 2011, impacting the Grand Jury’s access to witnesses by inserting lawyers into the process and adding challenges to jury members attempting to get to the truth of their factual findings.
The Grand Jury in El Dorado County has had similar success in uncovering wrongful or illegal behavior by public officials. Several years ago an investigation revealed that elected Board Members of a Fire District had paid themselves illegally and were subsequently required to return those funds to the district.
Only the Grand Jury has the power and authority to request information, files and records for which the average citizen would be required to file a law suit to obtain. The Grand Jury system is protected in the State of California Constitution. However, the California State Legislature with its powers to change the penal code may over time erode the Grand Jury’s state constitutional authority, the traditional “people’s protection clause” or right of oversight of their local government.
It is up to the citizens in every county in California to protect the integrity of our Grand Jury system, and not to allow legislators to take or erode the protection of Grand Juries written into the California Constitution.
How can you help? Be a vocal citizen when assaults are made on the Grand Jury system. Volunteer to serve as a Grand Juror in El Dorado County. You will become very educated as to how local government operates and provide a valuable service to the citizens of our fine County.
The Grand Jurors View is published throughout the year in the Mountain Democrat, written by the El Dorado County Grand Jurors Association. Please contact Chuck MacLean, President, at our e-mail: edcgja@gmail.com or at our mailing address: P.O. Box 383, Placerville, CA 95667. View our new Website: www.edcgja.com or look for El Dorado County Grand Jurors Association on Facebook.
Grand Juries have been in existence in England since the 12th century and came to the colonies with the early settlers in the 1600s. As a check against improper conduct by elected officials, the Grand Jury system grew to be established throughout the United States. Gradually, to avoid oversight, state legislatures across our country voted to eliminate them; only California and Nevada now have full time Civil Grand Juries. The effort to eliminate this oversight function continues in some California counties with support by some in the state legislature.
A recent effort by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) was the introduction of Assembly Bill 622 which would significantly reduce the investigative powers of Grand Juries. The timing of his Assembly Bill introduction followed a Sacramento County Grand Jury investigation of a complaint regarding alleged improprieties at the Sacramento County Library. Mr. Dickinson, then a Sacramento County Supervisor, vigorously defended the integrity of the Sacramento Library Facilities Director and Library Security Chief. They were later convicted of embezzling $780,000 and defined by the prosecutor as “a classic case of public corruption.”
Assemblyman Dickinson was obviously wrong in his defense of these now convicted criminals, yet sought to make the Grand Jury system more restrictive in its investigative procedures. It is hard to determine Dickinson’s real intent, but to many it appears to be a move to reduce oversight of government officials.
With hard work by the California Grand Juror’s Association and many local county juror groups, some of the most cutting and restrictive features of AB 622 were diluted during its path to a vote. Unfortunately, AB 622 was in fact passed by the Legislature (primarily along partisan lines) and signed by Governor Brown on Oct. 9, 2011, impacting the Grand Jury’s access to witnesses by inserting lawyers into the process and adding challenges to jury members attempting to get to the truth of their factual findings.
The Grand Jury in El Dorado County has had similar success in uncovering wrongful or illegal behavior by public officials. Several years ago an investigation revealed that elected Board Members of a Fire District had paid themselves illegally and were subsequently required to return those funds to the district.
Only the Grand Jury has the power and authority to request information, files and records for which the average citizen would be required to file a law suit to obtain. The Grand Jury system is protected in the State of California Constitution. However, the California State Legislature with its powers to change the penal code may over time erode the Grand Jury’s state constitutional authority, the traditional “people’s protection clause” or right of oversight of their local government.
It is up to the citizens in every county in California to protect the integrity of our Grand Jury system, and not to allow legislators to take or erode the protection of Grand Juries written into the California Constitution.
How can you help? Be a vocal citizen when assaults are made on the Grand Jury system. Volunteer to serve as a Grand Juror in El Dorado County. You will become very educated as to how local government operates and provide a valuable service to the citizens of our fine County.
The Grand Jurors View is published throughout the year in the Mountain Democrat, written by the El Dorado County Grand Jurors Association. Please contact Chuck MacLean, President, at our e-mail: edcgja@gmail.com or at our mailing address: P.O. Box 383, Placerville, CA 95667. View our new Website: www.edcgja.com or look for El Dorado County Grand Jurors Association on Facebook.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Placer grand jury critical of speedway work at fairgrounds
By Cathy Locke - The Modesto Bee
A Placer County grand jury report says a history of negligence by county government in overseeing contracts resulted in unauthorized modifications to a speedway on county fairgrounds – and that is creating a nuisance for neighbors.
The report released by the 2011-12 grand jury calls for the county to terminate its contract with the Placer County Fair Association, arguing that despite a statutory limitation of five years, the current contract has been in effect for more than 10 years.
The jury recommends the Board of Supervisors seek an alternative nonprofit corporation or association to operate and manage the Placer County Fair and the All American Speedway on the Roseville fairgrounds.
After structural modifications to the speedway were made in 2006-07, residents near the fairgrounds complained of noise from race cars and the PA system, and traffic congestion.
To address these complaints, the grand jury report says, the county drafted a revised contract that included additional safeguards, controls and oversight by the county, but the association refused to sign it.
Mary Dietrich, assistant director of the county's Department of Facility Services, said the speedway modifications were made without the county's knowledge, and the fair association is now applying retroactively for the required building and grading permits.
Although the fair association is covering the cost of permit fees, the county will pay for an environmental study that will accompany a new operating agreement, Dietrich said.
The study, she said, will evaluate the environmental effects the speedway would have on the surrounding neighborhood under the operations plan.
The grand jury report estimates the study could cost as much as $100,000. Dietrich said the county is seeking proposals from firms to conduct the environmental impact report. "EIRs are expensive," she said.
But Dietrich said the study and operating agreement could apply to any party that contracted with the county to operate the fairgrounds and speedway.
John Javidan became general manager of the Placer County Fair Association in January. He said the speedway generates more than 50 percent of the revenue needed to operate the annual Placer County Fair, revenue that is critical since the state eliminated funding for county fairs.
Javidan said the association is working with Dietrich on the new operating agreement, and has been working with race car drivers and equipment manufacturers to keep engine noise levels below 90 decibels.
Dietrich said the county also has directed the speedway to caulk gaps in sound walls and raise berms to reduce noise in the surrounding neighborhood.
But Mike Kassis, a neighborhood resident, said efforts thus far have done nothing to reduce the noise.
Kassis said he doesn't think any measures will adequately resolve nuisance issues with a speedway at this location. He favors allowing the speedway to operate as is for now, but with this directive to the operator: "Give yourself three years to plan and relocate, because this is not the right place."
A Placer County grand jury report says a history of negligence by county government in overseeing contracts resulted in unauthorized modifications to a speedway on county fairgrounds – and that is creating a nuisance for neighbors.
The report released by the 2011-12 grand jury calls for the county to terminate its contract with the Placer County Fair Association, arguing that despite a statutory limitation of five years, the current contract has been in effect for more than 10 years.
The jury recommends the Board of Supervisors seek an alternative nonprofit corporation or association to operate and manage the Placer County Fair and the All American Speedway on the Roseville fairgrounds.
After structural modifications to the speedway were made in 2006-07, residents near the fairgrounds complained of noise from race cars and the PA system, and traffic congestion.
To address these complaints, the grand jury report says, the county drafted a revised contract that included additional safeguards, controls and oversight by the county, but the association refused to sign it.
Mary Dietrich, assistant director of the county's Department of Facility Services, said the speedway modifications were made without the county's knowledge, and the fair association is now applying retroactively for the required building and grading permits.
Although the fair association is covering the cost of permit fees, the county will pay for an environmental study that will accompany a new operating agreement, Dietrich said.
The study, she said, will evaluate the environmental effects the speedway would have on the surrounding neighborhood under the operations plan.
The grand jury report estimates the study could cost as much as $100,000. Dietrich said the county is seeking proposals from firms to conduct the environmental impact report. "EIRs are expensive," she said.
But Dietrich said the study and operating agreement could apply to any party that contracted with the county to operate the fairgrounds and speedway.
John Javidan became general manager of the Placer County Fair Association in January. He said the speedway generates more than 50 percent of the revenue needed to operate the annual Placer County Fair, revenue that is critical since the state eliminated funding for county fairs.
Javidan said the association is working with Dietrich on the new operating agreement, and has been working with race car drivers and equipment manufacturers to keep engine noise levels below 90 decibels.
Dietrich said the county also has directed the speedway to caulk gaps in sound walls and raise berms to reduce noise in the surrounding neighborhood.
But Mike Kassis, a neighborhood resident, said efforts thus far have done nothing to reduce the noise.
Kassis said he doesn't think any measures will adequately resolve nuisance issues with a speedway at this location. He favors allowing the speedway to operate as is for now, but with this directive to the operator: "Give yourself three years to plan and relocate, because this is not the right place."
Monday, March 26, 2012
Solano Grand Jury Targets Dixon Library
At the special meeting of the Dixon Public Library Board of Trustees Friday, the board announced that a Solano County Grand Jury contacted them to inform them of an inquiry into the library.
- By Carlos Villatoro, Editor - Dixon.Patch.com
The Dixon Public Library is currently the target of a Solano County Grand Jury inquiry said the Dixon Public Library board during a special meeting held within the chambers of the Dixon City Council Friday.
The board met in closed session with its legal counsel and afterwards made the Grand Jury inquiry annoucenment.
The board did not state any specifics of the inquiry, but said it was aware of it and is currently speaking to its legal counsel on how to best proceed. The board also announced that it is directing its legal counsel to draft a letter to the library commission requiring them to place District Librarian Gregg Atkins on administrative leave, with pay, until his contract expires on June. 1.
In addition, the board is asking the library commission to not amend Atkins’ contract that would grant him additional pay, bonuses or compensation.
On March 13, Dixon Patch reported that Atkins would not seek a renewal of his contract and that he had planned on retiring when his contract expires. The board is currently looking for a new librarian to step into Atkins’ position, and has begun the search by inviting qualified applicants to apply for the position.
The library board is also in the process of conducting an independent audit of the library's finances and a board member is entrusted to begin the search for an auditor to do that.
Dixon Patch will continue to follow these developments and will post an update on this story as soon as we can.
- By Carlos Villatoro, Editor - Dixon.Patch.com
The Dixon Public Library is currently the target of a Solano County Grand Jury inquiry said the Dixon Public Library board during a special meeting held within the chambers of the Dixon City Council Friday.
The board met in closed session with its legal counsel and afterwards made the Grand Jury inquiry annoucenment.
The board did not state any specifics of the inquiry, but said it was aware of it and is currently speaking to its legal counsel on how to best proceed. The board also announced that it is directing its legal counsel to draft a letter to the library commission requiring them to place District Librarian Gregg Atkins on administrative leave, with pay, until his contract expires on June. 1.
In addition, the board is asking the library commission to not amend Atkins’ contract that would grant him additional pay, bonuses or compensation.
On March 13, Dixon Patch reported that Atkins would not seek a renewal of his contract and that he had planned on retiring when his contract expires. The board is currently looking for a new librarian to step into Atkins’ position, and has begun the search by inviting qualified applicants to apply for the position.
The library board is also in the process of conducting an independent audit of the library's finances and a board member is entrusted to begin the search for an auditor to do that.
Dixon Patch will continue to follow these developments and will post an update on this story as soon as we can.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Contra Costa County: Applications sought for civil grand jurors
Contra Costa Times - MARTINEZ
The Contra Costa County Superior Court is accepting applications for civil grand jury service for the fiscal year 2012-2013 term.
The civil grand jury is made up of 19 members who serve for one year, July through June, to monitor, review and report on city and county governments, special districts and school districts.
Approximately 60 applicants will be selected to be interviewed by a committee made up of Superior Court judges. After interviews, the judges will nominate 30 applicants to constitute a grand jury pool, from which the final panel of 19 will be selected by random drawing.
Those chosen must be available the last two weeks of June for an orientation and to learn what committees they will serve.
Grand jurors must be United States citizens, 18 years of age or older, residents of Contra Costa County for at least one year before selection. They cannot currently hold any elected position within the county. Applicants should have reliable transportation to Martinez, and must be prepared to devote at least 20 hours per week to the grand jury.
Applicants selected as one of the 30 nominees will be fingerprinted before the drawing.
Jurors receive a stipend for attending full jury and committee meetings and are reimbursed for allowable jury travel.
To apply contact the Office of the Civil grand jury at 925-957-5638, or go to www.cc-courts.orq/qrandjury to obtain an application. The application deadline is April 13.
The Contra Costa County Superior Court is accepting applications for civil grand jury service for the fiscal year 2012-2013 term.
The civil grand jury is made up of 19 members who serve for one year, July through June, to monitor, review and report on city and county governments, special districts and school districts.
Approximately 60 applicants will be selected to be interviewed by a committee made up of Superior Court judges. After interviews, the judges will nominate 30 applicants to constitute a grand jury pool, from which the final panel of 19 will be selected by random drawing.
Those chosen must be available the last two weeks of June for an orientation and to learn what committees they will serve.
Grand jurors must be United States citizens, 18 years of age or older, residents of Contra Costa County for at least one year before selection. They cannot currently hold any elected position within the county. Applicants should have reliable transportation to Martinez, and must be prepared to devote at least 20 hours per week to the grand jury.
Applicants selected as one of the 30 nominees will be fingerprinted before the drawing.
Jurors receive a stipend for attending full jury and committee meetings and are reimbursed for allowable jury travel.
To apply contact the Office of the Civil grand jury at 925-957-5638, or go to www.cc-courts.orq/qrandjury to obtain an application. The application deadline is April 13.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Ventura County: Superior Court seeking grand jury nominations
simivalleyacorn.com - March 23, 2012
The Ventura County Superior Court of California is seeking nominations for the 2012-13 grand jury. A grand jury member must be an American citizen 18 years of age or older, have been a resident of Ventura County for at least one year, have no felony convictions or malfeasance in offi ce, and be in possession of their natural faculties, of ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment and of good character.
The grand jury investigates the various departments, special districts of the county and city government, is involved in fiscal or management audits, and prepares reports on related matters.
Grand jurors serve for one year, from July 2, 2012 through June 30, 2013, and usually involves 32 to 40 hours per week.
Call Jury Services at(805) 654-2845 or download an application form from http://grandjury.countyofventura.org.
Applications are due by Fri., April 13. Mail to: Ventura Superior Court, Jury Services, Room 113, 800 S. Victoria Ave., Ventura, CA 93009.
The Ventura County Superior Court of California is seeking nominations for the 2012-13 grand jury. A grand jury member must be an American citizen 18 years of age or older, have been a resident of Ventura County for at least one year, have no felony convictions or malfeasance in offi ce, and be in possession of their natural faculties, of ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment and of good character.
The grand jury investigates the various departments, special districts of the county and city government, is involved in fiscal or management audits, and prepares reports on related matters.
Grand jurors serve for one year, from July 2, 2012 through June 30, 2013, and usually involves 32 to 40 hours per week.
Call Jury Services at(805) 654-2845 or download an application form from http://grandjury.countyofventura.org.
Applications are due by Fri., April 13. Mail to: Ventura Superior Court, Jury Services, Room 113, 800 S. Victoria Ave., Ventura, CA 93009.
Friday, March 23, 2012
San Luis Obispo County: Sheriff wants more hours for commander in charge of professional standards
By Bob Cuddy and Cynthia Lambert - sanluisobispo.com - The Tribune
The man hired to oversee the professional standards unit at the Sheriff’s Office needs more time to do the job thoroughly, according to Sheriff Ian Parkinson, who is asking the Board of Supervisors to approve additional hours.
The timing of Parkinson’s request is serendipitous for him: On Thursday, the county’s civil grand jury issued a report praising Parkinson for hiring James Voge and for re-establishing the professional standards unit in February 2011. The unit had been dissolved under former Sheriff Pat Hedges.
Voge, who served 33 years with the Los Angeles Police Department, ran the Internal Affairs Group there and has expertise in “the area of internal discipline,” to use Parkinson’s phrase. He was hired as a part-time contract employee.
Parkinson said the professional standards unit under Voge has developed new procedures, forms and reporting. Among the unit’s responsibilities are handling complaints from the public and conducting internal investigations, Parkinson wrote in a report to the county board.
Parkinson’s action drew accolades from the county’s civil grand jury.
The grand jury found that since the unit was restored, “the percentage of sustained complaints has been reduced and the overall tracking of citizen complaints has been improved.”
In his report to supervisors, Parkinson noted some of Voge’s accomplishments to date.
Among them:
• Improved reporting, including complaint forms and “use of force” reports that allow an analysis of the causes of a particular incident.
• Buying new software that allows more efficient handling of citizens’ complaints and administrative investigations.
• Developing and teaching an eight-hour course titled “Officer-involved shootings and lethal use of force by law enforcement.”
Voge also is developing a course on internal affairs.
Voge needs more than the 960 hours for which he was hired as a temporary employee, Parkinson wrote. He wants to add more hours for this fiscal year, which ends June 30, and then hire him full time for the 2012-13 fiscal year.
Parkinson is asking supervisors to approve an additional $61,190 for the rest of this fiscal year. He will include his request for Voge to become full time in his 2013-14 budget proposal.
The grand jury also reviewed policies kept by each of the seven police departments in the county and found the agencies are now conducting investigations into citizen complaints “in a positive and effective manner.”
Jury recommendations
The grand jury report made a few recommendations, which the police departments are required to respond to by June 18. The jury recommended the Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Morro Bay, Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo police departments add citizen complaint forms to their websites.
The jury also found the Sheriff’s Office has an outdated system of video recording in its vehicles and suggested the equipment be upgraded with digital recording devices.
Cmdr. Aaron Nix said that enough money has been budgeted to upgrade the equipment in patrol cars assigned to two of the department’s three stations, hopefully by the end of the summer, at an estimated cost of $70,000 per station.
The Sheriff’s Office has until May 19 to respond.
bcuddy@thetribunenews.com clambert@thetribunenews.com
The man hired to oversee the professional standards unit at the Sheriff’s Office needs more time to do the job thoroughly, according to Sheriff Ian Parkinson, who is asking the Board of Supervisors to approve additional hours.
The timing of Parkinson’s request is serendipitous for him: On Thursday, the county’s civil grand jury issued a report praising Parkinson for hiring James Voge and for re-establishing the professional standards unit in February 2011. The unit had been dissolved under former Sheriff Pat Hedges.
Voge, who served 33 years with the Los Angeles Police Department, ran the Internal Affairs Group there and has expertise in “the area of internal discipline,” to use Parkinson’s phrase. He was hired as a part-time contract employee.
Parkinson said the professional standards unit under Voge has developed new procedures, forms and reporting. Among the unit’s responsibilities are handling complaints from the public and conducting internal investigations, Parkinson wrote in a report to the county board.
Parkinson’s action drew accolades from the county’s civil grand jury.
The grand jury found that since the unit was restored, “the percentage of sustained complaints has been reduced and the overall tracking of citizen complaints has been improved.”
In his report to supervisors, Parkinson noted some of Voge’s accomplishments to date.
Among them:
• Improved reporting, including complaint forms and “use of force” reports that allow an analysis of the causes of a particular incident.
• Buying new software that allows more efficient handling of citizens’ complaints and administrative investigations.
• Developing and teaching an eight-hour course titled “Officer-involved shootings and lethal use of force by law enforcement.”
Voge also is developing a course on internal affairs.
Voge needs more than the 960 hours for which he was hired as a temporary employee, Parkinson wrote. He wants to add more hours for this fiscal year, which ends June 30, and then hire him full time for the 2012-13 fiscal year.
Parkinson is asking supervisors to approve an additional $61,190 for the rest of this fiscal year. He will include his request for Voge to become full time in his 2013-14 budget proposal.
The grand jury also reviewed policies kept by each of the seven police departments in the county and found the agencies are now conducting investigations into citizen complaints “in a positive and effective manner.”
Jury recommendations
The grand jury report made a few recommendations, which the police departments are required to respond to by June 18. The jury recommended the Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Morro Bay, Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo police departments add citizen complaint forms to their websites.
The jury also found the Sheriff’s Office has an outdated system of video recording in its vehicles and suggested the equipment be upgraded with digital recording devices.
Cmdr. Aaron Nix said that enough money has been budgeted to upgrade the equipment in patrol cars assigned to two of the department’s three stations, hopefully by the end of the summer, at an estimated cost of $70,000 per station.
The Sheriff’s Office has until May 19 to respond.
bcuddy@thetribunenews.com clambert@thetribunenews.com
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Grand jury: San Mateo County allowed 'public' pools to stay open before making required inspections
By Bonnie Eslinger - Palo Alto Daily News Staff Writer - 03/22/2012
San Mateo County allowed hundreds of swimming pools to remain open to the public before authorities confirmed that all except for three complied with state and federal laws requiring drain covers and other safety devices to prevent drowning accidents, according to a civil grand jury report released Wednesday.
The county environmental health department's failure to make timely inspections of the pools stemmed from its "perceived low level of safety risk," a reluctance to penalize pool owners and an expectation that other counties would be lax as well, according to the grand jury report.
Although no one in the county reportedly has died or been injured by getting stuck in underwater drains, 12 fatalities and 97 injuries have been reported nationwide. All except one of the victims have been children.
"Fortunately there has not been an injury or a fatality in our county on account of this suction that has harmed other children," said Bruce MacMillan, foreman of the 19-member civil grand jury.
A federal law passed in 2007 -- the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool & Spa Safety Act -- was named after a 7-year-old girl who drowned after becoming trapped underwater by the suction of a hot tub drain. The law requires anti-entrapment equipment for pools used by the general public, such as those at apartment complexes or condo developments.
In 2009, California passed its own version of the federal law. The state law required pools without the proper anti-entrapment equipment to be closed by July 1, 2010, until necessary retrofits were made, according to the grand jury report.
The law applied to pools open to the public, as well as those available to members and guests of an organization or residential building or at an athletic club or school, according to the California Department of Public Health.
San Mateo County has 1,044 "public pools" that fell under the law, according to the grand jury report. By the July 2010 deadline, about 448 of them had not been inspected or did not have the required equipment.
By the time the grand jury convened last year on July 1, the number of noncompliant pools had dropped to 47. By Sept. 30, only three did not comply, according to the grand jury.
Email Bonnie Eslinger at beslinger@dailynewsgroup.com.
San Mateo County allowed hundreds of swimming pools to remain open to the public before authorities confirmed that all except for three complied with state and federal laws requiring drain covers and other safety devices to prevent drowning accidents, according to a civil grand jury report released Wednesday.
The county environmental health department's failure to make timely inspections of the pools stemmed from its "perceived low level of safety risk," a reluctance to penalize pool owners and an expectation that other counties would be lax as well, according to the grand jury report.
Although no one in the county reportedly has died or been injured by getting stuck in underwater drains, 12 fatalities and 97 injuries have been reported nationwide. All except one of the victims have been children.
"Fortunately there has not been an injury or a fatality in our county on account of this suction that has harmed other children," said Bruce MacMillan, foreman of the 19-member civil grand jury.
A federal law passed in 2007 -- the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool & Spa Safety Act -- was named after a 7-year-old girl who drowned after becoming trapped underwater by the suction of a hot tub drain. The law requires anti-entrapment equipment for pools used by the general public, such as those at apartment complexes or condo developments.
In 2009, California passed its own version of the federal law. The state law required pools without the proper anti-entrapment equipment to be closed by July 1, 2010, until necessary retrofits were made, according to the grand jury report.
The law applied to pools open to the public, as well as those available to members and guests of an organization or residential building or at an athletic club or school, according to the California Department of Public Health.
San Mateo County has 1,044 "public pools" that fell under the law, according to the grand jury report. By the July 2010 deadline, about 448 of them had not been inspected or did not have the required equipment.
By the time the grand jury convened last year on July 1, the number of noncompliant pools had dropped to 47. By Sept. 30, only three did not comply, according to the grand jury.
Email Bonnie Eslinger at beslinger@dailynewsgroup.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)