Written by City News Service -
Riverside County officials have addressed several problems in Department of Mental Health operations that were cited in a recent grand jury investigation, while other issues did not warrant action, according to a report accepted without comment Tuesday by the Board of Supervisors.
In June, the 19-member grand jury released its findings that staffing shortages, poor supervision and fears of workplace retaliation were damaging the effectiveness of the DMH within the county's five adult detention facilities and five juvenile facilities.
The grand jury said half of the funded clinical positions had not been filled in jails, with a growing “backlog” of patient referrals in all detention facilities.
According to the report, morale was suffering because annual performance evaluations had not been completed on up to 60 percent of workers.
The investigation also found the DMH administration was stretched thin, with three supervisors overseeing more than 100 staffers working in the juvenile detention system.
“The grand jury learned that some detention mental health workers are fearful of communicating with supervisors and managers about urgent work-related issues for fear of retaliation,” the report stated. “Testimony also revealed that a number of juvenile DMH clinicians have had on-site visits by their supervisors as few as three times a year.”
The grand jury issued the following recommendations:
• Ensure facilities are adequately staffed with mental health professionals.
• Implement a suggestion program to encourage freer communication that can improve operations.
• Conduct annual employee performance reviews.
• Consolidate administration to improve services within the juvenile detention system.
• Coordinate with the sheriff's department on improving the patient referral service in jails.
In its response to the report, the Executive Office challenged several of the grand jury's findings. County officials wrote that DMH staffing levels were at 91 percent and per diem clinical therapists were being utilized to fill any gaps, allowing the agency to “provide quality mental health services and to respond to requests for services in a timely fashion.”
The Executive Office said workers were regularly advised of their rights and the county's anti-harassment policy, making fears of retaliation unfounded.
The county acknowledged that annual performance reviews were not always conducted on schedule, blaming changes in supervisory staff and vowing to improve.
According to the Executive Office, the county has rectified administrative shortcomings cited by the grand jury by consolidating the management of mental health services in juvenile facilities.
County officials, however, rejected the grand jury's allegations that mental health referrals were not being addressed, saying all inmate psychiatric cases are tracked and the “wait time for services has been significantly reduced.”
The Executive Office said the grand jury's recommendation to develop a program to improve upstream communication at the DMH will be implemented in the future.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Placer supes rebuff grand jury juvenile-hall grievance-report request
By Gus Thomson, Auburn Journal Staff Writer -
The Placer County Board of Supervisors has rebuffed grand jury efforts to obtain information on serious incidents and grievances at the county’s North Auburn juvenile detention facility.
The grand jury recommended in its July report that the county’s Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission turn over a summary of incidents and grievances dealing with the facility that it has access to.
That came after initial demands for full-blown reports were turned down at the staff level based on state law regarding the viewing of confidential records.
The grand jury inspected the Richardson Drive facility and found it “clean, organized and well-maintained,” with the exception of graffiti on the floors of cells, which it stated was “quite extensive.”
But an attempt to probe deeper into complaints by juveniles who had been incarcerated at the facility was turned down.
“The grand jury is unable to secure the serious incident and grievance reports since they relate to minors,” the grand jury stated in its findings. “This inhibited our investigation and leaves open the question of grievances minor inmates may have.”
In its response, supervisors stated that they disagree with the request for full reports because access to juvenile records requires a court order or a change in statutes that would authorize release of the reports.
The grand jury’s recommendation to seek to amend the state Welfare and Institution Code section on juvenile records to allow information to be passed to the grand jury “requires further analysis,” the supervisors’ response states.
The response states that it will consult with the county Department of Health and Human Services, the District Attorney’s Office, the Probation Department and the Juvenile Justice Commission to see if it can be included in the county’s legislative lobbying platform for the coming year.
Grand jury foreperson John Wilhelm said Tuesday that the graffiti didn’t appear to be gang-related.
Marshall Hopper, chief probation officer, reported to supervisors that graffiti abatement efforts had been reduced in recent years because of costs. But Hopper added that the floors of the facility have been repainted since the inspection and that daily room-inspection procedures now include staff notation of new graffiti.
Wilhelm said that it appears that grand jury access to information will now come down to having the law changed. That could involve an effort by the California Grand Juries Association, he said.
A local grand jury could subpoena the information through the District Attorney’s Office but Wilhelm said that would be a time-consuming approach for the volunteer grand jury, whose members typically serve a one-year term.
Nevertheless, grand jury access to the complaint records would be an important piece in the puzzle as jurors make their yearly inspection and report on conditions at juvenile detention facilities, Wilhelm said.
“We’re mandated to do an inspection and, in doing so, felt it was an important part of an investigation,” Wilhelm said.
The Placer County Board of Supervisors has rebuffed grand jury efforts to obtain information on serious incidents and grievances at the county’s North Auburn juvenile detention facility.
The grand jury recommended in its July report that the county’s Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission turn over a summary of incidents and grievances dealing with the facility that it has access to.
That came after initial demands for full-blown reports were turned down at the staff level based on state law regarding the viewing of confidential records.
The grand jury inspected the Richardson Drive facility and found it “clean, organized and well-maintained,” with the exception of graffiti on the floors of cells, which it stated was “quite extensive.”
But an attempt to probe deeper into complaints by juveniles who had been incarcerated at the facility was turned down.
“The grand jury is unable to secure the serious incident and grievance reports since they relate to minors,” the grand jury stated in its findings. “This inhibited our investigation and leaves open the question of grievances minor inmates may have.”
In its response, supervisors stated that they disagree with the request for full reports because access to juvenile records requires a court order or a change in statutes that would authorize release of the reports.
The grand jury’s recommendation to seek to amend the state Welfare and Institution Code section on juvenile records to allow information to be passed to the grand jury “requires further analysis,” the supervisors’ response states.
The response states that it will consult with the county Department of Health and Human Services, the District Attorney’s Office, the Probation Department and the Juvenile Justice Commission to see if it can be included in the county’s legislative lobbying platform for the coming year.
Grand jury foreperson John Wilhelm said Tuesday that the graffiti didn’t appear to be gang-related.
Marshall Hopper, chief probation officer, reported to supervisors that graffiti abatement efforts had been reduced in recent years because of costs. But Hopper added that the floors of the facility have been repainted since the inspection and that daily room-inspection procedures now include staff notation of new graffiti.
Wilhelm said that it appears that grand jury access to information will now come down to having the law changed. That could involve an effort by the California Grand Juries Association, he said.
A local grand jury could subpoena the information through the District Attorney’s Office but Wilhelm said that would be a time-consuming approach for the volunteer grand jury, whose members typically serve a one-year term.
Nevertheless, grand jury access to the complaint records would be an important piece in the puzzle as jurors make their yearly inspection and report on conditions at juvenile detention facilities, Wilhelm said.
“We’re mandated to do an inspection and, in doing so, felt it was an important part of an investigation,” Wilhelm said.
Monday, August 27, 2012
(Orange Co) GG to reply to OC Grand Jury report
by The Garden Grove Journal staff -
Response by the City of Garden Grove to an Orange County Grand Jury report that included some criticism will be on the agenda for Tuesday night’s meeting of the City Council.
Earlier this year, the grand jury, an appointed panel of Orange County residents, took on the topic of “The Dissolution of Redevelopment: Where Have We Been? What Lies Ahead?”
The report, which examined redevelopment agencies and projects acoss the county, had some praise and some criticism of Garden Grove’s redevelopment activities.
The city’s efforts to redevelop large portions of Harbor Boulevard into a hotel-entertainment district rebranded as “International West” were lauded as a successful project which cleaned up a “seedy” part of town, created 2,000 new jobs and brought 11 major hotels (and the tax revenue they generate) to the Big Strawberry.
But the report also referred to a proposed condominium development on Grove Street west of the city’s historic Main Street as a “not-so-successful” project and characterized the city’s efforts there as “overreaching.” It called for mediation in the ensuing dispute between the city and developer, and the Garden Grove Downtown Business Association.
The response prepared by City Manager Matt Fertal and Mayor Bill Dalton rebuts those findings, rejecting the Grand Jury’s claim that “the city failed to adequately address citizen concerns” about the issue.
As it turned out, a lawsuit by the GGDBA (although eventually unsuccessful) delayed the project so long that it became economically unfeasible. When redevelopment ended, the state decided that the project was not an “enforceable obligation” and won’t proceed.
The council will meet at 6:30 p.m. in its chambers in the Community Meeting Center, 11300 Stanford Ave.
Response by the City of Garden Grove to an Orange County Grand Jury report that included some criticism will be on the agenda for Tuesday night’s meeting of the City Council.
Earlier this year, the grand jury, an appointed panel of Orange County residents, took on the topic of “The Dissolution of Redevelopment: Where Have We Been? What Lies Ahead?”
The report, which examined redevelopment agencies and projects acoss the county, had some praise and some criticism of Garden Grove’s redevelopment activities.
The city’s efforts to redevelop large portions of Harbor Boulevard into a hotel-entertainment district rebranded as “International West” were lauded as a successful project which cleaned up a “seedy” part of town, created 2,000 new jobs and brought 11 major hotels (and the tax revenue they generate) to the Big Strawberry.
But the report also referred to a proposed condominium development on Grove Street west of the city’s historic Main Street as a “not-so-successful” project and characterized the city’s efforts there as “overreaching.” It called for mediation in the ensuing dispute between the city and developer, and the Garden Grove Downtown Business Association.
The response prepared by City Manager Matt Fertal and Mayor Bill Dalton rebuts those findings, rejecting the Grand Jury’s claim that “the city failed to adequately address citizen concerns” about the issue.
As it turned out, a lawsuit by the GGDBA (although eventually unsuccessful) delayed the project so long that it became economically unfeasible. When redevelopment ended, the state decided that the project was not an “enforceable obligation” and won’t proceed.
The council will meet at 6:30 p.m. in its chambers in the Community Meeting Center, 11300 Stanford Ave.
Friday, August 24, 2012
San Francisco Pension ‘Under No Obligation’ to Follow Court Directives
(August 24, 2012) – A San
Francisco jury can tell the city’s employee pension system to change its
"volatile and risky investment policies," but according an expert in the state
judicial system, the fund does not have to listen.
Or, more specifically, San Francisco Employees' Retirement System (SFERS) board members have to listen and respond to the superior court report, but are under no obligation to follow its advice.
“The grand jury has no authority to enforce its recommendations,” Jerry Lewi, a long-time officer and former president of the California Grand Jurors’ Association, told aiCIO. “Their conclusions are strictly that: recommendations. But the power of persuasion is very significant, and a large portion of jury recommendations are accepted.”
Lewi acknowledged that jurors are “not expected to be experts” in the subject they are investigating. “I would find it hard to think that a grand jury could make specific investment recommendations. If a report said, ‘You should be investing in stocks instead of bonds,’ it would not be appropriate, in my judgment.”
While the jury’s advice is not legally binding, it does engage closely with questions of risk analysis and asset allocation. Lewi said the pension board is legally bound to answer each piece of advice by agreeing, proving its already been integrated, requesting more time to study the recommendation (to a maximum of three months), or refusing and defending why.
SFERS is in the process of reviewing the report and preparing its responses, according to a statement.
In California, a civil grand jury can investigate any municipal or county pension fund as often as it would like. Nevada is the only state with a similar, albeit less powerful, system.
Or, more specifically, San Francisco Employees' Retirement System (SFERS) board members have to listen and respond to the superior court report, but are under no obligation to follow its advice.
“The grand jury has no authority to enforce its recommendations,” Jerry Lewi, a long-time officer and former president of the California Grand Jurors’ Association, told aiCIO. “Their conclusions are strictly that: recommendations. But the power of persuasion is very significant, and a large portion of jury recommendations are accepted.”
A 19-member civil grand jury investigated SFERS in reaction to weak returns
and losses over the last five years, and its concluding report rails against the
fund’s investment policies and decision not to undertake a formal "'failure
analysis subsequent to the funding loss suffered in 2008-2009." The jury, which
Lewi said is “made up of people from all walks of life,” issued a list of six
recommendations for the SFERS' investment team, including a lower rate of
expected return, greater transparency and openness, more thorough risk analysis
and “less volatile and risky investment policies that would attain sufficient
returns” for members.
Lewi acknowledged that jurors are “not expected to be experts” in the subject they are investigating. “I would find it hard to think that a grand jury could make specific investment recommendations. If a report said, ‘You should be investing in stocks instead of bonds,’ it would not be appropriate, in my judgment.”
While the jury’s advice is not legally binding, it does engage closely with questions of risk analysis and asset allocation. Lewi said the pension board is legally bound to answer each piece of advice by agreeing, proving its already been integrated, requesting more time to study the recommendation (to a maximum of three months), or refusing and defending why.
SFERS is in the process of reviewing the report and preparing its responses, according to a statement.
In California, a civil grand jury can investigate any municipal or county pension fund as often as it would like. Nevada is the only state with a similar, albeit less powerful, system.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
(Santa Barbara Co) Council rejects staff Grand Jury response
By Carol Benham/Contributing Writer, LompocRecord.com -
Lompoc staff members’ advice to reject recent Grand Jury recommendations regarding the collapse of the Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corporation was soundly rejected Tuesday night by the City Council.
Council members criticized the tone as well as the substance of staff’s rejection of the four recommendations by the Santa Barbara County Civil County Grand Jury to improve regulations for financial audits and oversight of compliance with city contracts.
“I’m a little disappointed. The responses are ‘The recommendations will not be implemented because,’” Councilman Bob Lingl said, announcing his opposition to the response. “I would have liked to have had this report say ‘This is what would be reasonable and this is what we can do.’ Maybe some people can deny there was a lack of oversight, but in my opinion, there was a lack of oversight. None of us want to see anything even close to LHCDC happen again.”
The Grand Jury’s report, “A Failure of Oversight,” documented years of notifications by the county and the city, primarily through its Redevelopment Agency, that LHCDC was not complying with financial audits or affordability standards for its many low-income housing properties.
Grand jurors recommended that the city conduct a financial audit of all organizations that receive more than $50,000 and that funding be withheld to agencies that fail to meet requirements of city contracts, including the submission of financial audits.
The council discussion, lasting almost two hours, displayed members’ frustration with the staff’s
failure to acknowledge that oversight needed to be improved. The prepared staff response did not report that a policy on contract compliance had been requested by the council several months ago and has yet to be developed by staff.
“We’re missing the boat here,” said Councilwoman Cecilia Martner, who requested the new contract compliance policy last October. “The grand jury did provide information that there was a lack of oversight. The city’s answer is ‘Well, not really.’
“I really don’t want to see us respond that way. I really want to see us say that we’re going to take the following steps to make sure that lack of oversight doesn’t repeat itself,” Martner said
Martner and Lingl, both elected in November 2008, served on the previous council that voted in 2010 to deny extensions to LHCDC on delinquent loans and to foreclose on a delinquent $375,000 loan for a vacant lot LHCDC had failed to develop for several years. At the time, LHCDC had failed to file financial audits for more than three years.
Martner also commented on the Grand Jury’s finding that the county, as the lead agency in a consortium to administer federal affordable-housing funds, failed to enforce compliance with LHCDC’s low-income properties, including property standards and maintenance.
“These properties are in Lompoc. They are blighted in our city. They are our residents,” Martner said. “I am done being nice with the county. … We don’t have ownership and we’re relying on the county to maintain and make sure that these properties are being maintained properly. But experience shows the county has not done their job, and our city has not been very forceful with the county asking them to do their job.”
Mayor John Linn attempted repeatedly to steer the discussion away from LHCDC’s noncompliance by questioning staff about differences in regulations established by state and federal funding sources, suggesting it wasn’t clear what requirements LHCDC needed to follow.
However, city attorney Joe Pannone corrected Linn’s interpretation, noting that differing regulations are “irrelevant to the fact that the person that gets the loan is obligated to meet all of the conditions. All of the conditions that are set up may be different, but the one that is the most restrictive is obviously going to meet the other ones, so the most restrictive one is the one that has to be met.”
Council members directed staff to return with a revised response Sept. 4, two days before the statutory deadline for responding to the Grand Jury’s report. The council recommended that the city report to the Grand Jury that it will institute a policy to require agencies that receive more than $50,000 in city funds, or have an annual budget of more than $100,000, to submit an independent financial audit at their own expense.
Lompoc resident Pam Wall reminded the council that some tenants of LHCDC’s properties are being ignored by both city and county officials responsible for oversight. She said she visited tenants at two former LHCDC properties and documented the substandard living conditions of the blighted properties. Some tenants are being forced to move by foreclosures, she said, and can’t get their security deposits returned.
Wall cited documentation in the Grand Jury’s report that LHCDC was told repeatedly over a four-year period that all tenant rents at one property, Casa Con Tres on North L Street, were too high.
“The answer was to raise their rents, not once, but twice. I have canceled copies of their checks,” she said. “They’re entitled to a refund and right now. They’re still paying that same rent. I think it’s criminal that these people are left in a void like this. Does anybody care about the people, the faces behind this problem?” she asked. “Because I do, I care.”
Lompoc staff members’ advice to reject recent Grand Jury recommendations regarding the collapse of the Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corporation was soundly rejected Tuesday night by the City Council.
Council members criticized the tone as well as the substance of staff’s rejection of the four recommendations by the Santa Barbara County Civil County Grand Jury to improve regulations for financial audits and oversight of compliance with city contracts.
“I’m a little disappointed. The responses are ‘The recommendations will not be implemented because,’” Councilman Bob Lingl said, announcing his opposition to the response. “I would have liked to have had this report say ‘This is what would be reasonable and this is what we can do.’ Maybe some people can deny there was a lack of oversight, but in my opinion, there was a lack of oversight. None of us want to see anything even close to LHCDC happen again.”
The Grand Jury’s report, “A Failure of Oversight,” documented years of notifications by the county and the city, primarily through its Redevelopment Agency, that LHCDC was not complying with financial audits or affordability standards for its many low-income housing properties.
Grand jurors recommended that the city conduct a financial audit of all organizations that receive more than $50,000 and that funding be withheld to agencies that fail to meet requirements of city contracts, including the submission of financial audits.
The council discussion, lasting almost two hours, displayed members’ frustration with the staff’s
failure to acknowledge that oversight needed to be improved. The prepared staff response did not report that a policy on contract compliance had been requested by the council several months ago and has yet to be developed by staff.
“We’re missing the boat here,” said Councilwoman Cecilia Martner, who requested the new contract compliance policy last October. “The grand jury did provide information that there was a lack of oversight. The city’s answer is ‘Well, not really.’
“I really don’t want to see us respond that way. I really want to see us say that we’re going to take the following steps to make sure that lack of oversight doesn’t repeat itself,” Martner said
Martner and Lingl, both elected in November 2008, served on the previous council that voted in 2010 to deny extensions to LHCDC on delinquent loans and to foreclose on a delinquent $375,000 loan for a vacant lot LHCDC had failed to develop for several years. At the time, LHCDC had failed to file financial audits for more than three years.
Martner also commented on the Grand Jury’s finding that the county, as the lead agency in a consortium to administer federal affordable-housing funds, failed to enforce compliance with LHCDC’s low-income properties, including property standards and maintenance.
“These properties are in Lompoc. They are blighted in our city. They are our residents,” Martner said. “I am done being nice with the county. … We don’t have ownership and we’re relying on the county to maintain and make sure that these properties are being maintained properly. But experience shows the county has not done their job, and our city has not been very forceful with the county asking them to do their job.”
Mayor John Linn attempted repeatedly to steer the discussion away from LHCDC’s noncompliance by questioning staff about differences in regulations established by state and federal funding sources, suggesting it wasn’t clear what requirements LHCDC needed to follow.
However, city attorney Joe Pannone corrected Linn’s interpretation, noting that differing regulations are “irrelevant to the fact that the person that gets the loan is obligated to meet all of the conditions. All of the conditions that are set up may be different, but the one that is the most restrictive is obviously going to meet the other ones, so the most restrictive one is the one that has to be met.”
Council members directed staff to return with a revised response Sept. 4, two days before the statutory deadline for responding to the Grand Jury’s report. The council recommended that the city report to the Grand Jury that it will institute a policy to require agencies that receive more than $50,000 in city funds, or have an annual budget of more than $100,000, to submit an independent financial audit at their own expense.
Lompoc resident Pam Wall reminded the council that some tenants of LHCDC’s properties are being ignored by both city and county officials responsible for oversight. She said she visited tenants at two former LHCDC properties and documented the substandard living conditions of the blighted properties. Some tenants are being forced to move by foreclosures, she said, and can’t get their security deposits returned.
Wall cited documentation in the Grand Jury’s report that LHCDC was told repeatedly over a four-year period that all tenant rents at one property, Casa Con Tres on North L Street, were too high.
“The answer was to raise their rents, not once, but twice. I have canceled copies of their checks,” she said. “They’re entitled to a refund and right now. They’re still paying that same rent. I think it’s criminal that these people are left in a void like this. Does anybody care about the people, the faces behind this problem?” she asked. “Because I do, I care.”
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
(San Luis Obispo Co) Co. says ‘not now’ to grand jury’s medical pot suggestions
BY: Aaron Crutchfield, Atascadero News -
The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors will tell the county’s grand jury that its recommendations for the county to make new local regulations regarding medical marijuana dispensaries aren’t warranted or reasonable at this time.
The civil grand jury said in a report in June that the county isn’t properly regulating mobile dispensaries and has basically stopped progress on brick-and-mortar clinics by denying the only three applicants in the past five years, in Nipomo, Templeton and Oceano.
But in the proposed response to the grand jury, which is expected to be approved at the board’s Tuesday, Aug. 21 meeting, the board said now’s not really a good time to make new rules.
“This is an inopportune time to develop local regulations given the fact that the California Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in the next few years related to how jurisdictions regulate medical marijuana,” supervisors said in the proposed response. “Further, the county board of supervisors is of the opinion that the most appropriate approach to this matter of public policy is a state statute. A single set of statutes and related regulations would provide for consistent and effective protection.”
Also in the response, the supervisors said that, indeed, there hadn’t been any brick-and-mortar dispensaries approved, but that was because they didn’t meet the requirements set forth in the county’s land-use ordinance.
The county also agreed that there is no way to really know how many mobile dispensaries are operating here without a license, but that county staff has seen ads in local newspapers for mobile delivery services that claim to deliver here, so it is assumed that there are collectives in operation here.
But the supervisors intend to wait for the state to make its decisions before making new laws.
“It is expected that the rulings to be issued as a result of this review will clarify much of the legal confusion that has existed around medical marijuana-related laws,” supervisors said in the proposed response.
They also noted that mobile dispensaries can travel from county to county, this making it better for state statues to regulate them for consistent and effective public protection.
Supervisors did agree with the grand jury that the county should require mobile dispensaries to possess a business license and seller’s permit, and supervisors have implemented that recommendation.
The response to the grand jury is on the consent agenda for Tuesday’s meeting. If approved, the response would be sent to the courthouse by Aug. 27.
The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors will tell the county’s grand jury that its recommendations for the county to make new local regulations regarding medical marijuana dispensaries aren’t warranted or reasonable at this time.
The civil grand jury said in a report in June that the county isn’t properly regulating mobile dispensaries and has basically stopped progress on brick-and-mortar clinics by denying the only three applicants in the past five years, in Nipomo, Templeton and Oceano.
But in the proposed response to the grand jury, which is expected to be approved at the board’s Tuesday, Aug. 21 meeting, the board said now’s not really a good time to make new rules.
“This is an inopportune time to develop local regulations given the fact that the California Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in the next few years related to how jurisdictions regulate medical marijuana,” supervisors said in the proposed response. “Further, the county board of supervisors is of the opinion that the most appropriate approach to this matter of public policy is a state statute. A single set of statutes and related regulations would provide for consistent and effective protection.”
Also in the response, the supervisors said that, indeed, there hadn’t been any brick-and-mortar dispensaries approved, but that was because they didn’t meet the requirements set forth in the county’s land-use ordinance.
The county also agreed that there is no way to really know how many mobile dispensaries are operating here without a license, but that county staff has seen ads in local newspapers for mobile delivery services that claim to deliver here, so it is assumed that there are collectives in operation here.
But the supervisors intend to wait for the state to make its decisions before making new laws.
“It is expected that the rulings to be issued as a result of this review will clarify much of the legal confusion that has existed around medical marijuana-related laws,” supervisors said in the proposed response.
They also noted that mobile dispensaries can travel from county to county, this making it better for state statues to regulate them for consistent and effective public protection.
Supervisors did agree with the grand jury that the county should require mobile dispensaries to possess a business license and seller’s permit, and supervisors have implemented that recommendation.
The response to the grand jury is on the consent agenda for Tuesday’s meeting. If approved, the response would be sent to the courthouse by Aug. 27.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
(Yuba Co) Police, county respond strongly to Yuba grand jury
By Ben van der Meer, AppealDemocrat.com -
Both Yuba County and the Marysville Police Department pushed back strongly in responses filed this month to two county grand-jury reports, in both cases questioning some of the language used or calling the conclusions false.
Police Chief Wally Fullerton, whose department came under criticism in a report on preparedness for disaster situations, stated in the response that grand jury members apparently overlooked a flood mitigation plan the city worked on with other agencies.
"The writer(s) of the Grand Jury report were provided a copy of the flood plan on compact disc; however, they have not included it in their review and do not list this plan in their report of items reviewed," Fullerton's response states. "One can only guess why this report was not reviewed by the writer(s)."
Fullerton's response also details disagreements with portions of the report stating emergency response plans aren't coordinated with other agencies and the department has not taken advantage of opportunities to create one.
"It is the intention of the City to continue with its process of preparing for emergencies and we are making great strides in this area," states the response, which is required by law.
In the county's response to a report suggesting two county ordinances are in conflict with each other, Yuba County Administrator Robert Bendorf said the county takes offense to report language suggesting people may be "lawbreakers" because of the conflicting codes.
As well, Bendorf states, suggesting there is such a conflict doesn't mean anyone was actively violating one ordinance or another.
"A staff review has shown no permits were issued that are specifically exempted by the county's building codes," Bendorf states.
The grand jury report suggested the county was charging fees for some improvements under one ordinance, while another forbade such fees for permits. Bendorf and county Community Services & Development Director Kevin Mallen said in responses that the county's fee schedule is separate from permits being issued.
In another grand jury report response, Marysville City Manager Steve Casey agreed with findings that questioned how the city displays the American flag.
Though the issues cited in the report have been corrected, Casey's response stated, he couldn't guarantee they would not arise again because they had stemmed from a previously unknown electrical failure.
Both Yuba County and the Marysville Police Department pushed back strongly in responses filed this month to two county grand-jury reports, in both cases questioning some of the language used or calling the conclusions false.
Police Chief Wally Fullerton, whose department came under criticism in a report on preparedness for disaster situations, stated in the response that grand jury members apparently overlooked a flood mitigation plan the city worked on with other agencies.
"The writer(s) of the Grand Jury report were provided a copy of the flood plan on compact disc; however, they have not included it in their review and do not list this plan in their report of items reviewed," Fullerton's response states. "One can only guess why this report was not reviewed by the writer(s)."
Fullerton's response also details disagreements with portions of the report stating emergency response plans aren't coordinated with other agencies and the department has not taken advantage of opportunities to create one.
"It is the intention of the City to continue with its process of preparing for emergencies and we are making great strides in this area," states the response, which is required by law.
In the county's response to a report suggesting two county ordinances are in conflict with each other, Yuba County Administrator Robert Bendorf said the county takes offense to report language suggesting people may be "lawbreakers" because of the conflicting codes.
As well, Bendorf states, suggesting there is such a conflict doesn't mean anyone was actively violating one ordinance or another.
"A staff review has shown no permits were issued that are specifically exempted by the county's building codes," Bendorf states.
The grand jury report suggested the county was charging fees for some improvements under one ordinance, while another forbade such fees for permits. Bendorf and county Community Services & Development Director Kevin Mallen said in responses that the county's fee schedule is separate from permits being issued.
In another grand jury report response, Marysville City Manager Steve Casey agreed with findings that questioned how the city displays the American flag.
Though the issues cited in the report have been corrected, Casey's response stated, he couldn't guarantee they would not arise again because they had stemmed from a previously unknown electrical failure.
(Santa Barbara Co) Council to address Grand Jury findings
CITY PLANS TO REJECT ADVICE ON LHCDC ISSUES -
By John Sakata / Staff writer, LompocRecord.com -
The Lompoc City Council is scheduled tonight to provide a response to the Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations concerning the failed Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corp.
In the draft of its response letter, written to Santa Barbara Judge Brian Hill, the city rejects four of the Grand Jury’s recommendations, including one to implement annual audits of all organizations that receive city funds in excess of $50,000.
The draft letter that the council will review tonight states that “several levels of review” are already in place, and that the request is “not warranted, nor is it reasonable,” but it also states that some other policy could be implemented to provide more financial oversight.
According to the letter, the city could establish a policy “based on risk assessments, of selected entities ... that receive funds from the City. ... That review may be financial in nature, but could also be compliance in nature.”
After a discussion on the Grand Jury report, the council is scheduled to decide whether to grant a 60-day extension for the lead developer, Environmental Education Group, to develop a business plan to build a long-discussed recreational and educational space center.
In early July, the council agreed to allocate close to $6,000 to consultant Keyser Marston Associates of San Francisco to outline what would be required from the Environmental Education Group.
The project has received a majority of council support, despite claims from a council minority that EEG does not have the experience or expertise to build a project of the proposed scale.
In a letter to Mayor John Linn, who requested the item be placed on the agenda, EEG founder Alan Tratner stated that there have been delays in receiving paperwork and instructions on how to create the business plan. He states that his staff met with the consultants July 28 concerning what information and what format should be used in the business plan.
Tratner also said that EEG has been working with the consultant group that created the original 59-page business plan for the California Space Authority, which dissolved in June 2011 after it failed to receive $5 million in federal funds for the space center.
While EEG awaited instruction on the business plan, Tratner states, a new committee called the California Space Enterprise Center (CSEC) Citizen Advisory Committee was formed. The committee will “obtain vital inputs from many sectors (for) the master conceptual plan.”
Outreach has been made to the aerospace industry, NASA and other government agencies, the letter states.
A memorandum of understanding has also been signed with Hancock College.
Hancock has agreed to co-sponsor an International Space Investment Summit planned for January 2013 in Lompoc, which would be contingent on EEG obtaining a land grant.
The letter also states that contact has also been made to the Commander’s Executive Director at Vandenberg Air Force Base about involvement and support.
By John Sakata / Staff writer, LompocRecord.com -
The Lompoc City Council is scheduled tonight to provide a response to the Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations concerning the failed Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corp.
In the draft of its response letter, written to Santa Barbara Judge Brian Hill, the city rejects four of the Grand Jury’s recommendations, including one to implement annual audits of all organizations that receive city funds in excess of $50,000.
The draft letter that the council will review tonight states that “several levels of review” are already in place, and that the request is “not warranted, nor is it reasonable,” but it also states that some other policy could be implemented to provide more financial oversight.
According to the letter, the city could establish a policy “based on risk assessments, of selected entities ... that receive funds from the City. ... That review may be financial in nature, but could also be compliance in nature.”
After a discussion on the Grand Jury report, the council is scheduled to decide whether to grant a 60-day extension for the lead developer, Environmental Education Group, to develop a business plan to build a long-discussed recreational and educational space center.
In early July, the council agreed to allocate close to $6,000 to consultant Keyser Marston Associates of San Francisco to outline what would be required from the Environmental Education Group.
The project has received a majority of council support, despite claims from a council minority that EEG does not have the experience or expertise to build a project of the proposed scale.
In a letter to Mayor John Linn, who requested the item be placed on the agenda, EEG founder Alan Tratner stated that there have been delays in receiving paperwork and instructions on how to create the business plan. He states that his staff met with the consultants July 28 concerning what information and what format should be used in the business plan.
Tratner also said that EEG has been working with the consultant group that created the original 59-page business plan for the California Space Authority, which dissolved in June 2011 after it failed to receive $5 million in federal funds for the space center.
While EEG awaited instruction on the business plan, Tratner states, a new committee called the California Space Enterprise Center (CSEC) Citizen Advisory Committee was formed. The committee will “obtain vital inputs from many sectors (for) the master conceptual plan.”
Outreach has been made to the aerospace industry, NASA and other government agencies, the letter states.
A memorandum of understanding has also been signed with Hancock College.
Hancock has agreed to co-sponsor an International Space Investment Summit planned for January 2013 in Lompoc, which would be contingent on EEG obtaining a land grant.
The letter also states that contact has also been made to the Commander’s Executive Director at Vandenberg Air Force Base about involvement and support.
Monday, August 20, 2012
(Orange Co) City Council Not Impressed by Grand Jury
By Martin Henderson, Rancho Santa Margarita Patch -
Mayor Tony Beall seemed to savor the moment, delivered to no more than three members of the public in attendance at last week's City Council meeting for Rancho Santa Margarita.
"With respect to the grand jury, their intentions I think are good—I'll give them an A for their good intentions," Beall, an attorney by trade, said with some mocking authority. "But when it comes to their implementation, I really think they can do better. I give them a D."
The comment was made in response to an Orange County Grand Jury report, delivered by director of administrative services Paul Boyer, in which the grand jury graded the City for compensation cost transparency.
The grand jury gave the city an A grade for accessibility. And, for content and clarity of the disclosure of compensation for staff executives, the City also received an A grade; however, it received a D grade for the compensation and benefits of "lower level" employees.
Yet Boyer revealed that the information on the city's website that was given a D grade was modeled after the page that was given an A, which left him exasperated much like the council members who heard his explanation.
Additionally, he said, the report was released and cities graded but without their being told what criteria was used for grading. "Until we saw the report, we had no idea what we were graded on or that there was additional information we were being graded on," Boyer said.
All three council members in attendance—Beall, Carol Gamble and Jerry Holloway—had sharp comments about the grand jury's effort. Holloway, who announced he will not seek reelection to a council seat, said he one day hoped to be on the grand jury; Gamble said she hoped he would be on it, too.
"I take offense when the grand jury comes out and assigns an arbitrary grade to our city and others based on criteria that’s never been given to our city," Beall said. "That’s poor form."
"I don't want to get a D, which implies we failed a test that we were never provided," Gamble said. "This entire machination is a giant waste of public money. They just need to tell us what it is and get everyone on the same page, and if you then don’t get on the same page you get a D or an F or a G or whatever letter they want to assign to it. … I’m completely lost. We’ll do whatever you want. We wouldn’t mind finding out what it is before you give us a grade."
Council members asked city manager Jennifer Cervantez to fashion a letter to the grand jury that would have them notify cities of the criteria prior and allow some time for compliance before releasing such grades.
The City has until Sept. 12 to respond to the grand jury, but is not legally bound to come into compliance. The City will comply, however.
Holloway asked Boyer if there was any information that would be witheld from a resident who sought compensation information from the city. There isn't, apart from that which is confidential by law, such as an entire copy of an individual's W-2 tax form.
"The city would not dislcose that information and tie it into a name," Boyer said.
"But if someone came in five years ago and asked what Holloway makes, you'd give it to them," Holloway said.
"Absolutely," Boyer answered.
The dean of students at Santa Margarita Catholic High, Holloway said he thought he would get considerable protest if students walked into class and they were given a grade for something they've not yet done.
"Give me an assignment first," he said. "It's like those (cities) that didn't do it correctly didn't do it intentionally. (The Grand Jury) might have been trying to justify their existence. It's a great idea but oddly structured. There isn't any information the public couldn't get from us."
Mayor Tony Beall seemed to savor the moment, delivered to no more than three members of the public in attendance at last week's City Council meeting for Rancho Santa Margarita.
"With respect to the grand jury, their intentions I think are good—I'll give them an A for their good intentions," Beall, an attorney by trade, said with some mocking authority. "But when it comes to their implementation, I really think they can do better. I give them a D."
The comment was made in response to an Orange County Grand Jury report, delivered by director of administrative services Paul Boyer, in which the grand jury graded the City for compensation cost transparency.
The grand jury gave the city an A grade for accessibility. And, for content and clarity of the disclosure of compensation for staff executives, the City also received an A grade; however, it received a D grade for the compensation and benefits of "lower level" employees.
Yet Boyer revealed that the information on the city's website that was given a D grade was modeled after the page that was given an A, which left him exasperated much like the council members who heard his explanation.
Additionally, he said, the report was released and cities graded but without their being told what criteria was used for grading. "Until we saw the report, we had no idea what we were graded on or that there was additional information we were being graded on," Boyer said.
All three council members in attendance—Beall, Carol Gamble and Jerry Holloway—had sharp comments about the grand jury's effort. Holloway, who announced he will not seek reelection to a council seat, said he one day hoped to be on the grand jury; Gamble said she hoped he would be on it, too.
"I take offense when the grand jury comes out and assigns an arbitrary grade to our city and others based on criteria that’s never been given to our city," Beall said. "That’s poor form."
"I don't want to get a D, which implies we failed a test that we were never provided," Gamble said. "This entire machination is a giant waste of public money. They just need to tell us what it is and get everyone on the same page, and if you then don’t get on the same page you get a D or an F or a G or whatever letter they want to assign to it. … I’m completely lost. We’ll do whatever you want. We wouldn’t mind finding out what it is before you give us a grade."
Council members asked city manager Jennifer Cervantez to fashion a letter to the grand jury that would have them notify cities of the criteria prior and allow some time for compliance before releasing such grades.
The City has until Sept. 12 to respond to the grand jury, but is not legally bound to come into compliance. The City will comply, however.
Holloway asked Boyer if there was any information that would be witheld from a resident who sought compensation information from the city. There isn't, apart from that which is confidential by law, such as an entire copy of an individual's W-2 tax form.
"The city would not dislcose that information and tie it into a name," Boyer said.
"But if someone came in five years ago and asked what Holloway makes, you'd give it to them," Holloway said.
"Absolutely," Boyer answered.
The dean of students at Santa Margarita Catholic High, Holloway said he thought he would get considerable protest if students walked into class and they were given a grade for something they've not yet done.
"Give me an assignment first," he said. "It's like those (cities) that didn't do it correctly didn't do it intentionally. (The Grand Jury) might have been trying to justify their existence. It's a great idea but oddly structured. There isn't any information the public couldn't get from us."
Sunday, August 19, 2012
(Napa Co) American Canyon council considers rejecting grand jury recommendation
By Rachel Raskin-Zrihen/Times-Herald staff writer -
The City Council on Tuesday will consider rejecting a Napa County Grand Jury recommendation to form a countywide citizens review board in the aftermath of an officer-involved shooting.
Council members are scheduled to consider authorizing Mayor Leon Garcia to submit a response to the 2011-2012 Napa Grand Jury concerning a Nov. 28, 2010 officer-involved shooting in Napa.
A Napa police officer fatally shot an individual in Napa's Alta Heights neighborhood, resulting in some residents having "concerns" about the Napa Police Department's conduct. The Napa County District Attorney's Office found the shooting was justified.
The 2011-2012 Napa County Grand Jury investigated, and issued eight recommendations. One was that within a year all county jurisdictions establish a single civilian review board to examine all investigation documents of this incident and all future officer-involved shootings.
American Canyon City Manager Dana Shigley, after consulting Napa County Sheriff John Robertson, recommends the city join other county jurisdictions in responding that the "creation of such a panel is duplicative and unnecessary."
The council also is scheduled to consider continuing to inform the public of upcoming public meetings despite the state's suspending portions of the Brown Act requiring it.
The Legislature suspended reimbursement for mandated costs associated with the Ralph M. Brown Open Meeting Act as part of 2012-2013 State Budget cuts.
But, "the city of American Canyon believes that the public's right to an open government is paramount," and will likely continue complying with all Brown Act provisions, anyway, according to a staff report. This goes for the Fire District, as well.
At Tuesday's 6:30 p.m. City Council meeting at 4831 Broadway St., Suite 201, council members also will consider:
• A presentation of the Napa County Library 2012-2015 Strategic Plan by library services director Danis Kreimeier.
• Donating an unused Deskjet 800 Plotter to Army Reserve Unit No. 304, of which city employee David Miller is a member. The Unit's Family Readiness Group could use the machine to make homecoming banners and posters for returning soldiers.
• Approving an $85,000 agreement with Questa Engineering Corporation for services for the Kimberly Park Bay Trail Project.
• Entering into a three year funding agreement with Community Action Napa Valley for homelessness prevention services through Hope Center, Napa County's primary outreach tool to the chronically homeless population.
• A General Plan Amendment to incorporate the Napa County Transportation & Planning Agency Countywide Bicycle Master Plan for the city of American Canyon.
• Appointing new Blue Ribbon Committee on Water Resources members.
The City Council on Tuesday will consider rejecting a Napa County Grand Jury recommendation to form a countywide citizens review board in the aftermath of an officer-involved shooting.
Council members are scheduled to consider authorizing Mayor Leon Garcia to submit a response to the 2011-2012 Napa Grand Jury concerning a Nov. 28, 2010 officer-involved shooting in Napa.
A Napa police officer fatally shot an individual in Napa's Alta Heights neighborhood, resulting in some residents having "concerns" about the Napa Police Department's conduct. The Napa County District Attorney's Office found the shooting was justified.
The 2011-2012 Napa County Grand Jury investigated, and issued eight recommendations. One was that within a year all county jurisdictions establish a single civilian review board to examine all investigation documents of this incident and all future officer-involved shootings.
American Canyon City Manager Dana Shigley, after consulting Napa County Sheriff John Robertson, recommends the city join other county jurisdictions in responding that the "creation of such a panel is duplicative and unnecessary."
The council also is scheduled to consider continuing to inform the public of upcoming public meetings despite the state's suspending portions of the Brown Act requiring it.
The Legislature suspended reimbursement for mandated costs associated with the Ralph M. Brown Open Meeting Act as part of 2012-2013 State Budget cuts.
But, "the city of American Canyon believes that the public's right to an open government is paramount," and will likely continue complying with all Brown Act provisions, anyway, according to a staff report. This goes for the Fire District, as well.
At Tuesday's 6:30 p.m. City Council meeting at 4831 Broadway St., Suite 201, council members also will consider:
• A presentation of the Napa County Library 2012-2015 Strategic Plan by library services director Danis Kreimeier.
• Donating an unused Deskjet 800 Plotter to Army Reserve Unit No. 304, of which city employee David Miller is a member. The Unit's Family Readiness Group could use the machine to make homecoming banners and posters for returning soldiers.
• Approving an $85,000 agreement with Questa Engineering Corporation for services for the Kimberly Park Bay Trail Project.
• Entering into a three year funding agreement with Community Action Napa Valley for homelessness prevention services through Hope Center, Napa County's primary outreach tool to the chronically homeless population.
• A General Plan Amendment to incorporate the Napa County Transportation & Planning Agency Countywide Bicycle Master Plan for the city of American Canyon.
• Appointing new Blue Ribbon Committee on Water Resources members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)