[Santa Barbara County] Lompoc school board responds to grand jury report at charged meeting

The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education held a highly charged special meeting Friday morning to formally approve its responses to a number of issues outlined in a recent report from the Santa Barbara County grand jury.

The meeting, which lasted about two hours, included accusations of hostility and a lack of respect among board members and district administrators. The discussions, which at times became heated, also shed light on some of the specific circumstances that led to the problems raised by the grand jury.

The board ultimately agreed with all of the findings from the grand jury report, which was released June 23, and also agreed that it would follow all but one of the recommended corrective actions.

The seven areas of concern that were highlighted by the grand jury included conflicts of interest, financial irregularities, inadequate and unenforced internal financial controls, hostile work environment, lack of employee oversight, other unethical behavior and a lack of ethics training.

Much of the grand jury report focused on board member Bill Christen and his wife, Tina Christen, who had been the district’s director of special education before being reassigned to a classroom position just a day before the release of the grand jury report.

Bill Christen was the only member of the board who was not present at Friday morning’s meeting, but he and his wife were among the main topics of discussion.

Board member Carmela Kessler, who has had several public disagreements with Bill Christen and even said Friday that “if anybody has experienced (hostility from the Christens) it would be yours truly,” defended some of the actions of Bill Christen, and the board, as it related to some of the findings.

One of the problems identified in the grand jury report was the fact that Bill Christen twice voted to approve raises for groups of employees that included his wife. The grand jury deemed this to be a conflict of interest.

In its response to that accusation, the LUSD board agreed with that assessment and noted that it has requested reimbursement from Bill Christen and that the matter has been referred to the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office. If the district attorney chooses not to pursue criminal prosecution, the board stated that “LUSD may seek to obtain reimbursement from Mr. Christen using civil litigation.”

Kessler said Friday that she and Bill Christen both attended voluntary ethics training when they were elected to the board four years ago and that she did not recall this specific situation being presented as a problem. She suggested that it was not Bill Christen’s intent to go against any regulations.

“I don’t think his intention was to have a conflict of interest,” she said, adding that it was likely due to a “lack of knowledge.”

The board, at the request of Kessler and member Bill Heath, ended up adding a line to the response stating that the board hopes the issue with Christen’s reimbursement can be resolved without criminal prosecution.

Another of the findings from the grand jury report that received a lot of attention at Friday’s meeting was the allegation that a hostile work environment was created by “the increasingly contentious working relationship” between Bill Christen and Superintendent Trevor McDonald, and between Tina Christen and her colleagues.

This hostility was cited by McDonald as being one of the root causes for another of the grand jury’s findings regarding financial irregularities and a lack of financial control within the district.

As evidence of this financial irregularity, the grand jury cited the fact that revenue within the special education department, which at the time was managed by Tina Christen, jumped 85 percent from $3.3 million in 2013 to $6.3 million in 2014.

McDonald said that an issue was raised at the time by former Assistant Superintendent Sheldon Smith, who has since left the district, but that Smith was rebuked by Bill Christen for terming the spending as an “encroachment” and was intimidated into softening his stance.

“Mr. Smith is forced to change his language or verbiage to say ‘contribution’ (instead of ‘encroachment’) and that was only because he was verbally attacked and felt like, ‘Uh-oh, now my job’s on the line,’” McDonald said.

“When there’s some kinks in the system, I can understand how a person walks away thinking, ‘OK, we’re in great shape’ versus, ‘Wow, our encroachment has increased,’” he added.

McDonald also pointed to a grand jury finding that an invoice for a $238,000 payment for books was submitted by the special education department without prior approval. McDonald said that no one knew about that purchase until it was discovered by the grand jury.

He said an employee was told to make the purchase, presumably by Tina Christen, and that employee did what she was told out of fear.

To help stop issues like that from occurring again, he said the district was going to limit the number of people who have purchasing power.

In its response to the grand jury, the district also noted that it would hire an independent auditor specifically to track general fund spending.

In response to McDonald’s example involving Sheldon Smith, Kessler said she had a “hard time” accepting that administrators would fear for their jobs for doing the right thing.

Later in the meeting, Kessler brought up concerns that she raised to the board in 2014 regarding hostile workplaces. She said that she never felt like there was a hostile environment during her many years working in the district but that it’s different now for her as an elected official.

“In the almost four years that I’ve been on this board, I have felt that I’ve been in a hostile work environment,” she said.

She accused McDonald and some board members of dismissing her concerns in the past, which led to a testy exchange in which she and board President Steve Straight got into an argument about body language and accused each other of being disrespectful to the other at that very moment.

Heath attempted to calm things by going back to the grand jury report and noting that the concern about workplace climate is real and needs to be addressed, something the board, in its response to the grand jury, said it will do by amending its professional standards policy.

The board also agreed to better track its employees during work hours and to enforce its travel expense policy, which was alleged to have been violated by the Christens when they traveled together to a conference in New Orleans this year.

McDonald noted that the Christens failed to properly reimburse the district for that trip and that the couple’s expenses went beyond reason, amounting to more than $1,000 per day for a six-day trip.

McDonald suggested that was another case of people failing to speak up about red flags due to fear of retribution.

The only recommendation that the board did not agree with from the report was a suggestion from the grand jury that the district revise its “Employment of Relatives” policy to include members of the LUSD board.

The board rejected that recommendation, arguing that board members “do not have the responsibility to manage, supervise, evaluate or promote any district employee other than the superintendent,” so the policy would have minimal impact.

In its final response, the board agreed to adopt a policy requiring ethics training for all members.

All of the responses were agreed upon unanimously with 4-0 votes. District staff will make small changes with wording before returning the responses back to the board for review. The document then will be signed by Straight and sent to the grand jury.

The terms of Kessler, Christen and Hank Gallina run out this year. Christen is the only one of the three who did not file papers with the county to seek re-election.

August 19, 2016

Santa Maria Times

By Willis Jacobson

[Riverside County] Registrar responds to grand jury report

In April, the Riverside County Grand Jury delivered a report critical of the county’s Registrar of Voters Office’s preparation and conduct of the November 2015 election. The grand jury visited seven different polling places in the county.

In its response, which the Board of Supervisors approved in late July, the registrar agreed to change some practices and improve others. However, except for the recommendation regarding the set-up of three polling places, according to photographs in the accessibility kits, the registrar partially disagreed with all the other grand jury findings and recommendations.

For example, regarding inaccurate addresses for three of the polls, the registrar re-affirmed that all addresses were confirmed by the owners or managers of the sites. Nevertheless, the registrar replied, “More attention will be given to including specific building names or numbers … [and] more attention will be given to lighting and signage.”

The grand jury also addressed the training and experience of the poll workers and lamented the inconsistency of their training.

In response, the registrar assured the grand jury that “all polling places had experienced poll workers working on election day [and no] polling place [was] staffed with all new poll workers.” But more attention would be given to election-officer training in the future.

Another issue involved the security seals on the ballot boxes. The grand jury was concerned that some boxes were not secured sufficiently. However, the registrar replied that the ballot box does not have to be “locked” but it does have to be “sealed.”

That means at last one intact seal must protect the box from being opened.

“The ballot box cannot be opened without breaking both seals. It would be impossible to tamper with the paper ballots if one seal is still intact,” stated the registrar’s response

With little debate, the board approved the registrar’s response to the grand jury.

August 18, 2016

Idyllwild Town Crier

[Monterey County] Salinas responds to grand jury review of body-worn cameras

The Salinas Police Department will continue to consider best practices in regards to how data from body-worn cameras is stored and released as the legal parameters around the subject continue to evolve, the city wrote in its official response to recommendations made by the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury.

In June, the Civil Grand Jury issued their final report, and in it, they reviewed the use of body-worn cameras by all Monterey County law enforcement agencies.

In regards to Salinas police, the report described it as the agency with the "most sophisticated" body-worn camera system in the county but contended that the department’s policy didn’t meet state legal requirements as to how it downloads and stores the camera data, a point that the Salinas city council disagreed with, according to the city’s official response to the report.

State law only requires agencies to “consider the best practices regarding the downloading and storage of body-worn camera data. It does not require it,” the city’s response reads.

“As the law, technology and best practices pertaining the use, storage and release of (body-worn cameras) and the data obtained is rapidly evolving, the Legislature incorporated language that provides latitude for the subject matter experts to determine which practice(s) will or will not be incorporated,” the city’s response continues.

Salinas police will implement best practices that it determines appropriate for the agency and community, with recommendations from legal and subject matter experts available at the time, the city’s response reads. It will also continue to have the Salinas police chief and city attorney meet regularly to review the policy to ensure that it complies with current laws and practices.

August 18, 2016

The Californian

By Chelcey Adami

[Santa Cruz County] Grand Jury Releases Report on 2015 Jail Death of Krista DeLuca; Family Sues County

In June, the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury released its report on the death of 23-year-old mother Krista DeLuca, who died in the main jail on September 29, 2015. (see PDF file) Shortly after the release of the Grand Jury report, DeLuca's family filed a civil lawsuit against the County of Santa Cruz. Besides the County, the lawsuit lists as defendants the Sheriff's Office, Sheriff-Coroner Jim Hart, Under-Sheriff Jeremy Verinsky, Chief Deputy Jeff March, Lieutenant Kelly Kent, and California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. (CFMG), as well as a list of unspecified "John Does". The Grand Jury report calls for a new independent contractor to oversee medical services at the main jail, and despite its multiple recommendations for major changes to jail policies and procedures, the county responded by indicating they still planned to renew their contract with CFMG. In August, the Santa Cruz-based organization Sin Barras called for the County Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Office to take action and to implement the Grand Jury’s recommendations.

"For the third consecutive term, the Grand Jury is compelled to investigate yet another death at the Main Jail. There have been six deaths since October 2012," the Grand Jury report begins.

"The tragic death of this young woman comes as the Sheriff-Coroner and Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors are in the process of selecting a new medical services provider. The 2012–2016 provider is California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., whose existing contract began shortly before the first of these deaths."

Sin Barras statement:

"The poor quality of medical care for incarcerated people at the local jail remains an ongoing concern. Sin Barras believes that the County Health Services Agency should resume responsibility for jail medical care; outsourcing this essential service in 2012 has cut costs but hurt these people. Short of that, the 2016 renewal of the contract with the for­ profit medical provider CFMG (California Forensic Medical Group) is an opportunity to achieve better medical outcomes for these individuals. It is imperative not to miss this opportunity. The Civil Grand Jury issued three special reports since CFMG’s takeover of jail medical care recommending changes to the jail’s medical procedures that would save lives, but most of these changes continue to be rejected by the Sheriff’s Department. The Sheriff’s Department states that the safety of those in the jail is their highest priority, but in the past four years, while under contract with CFMG, multiple preventable deaths have occurred in the jail that can be described as "murders by negligence.”

August 17, 2016

Santa Cruz County News

No raises for Tuolumne County supervisors

Blog note: this article cites a county administrator’s desire for the grand jury to investigate the salaries of county supervisors.

The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday again tabled a proposed pay increase for themselves, this time in the amount of 2 percent.

Supervisors declined to grant themselves a 14.6 percent raise at the Aug. 2 meeting, directing county staff to come back with a smaller cost-of-living adjustment. However, the board still couldn’t stomach voting on giving themselves more money, despite a 2015 study that found their wages were below that of elected supervisors in other similar counties.

“I’m not going to support it,” said District 2 Supervisor Randy Hanvelt. “I hate supervisors voting on their own salaries. It’s inappropriate, and a political hassle.”

County staff was directed to work on a separate solution that doesn’t involve supervisors voting to increase their own salaries, possibly by working with an independent body to determine whether the board deserves raises.

County Administrator Craig Pedro said he would try to convince the Tuolumne County Grand Jury to investigate the matter and make recommendations.

“We just need to find a pathway that makes sense so we’re not voting on our own salary increases,” said District 1 Supervisor Sherri Brennan.

However, District 4 Supervisor John Gray said he didn’t see the point in going through the extra steps because he has been unable to vote on salary increases for 10 years.

The board’s last “true increase,” according to county Human Resources Director Ann Fremd, was approved in May 2006.

District 5 Supervisor Karl Rodefer also noted the current salary of $39,814 a year could limit the potential pool of future candidates for the board because it might drive away some qualified people from running.

“The compensation for this job does affect people’s decisions whether to run for this position or not run for this position,” he said. “It limits your choices when you go to the ballot box to vote for the people who are going to make the decisions that affect your lives.”

August 16, 2016

The Union Democrat

By Alex MacLean

[Solano County] Fairfield drafts response about homelessness to grand jury

FAIRFIELD — The city is always willing to consider ways to gauge the cost of homelessness, Fairfield says in a draft response to the Solano County grand jury report on homelessness.

Fairfield City Council members will take up the response when they meet Tuesday.

Recommendations by the grand jury included that all cities in Solano County assess costs of homelessness.

Fairfield in its draft response said the city, as part of its homeless strategy adopted in 2015, began tracking some costs attributed to the homeless and continues to do so.

Agencies that are the subjects of grand jury reports are required to respond in writing by Sept. 8.

The grand jury report “Homeless – Omnipresent and Invisible?” states that while Fairfield, Vacaville and Vallejo have dealt with homelessness, a regional approach to the issue is necessary.

A 2015 census identified 1,082 people who were homeless in Solano County, the grand jury said in its report. Solano County Health and Social Services identified about 9,000 people who were homeless or at risk of homelessness, the grand jury said.

“This indicates that we have a significantly larger problem to address,” according to the grand jury report.

The Fairfield City Council meets at 6 p.m. in the chamber at 1000 Webster St.

August 14, 2016

Daily Republic

By Ryan McCarthy

[Kern County] SOUND OFF: Why aren’t we telling the whole story on firefighter OT?

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.

Reader: So here we go again, another round of The Bakersfield Californian pointing its fingers at firefighters regarding salary (“Kern scrutinizes fire overtime pay,” Aug. 7). We’ve heard it all before. What’s really sad is that The Californian never tells the whole story. They don’t tell you that when our firefighters and their apparatus respond out of county the requesting agency pays the overtime. The apparatus actually makes money for the county. Not only that, the requesting agency pays the overtime for those firefighters called to fill in behind at local stations. The Californian never mentions that several years ago the KCFD was investigated by the Kern County grand jury and the department was not only exonerated, but complimented on the efficient manner in which it conducts its business.

The Californian doesn’t tell you how the overtime is earned. It’s about swinging a hand tool on the side of a hill somewhere for 12 hours, or punching in a 3,000- or 4,000-foot hoselay up the side of a mountain. They don’t tell you about the blown out knees and hips caused by long-term trauma and physical stress, or all the missed birthdays, anniversaries, Little League games, Christmases, or the intense competition just to get hired.

What people should remember is that the purpose of The Bakersfield Californian is to sell newspapers and make a profit. Controversy sells newspapers. If there is no controversy, then create some.

Support your firefighters.

— Glen Brewton

Price: Where to start? First, I suppose, with a refresher on the role of independent daily newspapers: Government entities, including local fire departments, operate with our tax dollars, and appropriately so. In the hierarchy of essential services, most of us would place fire protection right at the top, along with law enforcement. So there’s no question that funding firefighters’ salaries with tax dollars is money well spent. But taxpayers have a right to demand that their money be spent judiciously.

Fire department officials, county supervisors and grand jurys are tasked with that. But politics, both internal and external, can get in the way of a local government’s ability to self monitor and especially its ability to revamp entrenched systems. That’s where independent media’s ability to call attention to inefficiencies and inequities becomes essential. Call it “pointing their fingers” if you like. I call it doing our job.

We never tell the whole story? Not in one day’s package of stories, we don’t — not even in James Burger’s comprehensive look at who and how OT dollars — $23.2 million in the most recent fiscal year — are distributed to county firefighters. But over time, we have reported most of what you accuse us of ignoring — including that grand jury exoneration you claim we’ve never mentioned. Here’s a portion of our report from January 2004:

“A Kern County grand jury report on the county’s Fire Department says there is nothing wrong with its overtime policy and practices — but adds there is room for improvement. The report on overtime, released Monday, came about in part after a series of Californian articles brought the issue before the public.

“The jury’s recommendations include some approaches described in recent Californian articles, including expanding the use of relief firefighters and shifting overtime to lower-paid firefighters. The report states that overtime accounts for about 41 percent of the department’s overall payroll costs and is excessive when compared to what the Sheriff’s Department pays deputies. However, the report states the Fire Department’s overtime costs compare favorably with fire agencies in other counties with similar operations and out-of-county firefighting services.

“(Then-) Fire Chief Dennis Thompson said the department is preparing a response to the report. ‘It’s a fair report. There’s a number of recommendations we’re looking at now,’ Thompson said.

“The recommendations include increasing the department’s pool of relief firefighters who fill in for sick and vacationing staffers. Using regular firefighters to fill those slots has traditionally been the highest overtime cost for the department.”

Yes, that grand jury “exoneration” — which also identified areas in need of change — came about largely because of a news report very much like the one you’re criticizing here.

So, back to Sunday’s report. You cite some alleged omissions. I’ll ask you to read the article again. The story very clearly explains that “when our firefighters and their apparatus respond out of county the requesting agency pays the overtime.” From Burger’s story: “Marshall also points out that overtime county firefighters work battling wildland fires is covered by repayments from state and federal government agencies. (Capt. Tyler) Townsend’s weeks of work on the Erskine Fire is a great example, Marshall said. ‘For every dollar we give Tyler, we get paid $1.11,’ Marshall said.”

Another point: You noted that “the apparatus actually makes money for the county.” But, as Burger reminds me, he previously reported that Marshall admits that the fire department doesn’t save that money to cover replacement of fire apparatus. Instead, the money is used to fund firefighter salaries, meaning there is no money to replace a fire engine when it reaches the end of its usable life.

I beg to differ that The Californian doesn’t report on the difficulty of a firefighter’s job or the highly competitive nature of departmental hiring. Anyone who paid attention to our comprehensive coverage of the recent Erskine Fire knows the job’s challenges have been well chronicled in these pages. 

I had to roll my eyes at this statement of yours: “If there is no controversy, then create some.” Plenty of hand-wringing is taking place in the County Administrative Building these days over shrinking budgets and growing demands. Some public safety officials have campaigned hard to keep their budgets intact even as other departments are devastated. That’s not our manufactured controversy — that’s county government’s controversy, born of a decimated oil economy and employee union obligations, among other factors. So ... please. The issues Burger raised are exactly the issues county officials should be discussing — and I’ll wager they are, thanks greatly to his reporting.

You’re criticizing The Californian for trying to “sell newspapers and make a profit”? You’re describing the business model of a free and independent press. Do you think these inefficiencies would be coming to light if the only media in town were government sanctioned? Me neither.

Finally, I would argue that this kind of reporting “supports your firefighters” quite well. When a flawed system of OT compensation butts heads with plunging tax revenues, something eventually has to give. But what? Firefighters’ jobs? Or aspects of the existing OT system? I vote to modify the system and protect the jobs.

August 12, 2016

The Bakersfield Californian

By Robert Price