Grand Jury report: Kern County libraries ‘headed for extinction’

A Kern County Grand Jury committee didn’t mince words when it released a report on the state of the library system in June.

In short, the report states the Kern County Library system is headed for extinction.

“An inspection of the Kern County Library (KCL) revealed a frightening truth: The continued ability of KCL to serve the residents of Kern County is in serious jeopardy,” the report states. “Management’s approach of ‘this is how we’ve always done it,’ does not allow for a vision for the future of KCL; past practices have generally led to greater costs and manpower requirements, without commensurate increases in services or utilization.

The committee inquired about the 2016-2017 operation and management of the library system prior to releasing its report on June 1. The report notes that KCL isn’t following national trends. The committee cited Wall Street Journal contributor John Christopher Farley’s argument that libraries need to become innovative so they don’t fall victim to the Internet Age.

“He believes librarians should help patrons’ access to digital technology. He also contends that librarians should not completely eliminate books,” the report states. “Libraries around the country are facing a decrease in usage and need to change with the times. This includes changing mission statements to include new technology and better use of the libraries’ space.”

In traditional Grand Jury format, the report goes through its process, including findings, recommendations, background and facts during its investigation of the 24-library system.

The Grand Jury committee report notes that 20 of the branches are open less than five days a week, and none on Sunday. The committee report also mentions that the performance of the system, which started in 1900 with the opening of Beale Memorial Library in Bakersfield, ranks at the bottom 10 percent of all libraries in California.

Ridgecrest Branch Library remains one of the few that operates five days a week, Tuesday through Saturday. The report states that the “Interim Library Director stated that the KCL has not developed any short-term, mid-term or long-term plans for the library’s future,” that it operates two bookmobiles used in various areas throughout the county, and that the KLS budget “letter of justification” utilizes much of the same language year over year. A letter of justification is a budget request submitted annually by departments to the County Administration Officer.

Findings

The committee also reported its findings, among them that KLC does not have a comprehensive marketing plan, that one employee is tasked with updating the main website and 24 social media outlets. Most libraries have limited hours, with 45 percent closed on Saturdays.

The report also mentions that the number of books checked out per year per capita is half what it was 10 years ago. About one book per year, per capita leaves the library, on average, across the system. With an annual budget of $7.59 million, that’s about $8 a book.

Ridgecrest Branch Library, not mentioned in the report, maintains an eight-hour schedule on the five days it is open (with the exception of closures on major holidays). The library is open Tuesday through Thursday from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays.

The KCL budget in fiscal year 2015-16 showed a budget of $7.59 million, of which approximately $5.58 million was spent on staff salaries and benefits.

The report also notes that the actual cost of operating expenditures increases by 22 percent when the “Kern County General Services maintenance expenditures for all library buildings are included.” That amount was approximately $1.9 million for the entire system.

Among its recommendations, the committee recommended that the Kern County Board of Supervisors “should seriously consider options for the library’s management, such as modifying and updating the job description of the Director of Libraries, and the minimum qualifications required to manage a modern library system” and develop a comprehensive marketing plan for all 24 branches.

Other findings include the library system as a whole explore additional ways to utilize its branches, including acting as professional certification testing centers, resume writing training centers and offer general education testing and preparation courses. It recommended eliminating or rescheduling bookmobile service for the Kern River Valley and closing the Holloway-Gonzales branch in Bakersfield because it isn’t cost effective, or utilize that branch as a community center.

The report did not mention the support that individual libraries receive via several Friends of the Library nonprofit groups, additional support from volunteers or various community programs operated out of the library branches.

Overlooked items

The grand jury report isn’t the first time the Kern County Library system has fallen under public scrutiny. Recommendations have come before the board of supervisors over the last four years, including a proposal to either partly or fully privatize the system.

Last year, the board was faced with a decision of whether to outsource management of the library system to Maryland-based Library Systems & Services Inc., or consider a one-eighth of a center sales tax increase to fund the system. The sales tax would have brought in an estimated $15 million a year.

The sales tax went to the ballot as Measure F following a series of public forums and workshops held around the county, including Ridgecrest. The consensus among many residents was that they did not want to privatize a library system.

While the tax garnered 51.68 percent approval, as a special measure, it required two-thirds of voters to approve it. More than 48 percent voted no on the measure.

The report did not mention the support that individual libraries receive via several Friends of the Library nonprofit groups, additional support from volunteers or various community programs operated out of the library branches.

The Kern County Board of Supervisors has yet to approve a response to the grand jury report.

July 19, 2017

Ridgecrest Daily Independent

[Santa Clara County] Grand jury report on SEQ draws fire

Body accused of misleading, omitting facts

A Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report that investigated the failure of the Catholic Diocese to annex property to build a new high school in Morgan Hill is harshly critical of the local commission tasked with processing such approvals.

But some environmental groups who have followed the high school’s annexation effort closely in recent years think the report was home-cooked with a bias in favor of the City of Morgan Hill, because the 2016-17 grand jury foreperson is a city planning commissioner. These critics also claim there are some “factual inaccuracies” in the report.

The grand jury report titled “LAFCO Denials: A high school caught in the middle,” published June 5, took an in-depth look at the city’s effort in 2016 to annex about 230 acres of agricultural land from the 1,200-acre Southeast Quadrant into Morgan Hill’s Urban Service Area. As required by state law, the Morgan Hill City Council submitted an application requesting this annexation to the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

The seven-member LAFCO commission rejected the annexation proposal on a 5-2 vote March 11, 2016. A second motion for an alternative proposal—to annex only the 38 acres within the SEQ (at the intersection of Tennant and Murphy avenues) designated by the Diocese for a private high school—failed at the same LAFCO meeting.

The grand jury report took LAFCO to task for inconsistently and subjectively enforcing its guidelines and applying undefined terminology to their annexation criteria. It also criticized the City of Morgan Hill for not including enough public participation in the SEQ process and ineffective communication with LAFCO staff.

Both agencies are responsible for the “strained relationship” between them, the grand jury report suggests.

‘Inherent bias’?

A group of private, nonprofit environmental organizations that argued against the city’s SEQ annexation proposal sent a letter to the LAFCO board July 17 spelling out their “grave concerns” with the June 5 grand jury report. Topping their list is the “appearance of (grand jury) foreperson’s conflict of interest.”

The foreman, Wayne Tanda, has been a Morgan Hill planning commissioner for several years, and was chair of the city commission in 2016. He made a motion to recommend submitting the city’s SEQ plans to LAFCO at the June 23, 2015 planning commission meeting, according to the July 17 letter signed by representatives of the Committee For Green Foothills, Greenbelt Alliance, American Farmland Trust, Thrive! Morgan Hill, Sierra Club and others.

“Given Mr. Tanda’s status as a long-standing appointed member of the…Morgan Hill Planning Commission, his direct input in the SEQ and Agricultural Mitigation Program proposals, and his involvement in the SEQ decision-making process throughout the years, it is difficult not to perceive an inherent bias in the content and conclusions of this report,” the letter states.

The July 17 letter also lists “misleading statements” and “exclusion of pertinent information and factual errors” as other problems with the grand jury report.

For example, a vague mention of “a county official’s” support for the Catholic high school might suggest to a less informed reader that the county as an entity was supportive of the annexation plans, the letter argues. In fact, however, county staff urged the LAFCO board to reject the city’s SEQ proposal because it is inconsistent with existing land use guidelines, and it doesn’t do enough to preserve farmland.

Tanda said he couldn’t say much in response to these allegations because the grand jurors are sworn to secrecy about the body’s closed-door process. But he argued that the grand jury has built-in checks and balances that prevent excessive influence by a single juror.

“So what?” he said of the observation that he is a city planning commissioner who supported the plans to develop the new high school in the SEQ. “Everybody (on the grand jury) is a volunteer. The system is set up so that nobody—not even any officer—has any more authority than anybody else. It’s designed so that everything is collaborative, everything is double-checked.”

He added that the agencies investigated in the report—including LAFCO and Morgan Hill—got a chance to see it before it was published, in order to point out any potential inaccuracies.

The June 5 grand jury report lists 10 “findings” and associated recommendations on how to correct or address them.

Countywide representation

The current chair of LAFCO said one of the report’s factual errors lies in the grand jury’s argument that Morgan Hill—as one of only three cities in Santa Clara County subject to ag mitigation policies in the works—lacks adequate representation on the LAFCO board.

The state law regulating LAFCO is exhaustively specific on the required composition of the commission’s board: two county supervisors, one council member from the City of San Jose, one council member from any of the other cities in the county appointed by a Cities Selection Committee, two board members from independent special districts and one public member appointed by the other members of the LAFCO board.

But the state law also says the public member cannot hail from the same city as the council member appointed by the Cities Selection Committee. For the last 20 years, Morgan Hill resident and attorney Susan Vicklund Wilson has sat in the public member’s seat on the LAFCO board, preventing Morgan Hill from adding a council member from the cities’ seat during that time. Besides, state law also says LAFCO board members are not supposed to hone in on any single specific interest.

“As a LAFCO commissioner, you represent the whole county,” LAFCO Chair Sequoia Hall said. “That’s the state law mandate. You put down your hat from whatever jurisdiction you come from. They were trying to say we need more South County voices (on the LAFCO board), but LAFCO commissioners represent everybody.”

Also on the LAFCO board are County Supervisor Mike Wasserman (who represents South County on the board of supervisors), Santa Clara Valley Water District Director John Varela (a Morgan Hill resident and South County rep on the water board), County Supervisor Ken Yeager, Los Gatos Councilman Rob Rennie and San Jose Councilman Sergio Jimenez. LAFCO board members serve four-year terms.

Hall noted that LAFCO staff is preparing a formal response to the grand jury report, which will likely be presented to the public at the board’s August meeting.

LAFCO was created by the state to prevent urban sprawl and preserve agricultural lands in growing communities.

Council to respond

Morgan Hill Mayor Steve Tate said the City Council is working on its response to the grand jury report. He said they will likely present it for public discussion at the July 26 council meeting.

Tate said he agrees that “in hindsight,” the council should have included the 2016 SEQ proposal in its General Plan update process, which was going on at the same time. The grand jury report noted this as one of its findings.

The report also noted the city’s ag mitigation policy doesn’t seem to have an ongoing funding source.

“I think we just need to keep working on figuring out a good relationship with LAFCO, and figure out how we’re going to to fund the ag mitigation,” Tate said.

July 19, 2017

The Morgan Hill Times

By Michael Moore

[Amador County] Grand Jury Controversy

During the past three years, Nexus Youth & Family Services has made it a point to put services to our community ahead of the innuendos, and outright lies that have come our way, steadfastly maintaining professional integrity and continuously taking the “higher road.”  We have not discussed our opinions or our experiences as former employees of Amador Tuolumne Community Action Agency (ATCAA) with members of the general community out of respect for the staff who continue to work there, the services they continue to provide for our community, and to give them the opportunity to make many long-overdue changes to better their organization.   But, since we obviously have not been afforded the same respect in return, we now feel we need to set the record straight.

The recent Amador County Grand Jury report on the start-up of Nexus is filled with contradictions, assumptions, errors and false statements.  Although many former ATCAA employees and Nexus staff provided relevant information, statements and evidence to the Grand Jury, Grand Jury members chose to write a report that is not truthful. That is unfortunate and I have to question their intent, or perhaps ability to carry out the duties entrusted to them by our taxpayers.  

In the opinion of our attorney, the Grand Jury investigation was marred with misconduct by jurors, including having an employee of ATCAA on the Grand Jury during the first year of the investigation.  This juror/ATCAA employee discussed the investigation with members of the community in an effort to tarnish the professional reputation of Nexus employees - a clear violation of her oath as an impartial member of the Grand Jury.  

Although there are many false statements in the Grand Jury report which will be addressed at a later time, below is a short list of corrections which should be looked at closely by any who are interested: 

•In 2014, Nexus applied for 9 of Amador County’s Requests for Proposals to provide services (RFPs) and were awarded 5 contracts (55 percent success rate).  ATCAA applied for 6 of the RFPs and were awarded 4 contracts (66 percent success rate).

 •There were no gaps in services because of the formation of Nexus.

•The correct Nexus mission statement is on our website.

•The correct ATCAA mission statement and correct reason for forming ATCAA as a JPA is on their website.

It is scary to me that the Grand Jury cannot even get the most basic, easy to locate, public information correct in their report.  

In addition, there are a few more facts that I believe are important for people to know about Nexus and ATCAA. 

•Many former ATCAA employees testified to the Grand Jury that they left the agency because of intolerable working conditions such as unprofessional behavior by personnel department staff, the mismanagement of funding, and shocking HIPAA privacy violations.  Since 2014, over 15 people have voluntarily resigned from their positions at ATCAA. 

•In the past 10 years, ATCAA administration conducted multiple staff surveys and internal investigations in response to employee complaints and concerns.  These insincere attempts to “fix the problems” always ended the same way they began – with nothing changing or ever being resolved. Once we were actually told by survey facilitator there were so many negative comments, it was assumed we were “just having a bad day”, so they eliminated them! 

•The “resolved personnel matter” referred to in the Grand Jury report is a lawsuit against ATCAA filed by a former employee that is not over, but ongoing.  There are also pending discrimination complaints filed by former ATCAA employees that have yet to be resolved.

•Not one person became unemployed because of the formation of Nexus.  In fact, Nexus hired multiple former ATCAA employees who wanted to leave the agency.  When Nexus started, we employed 7 people.  Today, we employ 25 people.

•Although they had moved on to working at Nexus, former ATCAA staff continued to help ATCAA employees complete their year-end reports, in June of 2014, because they felt it was the right thing to do.  One Nexus staff member also trained ATCAA staff on her own time so they could learn how to use a complicated database required for reporting.

•The ATCAA IT department endorsed the use of Gmail, assisted staff with setting it up, and provided written instructions for staff who wanted to use it.  Many ATCAA employees utilized Gmail on a regular basis.   

The true character of those who left ATCAA to positions at Nexus is better described by the ATCAA Board Chair who stated in an email to all ATCAA staff that they “have been excellent and energetic employees, and their decision to leave is regrettable.”

Since the inception of Nexus, we have added new advocacy services for youth, enhanced services for parents and families, increased children’s counseling services, increased drug and alcohol prevention programs for youth, increased services for foster youth, and expanded Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) services for children who are in the court system due to abuse and neglect.  Our work is important and we do it very well.  Taxpayers should be proud of our services and pleased to know that funding awarded through fair competition is being spent wisely and achieving such positive outcomes for the people who live in our community.

We gladly welcome any visitor who wants to stop by 621 New York Ranch Road, Jackson, and see us or ask questions about our services.  Please check out our website at nexusyfs.org or call at (209) 257-1980.    

In conclusion, Nexus Youth & Family Services has proven to be a valuable non-profit agency with integrity, professionalism, and tireless efficiency.  We welcome competition, and stand on our success.  Meanwhile our work continues, and we hope that this distraction from what is truly important ceases.  We have confidence that the Board of Supervisors will provide any needed direction as we continue to serve our community.

So let’s get to it!

July 16, 2017

Ledger Dispatch

By Cathy Vanderford, Chair of the Nexus Youth & Family Services Board

[Amador County] Letters to the Editor – The Grand Jury Report

The Amador County Grand Jury’s report on the unethical and possibly illegal contracting between the County’s Department of Health and Human Services and the non-profit Nexus brings tears to my eyes. These are tears of relief that the facts are being presented to the residents of Amador County about the underhanded way these contracts were awarded to a brand-new non-profit with no track record. 

Please read the Grand Jury’s report starting on Page 46. 

I worked at the Amador Tuolumne Community Action Agency as Housing Resources director for 16 years. I witnessed the ugly and destructive behavior of the two leaders of ATCAA’s Family Resources Services as they left the agency to form Nexus. With regard to no one and nothing other than their own self-interest, they deliberately ripped apart ATCAA’s excellent programs for the county’s most vulnerable families and children, programs that had flourished for over three decades. Whether the Board of Supervisors was complicit is for a higher authority to decide, especially the BOS members who also were on ATCAA’s Board of Directors as this hostile drama unfolded. 

ATCAA is a wonderfully strong entity but we could not stop the suffering that took place in our offices, month after month, as we saw Nexus and the two former employees rewarded with public money - nearly half a million, our taxes! - while ATCAA’ s loyal employees faced layoffs due to the loss of funding. Staff remaining had to process over a dozen reports that were due the month the two leaders left, while fielding calls from former clients who were confused and frightened by the abrupt changes. 

This kind of aggression may be commonplace in the corporate world; it is very rare in the non-profit sector where we value our co-workers as highly as we value our clients. If you have doubts of the report, consider that Nexus sent their attorney to face the public presentation last Tuesday. Nothing says “guilty” more clearly than paying an attorney to take potshots at the report instead of admitting the truth yourself. 

Of course, defaming the investigating body is always a tactic of the guilty which is why those present in the Supervisor’s Chambers tried so hard to dismiss the work of the Amador County Grand Jury. Residents in Amador County are blessed with concerned citizens who volunteer for this truth-seeking mission every year. That their work would be summarily dismissed by county officials should set off loud alarm bells. 

Nexus and other parties to this toxic mess will likely never face official reprimand. In the public forum, though, they will be judged for their careless aggression, as will the sadly misguided Director of Health and Human Services. None of them will ever know the true-hearted goodness of ATCAA and its former Executive Director, Shelly Hance. 

Here’s what I know, having worked with Shelly for 16 years: If the two employees had gone to her and said “We want to form a non-profit that will serve this county’s families and children,” Shelly would have done everything in her power to help them realize their dreams. Instead, they chose to be deceitful and to hurt their co-workers. What kind of people are they?

July 9, 2017

Ledger Dispatch

By Margaret “Beetle” Barbour

Amador [County] Grand Jury investigates collusion between officials, nonprofit

A report recently released by the Amador County Grand Jury looks into allegations that government officials in 2014 helped to unfairly tip the scales in favor of a nonprofit organization that was competing for contracts previously held by the Amador-Tuolumne Community Action Agency.

The investigation stemmed from a complaint the jury received in October 2014 that alleged potential collusion between the county and Nexus Youth and Family Services, a nonprofit launched by former ATCAA employees, to take away contracts from ATCAA.

ATCAA is a joint-powers authority formed by Amador and Tuolumne counties in 1981 as an umbrella agency to provide a wide variety of social services, such as the Head Start program for preschoolers, homeless assistance, senior in-home care services and a food bank in Jamestown.

Nine contracts with Amador County held by ATCAA, including five behavioral-health services contracts and four social services programs, all unexpectedly came up for renewal in April 2014 and advertised by the county through a “request for proposals,” or an RFP.

Notification of the RFP’s release was emailed to eight organizations, including ATCAA. However the report stated ATCAA was the only one identified by the jury in which the notice was sent to lower-level employees — both of whom left soon after to form Nexus — as opposed to the agency’s executive director at the time.

“Leaving the Executive Director of ATCAA off of the list, and only including the two key persons who they knew were betraying ATCAA management from within to form their own company, strongly supports the allegations that there was a cooperative effort to give Nexus principals an unfair advantage to take ATCAA’s contracts,” the jury stated in its report.

The Amador County Health and Human Services Director at the time, whose name was not specified in the report, previously worked as the county’s social services director in early 2012 when ATCAA had an issue with one of its employees.

According to the report, the HHS director became frustrated with the matter and received second and third hand information about it from one of the employees who later went on to join Nexus. Though the matter was resolved internally, the HHS Director blamed the agency for being named in civil litigation related to it.

“This paradigm of secondhand information forms the wedge that began a split from within ATCAA,” the report stated.

In January, one of the ATCAA employees who would later go on to help form Nexus sent an email list to the HHS Director of contracts the new organization would be able to handle while still working for ATCAA.

The jury obtained a February 2014 email from the HHS Director to the Amador County General Services Administration Director that stated: “I have not gone through any significant RFP so this is kind of new for me. Do we need to put other contracts up for RFP also due to any concern about how it looks to only do ATCAA contracts or is that not an issue?”

Some of the findings in the jury’s report included that personal relationships between the Amador County officials and principals of Nexus led to favoritism, the HHS Director selected the nine contracts that were “cherry picked” by Nexus’ staff, and the HHS Director did not recuse himself from the evaluation process for the contracts until after making changes that benefitted Nexus.

The report also makes 14 recommendations on ways to prevent conflicts of interest in the contract process.

Raj Rambob said he became the executive director of ATCAA in January following the retirement of longtime ATCAA Executive Director Shelly Hance, whom he praised for her handling of the situation detailed in the report.

“Any loss of any contract results in a financial loss of course at every level, from administration to direct services,” Rambob said. “The past executive director Shelly Hance stayed remarkably and honorably focused on providing those services and, from what I understand, they were continued without much interruption and are continuing today.”

Rambob said ATCAA would “certainly” be open to administer the services previously provided to Amador County if the contracts were put out for bid again in the future.

Amador County Administrator Chuck Iley did not return a request for comment Thursday.

Tuolumne County Supervisor Karl Rodefer, who serves on ATCAA’s Board of Directors, said he didn’t feel comfortable commenting on the jury’s report, but he’s interested to see how the Amador County Board of Supervisors addresses the situation.

“I thought it was a pretty harsh indictment of their staff, and I’m just going to be very interested in what the outcome of that is,” Rodefer said. “I was disappointed in what was going on then and remain disappointed, but I’ll wait and see how things shake out.”

July 6, 2017

The Union Democrat

By Alex MacLean

[Tuolumne County] Grand jury takes aim at IT department, other public agencies

The Tuolumne County Information Technology Department is understaffed, underfunded, and lacks appropriate security measures, policies and procedures to protect sensitive data and computer equipment, according to the findings of an investigation by the 2016-17 Tuolumne County Grand Jury.

In a 157-page report released to the public Thursday, the jury also detailed investigations it conducted over the past year into Sierra Conservation Center in Jamestown, Tuolumne County Jail, Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors, Groveland Community Services District, Tuolumne County Fire Department, and Tuolumne County Library.

This year’s jury consisted of 19 members who interviewed more than 75 people while conducting the investigations. The jury is required to inspect any jail or state prison within the county, but then is free to look into complaints received about other public entities.

The jury evaluates a public agency’s procedures, methods and systems and makes recommendations for improvements based upon its findings.

Any agency investigated by the jury doesn’t have to implement the recommendations made in the annual report, but they are required by California law to submit responses to each within 90 days of the report’s publication.

Here are summaries of the report’s highlights:

IT Department

The county’s IT Department received the most ink of any other entity investigated in this year’s report.

Over the course of 40 pages, the jury painted a picture of a department trying to meet increasing demands while struggling with inadequate staffing, outdated equipment and a lack of leadership that has contributed to inconsistencies in processes.

“The 2016-2017 Tuolumne County Grand Jury investigated the Tuolumne County Information Technology Department. The Grand Jury was terrified,” the report stated. “Security, policy and procedures, training, and project management need to take more prominence in the IT Department and throughout Tuolumne County.”

According to the report, the department had 32 employees in 2008 compared to 17 now due to budgetary problems caused by the economic downturn that led to cuts in all county departments.

The report also stated there are serious security threats throughout the county’s fleet of IT devices, and the department’s staff lacks training in the current standards for dealing with security incidents.

County servers and other IT equipment are also stored in facilities that lack security cameras and are equipped with active overhead sprinklers that could cause irreparable harm if they were to be set off.

Among the reports 62 findings and 53 recommendations is the reinstatement of multiple positions, including the IT director, something that was on the Board of Supervisors’ shortlist of high priority positions this year but was not included in the 2017-18 fiscal year recommended budget due to a lack of funds.

The county eliminated more than 14 positions, including laying off three people, in order to balance the budget for the fiscal year that started July 1 and runs through June 30, 2018.

District 5 Supervisor Karl Rodefer said the board and county staff are well aware of the problems with IT services, but blamed a lack of funding for the slow progress on improvement.

“They did a very good job and benefit to the county by identifying some shortcomings and actually some creative ways to deal with that, so that aspect of this grand jury I thought was exceptional,” said Rodefer. “By the same token, we have to address those recommendations with limited resources. It’s going to take us awhile to work our way through all of that stuff.”

Deputy County Administrator Daniel Richardson, who oversees the IT Department, could not be reached for comment because he’s on vacation until next week.

Library

The county should look at increasing the sales tax and/or property tax in order to supplement the budget for the library system that’s currently underfunded, according to the report.

A study of the potential tax increase should be completed by the end of the year to give enough time for putting the issue on the June 2018 election ballot, the report stated, adding that the additional funds should be used to hire a director of library services with a master’s degree in library science who would report directly to the county administrator.

The position has remained vacant since September 2010 due to budget cuts, while staff has also been reduced, hours of operation have been cut, branches have shuttered and library cardholders have increased from 27,664 to 32,372 in 2015-16.

A recommended county budget for the 2017-18 fiscal year that was approved by the board last month includes money for hiring a similar head librarian position, though the county-operated libraries would see reduced funding for new books, reductions to the bookmobiles schedule, and cuts to relief positions.

Many of the library employees interviewed by the jury admitted to being overworked and spread thin, according to the report.

Fire Department and Dispatch

Having the same person serving as both the chief of the Tuolumne County Fire Department and Cal Fire’s Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit may represent a conflict of interest, the report stated.

The county pays Cal Fire for dispatch services, emergency fire protection, emergency response, basic life support and extended fire protection services under a three-year contract not to exceed $12 million.

Josh White serves the dual role of Tuolumne County Fire chief and Cal Fire Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit chief.

While the report stated that having one person fill both positions provides representation for the county at the state level and keep’s the county up to speed on state protocols, some people interviewed by the jury found it to be a conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest falls under California Government Code 1090, which states:

“Members of the Legislature, state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members. Nor shall state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees be purchasers at any sale or vendors at any purchase made by them in their official capacity.”

The jury has asked for an explanation for why it’s not a conflict of interest to have the same person serve in both roles “while being paid by both the county and the state,” which White said wasn’t factually accurate because he’s only paid by the state.

White further stated being paid by the state doesn’t affect his decision making on matters affecting the county, nor does he own or have any connections to any enterprises that do business with the agency.

“I don’t want to get into my opinions and feelings, but I think you can look at it from a pragmatic approach as a consolidation of services,” White said. “That’s good government. Instead of having 20 fire chiefs, wouldn’t it be better to have one?”

The report also recommended relocating some fire equipment and personnel, adding ambulance stations in areas to improve response times for emergencies, and establish a multi-agency dispatch center that’s been planned since 2010 on South Forest Road in Sonora to consolidate existing dispatch centers operated independently by the Sonora Police Department, Tuolumne County Sheriff’s Office, Cal Fire in San Andreas and California Highway Patrol in Merced.

In March, the county hired Matrix Consulting Group to perform an independent study for $69,000 of the county’s fire and ambulance systems. A similar study completed years ago by county officials in coordination with local fire chiefs recommended consolidation as a possible way to improve service and efficiency.

“I think this is going to be nice and clean and transparent by having an outside entity handle the study,” said White.

Groveland Community Services District

The Groveland Community Services District Board of Directors violated the Ralph M. Brown Act twice in 2016 by having discussions about privatization that weren’t included on the agendas for two separate meetings.

Due to financial constraints, the GCSD board began looking into the idea of possibly being purchased by California American Water, a private water company based in Southern California.

Published agendas for June 13, 2016, and July 11, 2016, did not include any notice about exploring the possibility of privatization, but the jury reviewed audio recordings of the meetings and determined those discussions took place in violation of the Brown Act.

The jury recommended training in the Brown Act for new and returning directors and forming an ad hoc committee for new issues such as privatization. It also recommended training in the 1913 Raker Act that created Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and the district’s water supply, which it purchases from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

Board of Supervisors

For the first time in 10 years, the jury investigated the county Board of Supervisors and determined members should give themselves a raise.

The board has not accepted a pay raise since 2006, according to the report. A 2015 compensation study of all county positions determined each supervisor’s annual salary of $39,814 was about 10 percent lower than the average for supervisors of similar counties.

A raise, the report argued, would make the job more financially attractive to future potential supervisors. Those who didn’t want to accept the raise could opt to return all or part of their salary to the county.

The board rejected a 14.5-percent raise in July 2016, followed by a 2-percent increase the next month.

Supervisors often work between 40 to 60 hours per week and play a key role in bridging the gap between the county and state or federal representatives, according to the jury.

Other recommendations for the board included reviewing the effectiveness of the existing structure for committees and commissions, as well as hiring assistants to help the supervisors better manage all of their responsibilities.

Tuolumne County Jail

No annual Grand Jury report would be complete without a scathing review of deteriorating conditions at the county jail on Yaney Avenue.

This year’s report suggested some conditions are so poor at the jail that they should be addressed before the opening of a new, $40 million facility that’s scheduled to begin construction later this year and take 18 months to complete.

One of the report’s nastier findings was that leakage from sewer pipes was being funneled by tarps into garbage cans with no lids. The report also stated that there were plumbing issues throughout the building and raw sewage may seep into the hallways adjacent to the kitchen when the system gets backed up.

Other health and safety concerns that jury stated should be addressed immediately included a lack of windows and airflow in the garage where inmates are transported to and from the jail, new ABS pipes used to replace cast-iron sewer pipes were plastic and flammable, the garbage cans used to capture leaking sewage were flammable, warning labels were missing from electronic panels in the basement, and equipment stored at the bottom of the stairwell next to a cell block was blocking a fire evacuation route.

The report also stated the jail was understaffed by two officers and recommended the creation of a recruitment plan for the positions.

On a positive note, the report commended the jail for its inmate work-crew program for men and nursery program for women.

Sheriff Jim Mele could not be reached for comment Thursday.

The only recommendation the jury made in regard to Sierra Conservation Center in Jamestown was to establish an action plan for correcting 25 issues with facilities identified by the 2016 Sierra Conservation Center Environmental Health Survey that have yet to be addressed.

Although the jury didn’t formally investigate the Mother Lode Regional Juvenile Detention Facility, the report described it as “a welcome and necessary addition to the Tuolumne County Juvenile Justice System.”

July 6, 2017

The Union Democrat

By Alex MacLean

[Santa Clara County] Grand jury report on SEQ draws fire

Body accused of misleading, omitting facts

A Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report that investigated the failure of the Catholic Diocese to annex property to build a new high school in Morgan Hill is harshly critical of the local commission tasked with processing such approvals.

But some environmental groups who have followed the high school’s annexation effort closely in recent years think the report was home-cooked with a bias in favor of the City of Morgan Hill, because the 2016-17 grand jury foreperson is a city planning commissioner. These critics also claim there are some “factual inaccuracies” in the report.

The grand jury report titled “LAFCO Denials: A high school caught in the middle,” published June 5, took an in-depth look at the city’s effort in 2016 to annex about 230 acres of agricultural land from the 1,200-acre Southeast Quadrant into Morgan Hill’s Urban Service Area. As required by state law, the Morgan Hill City Council submitted an application requesting this annexation to the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

The seven-member LAFCO commission rejected the annexation proposal on a 5-2 vote March 11, 2016. A second motion for an alternative proposal—to annex only the 38 acres within the SEQ (at the intersection of Tennant and Murphy avenues) designated by the Diocese for a private high school—failed at the same LAFCO meeting.

The grand jury report took LAFCO to task for inconsistently and subjectively enforcing its guidelines and applying undefined terminology to their annexation criteria. It also criticized the City of Morgan Hill for not including enough public participation in the SEQ process and ineffective communication with LAFCO staff.

Both agencies are responsible for the “strained relationship” between them, the grand jury report suggests.

‘Inherent bias’?

A group of private, nonprofit environmental organizations that argued against the city’s SEQ annexation proposal sent a letter to the LAFCO board July 17 spelling out their “grave concerns” with the June 5 grand jury report. Topping their list is the “appearance of (grand jury) foreperson’s conflict of interest.”

The foreman, Wayne Tanda, has been a Morgan Hill planning commissioner for several years, and was chair of the city commission in 2016. He made a motion to recommend submitting the city’s SEQ plans to LAFCO at the June 23, 2015 planning commission meeting, according to the July 17 letter signed by representatives of the Committee For Green Foothills, Greenbelt Alliance, American Farmland Trust, Thrive! Morgan Hill, Sierra Club and others.

“Given Mr. Tanda’s status as a long-standing appointed member of the…Morgan Hill Planning Commission, his direct input in the SEQ and Agricultural Mitigation Program proposals, and his involvement in the SEQ decision-making process throughout the years, it is difficult not to perceive an inherent bias in the content and conclusions of this report,” the letter states.

The July 17 letter also lists “misleading statements” and “exclusion of pertinent information and factual errors” as other problems with the grand jury report.

For example, a vague mention of “a county official’s” support for the Catholic high school might suggest to a less informed reader that the county as an entity was supportive of the annexation plans, the letter argues. In fact, however, county staff urged the LAFCO board to reject the city’s SEQ proposal because it is inconsistent with existing land use guidelines, and it doesn’t do enough to preserve farmland.

Tanda said he couldn’t say much in response to these allegations because the grand jurors are sworn to secrecy about the body’s closed-door process. But he argued that the grand jury has built-in checks and balances that prevent excessive influence by a single juror.

“So what?” he said of the observation that he is a city planning commissioner who supported the plans to develop the new high school in the SEQ. “Everybody (on the grand jury) is a volunteer. The system is set up so that nobody—not even any officer—has any more authority than anybody else. It’s designed so that everything is collaborative, everything is double-checked.”

He added that the agencies investigated in the report—including LAFCO and Morgan Hill—got a chance to see it before it was published, in order to point out any potential inaccuracies.

The June 5 grand jury report lists 10 “findings” and associated recommendations on how to correct or address them.

Countywide representation

The current chair of LAFCO said one of the report’s factual errors lies in the grand jury’s argument that Morgan Hill—as one of only three cities in Santa Clara County subject to ag mitigation policies in the works—lacks adequate representation on the LAFCO board.

The state law regulating LAFCO is exhaustively specific on the required composition of the commission’s board: two county supervisors, one council member from the City of San Jose, one council member from any of the other cities in the county appointed by a Cities Selection Committee, two board members from independent special districts and one public member appointed by the other members of the LAFCO board.

But the state law also says the public member cannot hail from the same city as the council member appointed by the Cities Selection Committee. For the last 20 years, Morgan Hill resident and attorney Susan Vicklund Wilson has sat in the public member’s seat on the LAFCO board, preventing Morgan Hill from adding a council member from the cities’ seat during that time. Besides, state law also says LAFCO board members are not supposed to hone in on any single specific interest.

“As a LAFCO commissioner, you represent the whole county,” LAFCO Chair Sequoia Hall said. “That’s the state law mandate. You put down your hat from whatever jurisdiction you come from. They were trying to say we need more South County voices (on the LAFCO board), but LAFCO commissioners represent everybody.”

Also on the LAFCO board are County Supervisor Mike Wasserman (who represents South County on the board of supervisors), Santa Clara Valley Water District Director John Varela (a Morgan Hill resident and South County rep on the water board), County Supervisor Ken Yeager, Los Gatos Councilman Rob Rennie and San Jose Councilman Sergio Jimenez. LAFCO board members serve four-year terms.

Hall noted that LAFCO staff is preparing a formal response to the grand jury report, which will likely be presented to the public at the board’s August meeting.

LAFCO was created by the state to prevent urban sprawl and preserve agricultural lands in growing communities.

Council to respond

Morgan Hill Mayor Steve Tate said the City Council is working on its response to the grand jury report. He said they will likely present it for public discussion at the July 26 council meeting.

Tate said he agrees that “in hindsight,” the council should have included the 2016 SEQ proposal in its General Plan update process, which was going on at the same time. The grand jury report noted this as one of its findings.

The report also noted the city’s ag mitigation policy doesn’t seem to have an ongoing funding source.

“I think we just need to keep working on figuring out a good relationship with LAFCO, and figure out how we’re going to to fund the ag mitigation,” Tate said.

July 19, 2017

The Morgan Hill Times

By Michael Moore

[San Mateo] County animal control called into question

San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends supervisors re-evaluate contract with nonprofit

Following allegations of animals not being well taken care of at a local shelter, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury is recommending officials look beyond contracting with the Peninsula Humane Society.

The volunteer citizens group also noted stakeholders in the county’s $20 million effort to build a new shelter have raised concerns as to whether the current renovation plans are adequate.

The grand jury released a report Monday focused on the county’s long-awaited plan to reconstruct its 65-year-old shelter, which it pays the nonprofit PHS nearly $6.3 million a year to operate and provide animal control services.

The grand jury investigated animal control services and the shelter following a dispute that began last year between PHS executives and union workers, which led to allegations of abuse and mismanagement.

Officials with the county’s Health System noted an inspection was completed following those allegations and no evidence of abuse or neglect was found. Still, it’s working with a doctor specializing in veterinary forensic science to follow up and make recommendations, according to the Health System.

“Over the next 90 days, we expect to evaluate fully the grand jury’s recommendations, as well as those of our independent contractor, to ensure that San Mateo County is providing appropriate resources for the welfare of the animals in our care,” Cassius Lockett, county director of Public Health, said in an email.

But the grand jury suggests now is the time for the county to consider opening the doors to other offers for animal control services as PHS’ contract is slated to expire in 2020. It also recommends the county redefine a new agreement ensuring proper facility maintenance, conduct performance audits, provide more oversight and consider including adoptions at the new facility.

Pet adoptions are currently offered at PHS’ Tom Lantos Center for Compassion, a massive Burlingame facility it opened in 2011 after raising millions of dollars in donations.

The county’s relationship with PHS dates back to 1952 when the nonprofit began operating the existing facility at 12 Airport Blvd. Unlike other counties which conduct their own animal-related services, San Mateo County hires the nonprofit PHS. Its contract includes sheltering strays, enforcing animal control laws, removing dead wildlife, providing veterinary treatment to animals in their care, issuing pet licenses, euthanizing sick or injured animals and investigating complaints, according to the report.

The relationship has been strained at times, with some even calling for a split. But the partnership has continued and the county and PHS are collaborating on plans for a new $21 million shelter that aims to provide healthier living conditions for animals in the county’s care. But now, the grand jury suggests the county consider expanding the scope with what agencies it might contract instead of defaulting to PHS.

The report also suggests the county’s Health System and Department of Public Works did not adequately inspect the facility or adequately audit its contractor until allegations were made about poor living conditions and concerns for animal safety.

“It has been clear to both PHS/SPCA and [Public Works] for a number of years that the existing shelter in the city of San Mateo is outdated and suffers from a level of deterioration that restricts necessary repairs and upgrades, and does not adequately meet the desired standards for animal care,” the grand jury wrote in its report.

The report does credit the Health System for promptly responding to media reports in late 2016, including the independent veterinarian who investigated the facility.

PHS representatives have argued allegations of abuse were inaccurate and sparked by a labor dispute. Instead, officials note PHS has been a tireless advocate for improvements at the shelter.

“One of the most important points missing from the grand jury’s report is that it was PHS/SPCA who has been incessantly lobbying San Mateo County and the 20 incorporated cities since 2003 to build an improved and updated facility at Coyote Point,” PHS Communications Manager Buffy Martin-Tarbox said in an email.

Regardless of whether the PHS remains its chosen contractor, the county has an obligation to provide an appropriate facility and the nonprofit has provided its expertise and free consultation in working on the design of the new facility, she said.

The aged facility suffers from insufficient ventilation, flooding in the parking lot, needed roof repairs and other issues. Other unfavorable conditions such as cats being stressed while overly exposed to dog barking, are also problematic, according to the report. In 2014, the county officially agreed to reconstruct a new shelter after agreements were made with the various local cities that pay for and receive services.

But now, some stakeholders have apparently raised flags about whether the new plans will be adequate. Even with a $20 million budget, the 25,000-square-foot shelter will be just 60 percent the size of the current outdated facility. The report notes the smaller size doesn’t provide space to accommodate adoptions, which could prove problematic if the county decides to part ways with PHS in the future. The grand jury also concluded budget constraints delayed construction on the new animal shelter and the county’s oversight of its animal control services agreement has been insufficient, according to the report.

The county’s relationship with the PHS hasn’t always been smooth sailing, and the report suggests the county open itself up to other offers for animal control services when its contract expires. That would include a request for proposals process whereby other agencies could compete for the county’s contract.

The county Board of Supervisors is required to respond to the grand jury’s recommendations, but is not mandated to follow through.

Martin-Tarbox said the PHS has long been a proponent of better animal care in the county by reducing euthanasia rates, creating charitable programs and services, and is supportive of expanding adoption options.

“Since our founding in 1952, we have strove to improve the lives and health of the animals in San Mateo County,” Martin-Tarbox said. “We have never suggested that the county should omit adoptions from the Coyote Point facility. In fact, by choosing to bear the financial burden of providing adoptions and other services, we have saved the county money and thus made it possible for the county to proceed within its limited budget.”

July 18, 2017

San Mateo Daily Journal

By Samantha Weigel

[Placer County] Grand jury: County made ‘no substantial progress’ on homelessness

Recommends March 2018 deadline for permanent shelter site

In a report released in June, the Placer County grand jury created a soft deadline for the county’s growing homelessness problem, recommending county officials find a location for at least one permanent homeless shelter by March 2018.

Findings in the June 23 report outlined three possible options: permanently establish Auburn’s DeWitt Center shelter, which opened as a temporary facility in 2015; find a different location for the facility; or decide against a 24/7 emergency shelter altogether.

The report also asked the county to develop and publish a comprehensive strategy to address the problem. The county would not directly respond to media questions about the report, since it has yet to formally respond to the grand jury.

A longstanding issue

The latest grand jury findings came 13 years after the Placer Consortium on Homelessness presented a 10-year strategic plan before the Placer County Board of Supervisors. According to clerks with the board, the county never approved or adopted the plan. The grand jury report states otherwise, and the jury did not respond to a request for clarification by press time.

In 2014, as the initial plan was running out, the county contracted a national expert on homelessness, Dr. Robert Marbut, to conduct a study of the area. County spokesman Chris Gray-Garcia said this is the main resource the county has used for guidance.

Marbut said his report suggested one or two permanent, 24/7 emergency facilities in Placer County, with drawbacks and benefits to either: one shelter would be more cost-effective, while having two would cater to the different populations in Placer County.

But instead of moving toward a more permanent solution, the county has made “no substantial progress in resolving the issue,” according to the grand jury report.

Small steps toward big solutions

The county has taken measures to chip away at the issue by establishing programs to help those with mental illness, addictions and unemployment. The grand jury report also noted the county has assigned four sheriff’s deputies and a probation officer to work with homeless individuals. In January, the board of supervisors approved a proposal to allow shelters to be built on land with heavy commercial zoning, creating more potential shelter locations.

It has also provided funding to both temporary shelters in the county. According to the jury report, the county provides about $45,500 per month to the DeWitt Center shelter and last week, according to Gray-Garcia, the county gave $275,000 to The Gathering Inn.

“I’ve received nothing but support,” said The Gathering Inn’s CEO Keith Diederich. “Funding, certainly, but also convening meetings where providers are working together.”

Marbut, who has visited Placer County three times since his study in 2014, said he is impressed with the DeWitt Center shelter’s work. Before its establishment, he recalled seeing 125 to 150 people in streetside encampments in Auburn. But the need is outgrowing the building’s infrastructure — the facility is aging and has no industrial-size kitchen.

“It’s a good Band-Aid,” Marbut said. “Things are better, but it’s very temporary. Both places are overwhelmed.”

According to Gray-Garcia, the county is considering three locations for shelters: South Placer, greater Auburn and the Lake Tahoe region. Some county-owned property near the Santucci Justice Center in Roseville is already undergoing environmental review for possible development. However, the feasibility of these locations — environmentally, financially, politically, culturally — is yet to be determined.

Challenges close to home

Despite the county’s efforts to establish multiple short-term solutions to homelessness, several obstacles stand in the way. Gray-Garcia said the 2004 plan from the Placer Consortium on Homelessness came before the 2008 financial crisis, which brought unforeseen challenges to the area. According to Marbut, the issue goes deeper, on both national and local levels.

Locally, Marbut identified two distinct “cultures” in the north and south regions of Placer County. Like the general population, homeless individuals identify with either region, which can complicate transporting transient people.

“People are really tightly knit to their local community, including the homeless community,” Marbut said Monday.

California’s development regulations also create a unique challenge statewide. Between permits, studies and other requirements, Marbut said the building process is much longer here than elsewhere in the country. Anticipating a lengthy development procedure, Marbut said his 2014 study suggested opening temporary shelters and immediately begin looking for a permanent facility.

“If you want to get to where you really start to fix it, get the long-term plan in the hopper,” he said.

 Stats over sides

At this point, the issue is snagged on politics — not just for the county but nationwide.

According to the grand jury report, residents close to the DeWitt Center shelter in Auburn have complained that the facility is too close to schools and businesses. Though the shelter does not allow weapons, and tests for alcohol and drug use, residents transient populations are often viewed as unsafe or unstable. Homelessness also tends to be an urban problem, which means rural areas will push the issue to cities, Marbut pointed out. Cities resist, since residential areas, businesses and schools are more spaced out in rural communities.

This not-in-my-backyard phenomenon is not unique to Placer County, Marbut said. He added that money is another point of debate — which part of the county receives funding over other areas.

Once these two obstacles are surpassed, he said, the smaller details like shelter design and operation often come together easily. His 2014 study stresses that decisions should not be made on anecdotes, but rather on hard data that paints an accurate picture of the problem.

“(These) are the big hangups that will stop all action if they don’t get worked out,” he said. “These things come down to politics, not data. Once you pick a side, things become very easy after that.”

July 17, 2017

Auburn Journal

By MacKenzie Myers