2021-22 Yolo County Grand Jury impaneled – accepting citizen complaints

Each year, counties within California are required under the state constitution to impanel a civil grand jury.

Forty-two Yolo County residents were nominated for the 2021-22 Yolo County Grand Jury term that commenced on July 1. Of the 42, 19 are randomly selected to form the civil grand jury and 11 are standby alternate jurors to be called upon should a vacancy occur due to a juror being unable to complete the term.

The grand jury performs the role of the public’s watchdog and works confidentially.

“The grand jury’s job is to oversee local governments to make them more effective and transparent,” said Lisa Klotz, who served on the 2019-20 grand jury. “Grand juries have significant power. They have the right to obtain confidential documents and to use the information in those documents in their reports.”

Jurors and witnesses are sworn to secrecy. Jurors review citizen complaints but may also determine what matters they take up to investigate. At least one correctional facility is required to be inspected during each grand jury term.

Citizens may request a grand jury investigation of a governmental agency when they feel there is an issue that needs investigation. Grand juries have the authority to interview government employees, department heads and can obtain and review otherwise confidential sensitive records and reports, such as law enforcement personnel records and internal departmental documents.

Jurors meet in a plenary every two weeks in a private grand jury room provided by the county. They organize into smaller committees to investigate. Committees are formed in detention & public safety, schools & libraries, budget & finance, health & human services, and city, county & special districts. Before any committee may investigate a matter, a super majority vote of the grand jury accepting the focus and terms of the investigation is required.

Between plenary meetings, committees meet on an as-needed basis to interview witnesses and to conduct the committee’s business and report their progress at the next plenary. A super majority vote is required for all grand jury actions.

A foreperson leads the grand jury and a legal advisor helps guide through any legal issues that may arise. The grand jury’s first line of legal advice is provided by the Yolo County Counsel. A judge of the Superior Court is assigned over the grand jury and can issues subpoenas to require unwilling witnesses to appear and/or produce documents.

At the end of each grand jury term, a consolidated report of their findings and recommendations is published. Elected officials and directors of agencies investigated have 60 days, and governing bodies 90 days, to respond. Responses are then consolidated and published into the final report and made public.

Grand jurors receive a stipend of $15.00 per meeting and roundtrip mileage reimbursement at the government rate from their homes to the grand jury room.

As for any thoughts Klotz might share with the 2021-22 grand jury, she said, “Be bold and help make Yolo County an even better place to live than it already is.”

To request an investigation or to obtain more information, visit the Yolo County Grand Jury’s website at https://www.yolocounty.org/living/grand-jury

Winters Express
By RICK VON GELDERN
July 29, 2021

Vacaville City Council to respond to [Solano County] Grand Jury report in first in-person meeting since 2020

 Following a 16-month period of conducting all of its meetings over Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Vacaville City Council will return to the Council Chambers Tuesday for its first in-person meeting since March 2020.

On tap for this milestone meeting is a resolution confirming delinquent refuse collection accounts from the past year and the direction to place liens on affected properties, an informational update on legislation dealing with methane reduction and organics recycling, and a response to the recent Solano County Grand Jury report urging the city to stay on top of its unfunded liabilities.

In 2019, the Grand Jury issued a report urging the city to address the sustainability of the city’s retirement benefits package, or else it could lead to a loss in employees and services. In 2021, the Grand Jury issued a followup report opining that more needed to be done. The report requested a response from the council.

Included in the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting is a response to the findings and recommendations that were issued by the Grand Jury.

The first finding was that the unfunded portion of the city’s California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) pension plan increased from $126 million in 2011 to $209 million in 2019, and claimed that the unfunded other post-employee benefits liability was more than $80 million as of June 30, 2019.

In its response, city officials disagreed with the latter claim, indicating that the OPEB liability was $78.2 million as of that date.

The Grand Jury’s two-part recommendation included establishing an annual contribution schedule to retire the unfunded liabilities over a 10-to-15-year period and apply for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to make additional contributions toward reducing pension and OPEB liabilities. City officials wrote that the former recommendation had not been implemented on the pension side — although staff would be presenting a pension funding policy to the council later in the year — and the latter recommendation could not be implemented since ARPA funds could not be used to make deposits into a pension fund.

As for the CalPERS liability, officials wrote that the increase was due to the agency implementing measures to improve the long-term sustainability of the pension fund and stabilize future costs.

The Grand Jury’s second pair of recommendations was for the city to use an independent facilitator to negotiate all labor contracts and for all labor negotiations to address unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities. City officials wrote that both have been implemented and disagreed with the finding that current benefits packages were unsustainable.

“The City and labor unions have continuously worked over the last 15 years to work toward a sustainable model,” per the response. “Additionally, the City’s Five Year General Fund forecast projects the City being able to maintain reserves above policy levels throughout the life of the forecast while fully funding the projected annual contributions towards pension and OPEB.”

The third finding of the Grand Jury was that the city lacked control over health care premium rates set by CalPERS, which impeded the city’s ability to contain future health care costs. Its recommendation was to convert to a defined health care benefits model in future labor negotiations.

The city agreed with the finding, per its response, and noted that it had implemented the recommendation for all non-safety employees hired on or after Dec. 1, 2018 and safety employees hired on or after Jan. 1, 2020.

“While the City will continue to monitor and report on its unfunded liabilities, with the progress seen on the OPEB unfunded liability in recent years and total General Fund revenues projected to exceed expenses into the future, attempting to negotiate a reduction in healthcare benefits at this time is not warranted,” officials wrote.

The fourth recommendation was to re-establish the OPEB Advisory Committee, which first met in Jan. 2020 for the start of a 120-day term to study the unfunded liability and present its findings to the council. The report contended that the council took no action on the recommendations, and the committee was later dissolved.

Officials wrote that the committee would not be reformed as its recommendations have been addressed, including adding a third tier to the retiree medical structure to move toward a defined contribution plan. To address the recommendation for a sustainable fiscal plan, officials wrote that staff would consider taking advantage of the 50 percent General Fund reserve to establish a pension rate stabilization trust.

For its final recommendation, the Grand Jury proposed the council “take actions to ensure that issues affecting pensions and OPEB liabilities continue to be reviewed regularly and publicly.”

Officials wrote that this action has already been implemented, citing a March 2 study session on OPEB and hiring a professional actuary to study OPEB every two years, among other things.

Vacaville Reporter
By NICK SESTANOVICH
July 22, 2021

Grand Jury found Lake County, like rest of the nation wasn’t prepared for the COVID-19 pandemic

LAKE COUNTY— The Lake County Civil Grand Jury in their 2020-21 report stated that Lake County, like California and the rest of the nation, wasn’t prepared for the COVID-19 pandemic and determined that departments in the county did not know exactly what their responsibilities were under the county’s COVID ordinance. They noted that a position to enforce ordinance compliance has not been filled and that no process currently exists to guide effective response to unexpected urgent and serious county-wide challenges, among other findings

“Lessons learned will guide our county in future challenges,” the jurors wrote adding that effective leadership is imperative. The Grand Jury noted that reports are completed many weeks ahead of release to allow for multiple legal reviews and full report compilation. The state’s decision to ease many COVID-19 restrictions last month affected the organization’s recommendation that the current ordinance be amended to accurately represent what the county is willing and prepared to follow through on. The jurors also noted that all other portions of their analysis remain viable and important.

In an extensive discussion of the county’s health department work on planning a COVID response last spring at the onset of the pandemic, the Grand Jury noted that many counties, including the County of Lake, struggled with both the breadth of what should be covered in a local ordinance to support extensive compliance to the needed restrictions and safety efforts as well as how to put in place a workable method of enforcement.

In their discussion and analysis, the Jury wrote that “many policing agencies, both city and county, throughout the state expressed reluctance or refusal to be the enforcing agencies as they were already stretched quite thin on fulfilling their normal and expected duties as well as questioning the overall responsibility of enforcing health protocols and guidance through sworn officers.”

Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security Act

Over the summer of 2020, the CARES Act was enacted by the federal government which provided (via a broad range of focusses) funds to various governmental levels to assist in COVID-19 related support including medial and safety. According to the report, in Lake County, two groups were put together to try and determine the best and most probable for success means of getting the public compliance that was integral to the communal fight against the virus. After much deliberation, the County developed the COVID-19 Mandate Ordinance and it was approved by the Board of Supervisors on Aug. 18, 2020 by a 4-1 vote.

Following an unsuccessful citizen petition demanding the ordinance be rescinded, the ordinance was free to be fully enacted in early November 2020.

The Grand Jury noted that communications and coordination surrounding the actual implementation of the ordinance were “non-existent.” In addition, they noted that two departments, County Health and the Department of Community Development were chartered, in the ordinance, to be the enforcers of the ordinance up to and including the levying of the administrative fines.

Further, neither of those departments was consulted as to what their responsibilities would be or how they could manage to meet them. No directions were issued by either the board or County administration as to what was expected or required at the time of enactment.

Recommendations on amendments and adoption of guidelines

Among the Grand Jury recommendations are that all future county-wide ordinances which designate multi-departmental involvement are discussed in advance with the specific departments including feasibility studies, staffing needs, training needs, and additional departmental budget to support the efforts and that an adaptive and workable set of guidelines in dealing with unforeseen emergencies be developed to aid future county Boards, staff and departments in addressing governmental leadership, regulations, and public conformity.

Lake County Record-Bee
By ARIEL CARMONA
July 22, 2021

SONOMA COUNTY » Grand jury report finds charges far above federal, state prisons’

Cost of jail calls questioned

Sable Rose Guerrero felt her life had been put on pause for several months in 2018 and 2019, when she was held at the Sonoma County Jail for a felony vehicle theft case.

Her occasional phone calls to family and friends and in-person visits were a lifeline as the long periods in her cell took a heavy mental and emotional toll on her, she said.

But while the visits were free, the cost of phoning her loved ones from the facility created a financial obstacle that Guerrero’s relatives and boyfriend had to help her shoulder, she said.

“That phone call is that touch with the outside. It really takes your mind off of being out there,” Guerrero, 21, said. “Next thing you know, you have to put more money on the phone card.” Now, the prices Guerrero and other inmates in Sonoma County have paid to phone friends and family — calls that criminal justice experts say help inmates rejoin society and avoid ending up back behind bars — are under scrutiny.

An investigation by the Sonoma County civil grand jury found the price the Sheriff’s Office places on calls from the jail — where inmates often are awaiting trial and haven’t been convicted of any crimes — far outstrips prices in state and federal prisons.

The report, which one Sonoma County Board of Supervisors member called “shocking,” was released last month and calls for the supervisors and Sheriff’s Office to reform the system, which charges inmates more than 20 cents a minute for calls.

The county’s phone service is provided by a multinational company that has been accused of predatory practices elsewhere by inmates and their families and, in at least one case, state regulators. The company charges its own fees, and jail and prison operators, in this case the Sheriff’s Office, tack on commissions.

The civil grand jury also questioned the sheriff’s use of much of that money, which is designated for inmate programming and welfare but instead has been used to pay jail staff salaries and feed a growing trust fund.

Much higher charges

Federal facilities charge inmates about 10% of what Sonoma County charges, the grand jury found. State prison phone calls were reduced to 2.5 cents a minute from 7.6 cents a minute in March, when California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials announced they had renegotiated their contract with Global Tel Link, the same provider Sonoma County uses.

The Federal Communications Commission has tried to rein in inmate phone charges for almost a decade, but the agency’s reach extends only to interstate or international calls.

“Local county jails, including ours, represent the last refuge in the State for these commission- based contracts,” the grand jury said.

Even as the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Mark Essick review the grand jury’s investigation, the California Public Utilities Commission is working on issuing rules that will ensure “just and reasonable rates” for inmates statewide.

The utility could issue those rules as early as this year.

Last summer, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and that county’s sheriff aligned to make phone calls for inmates free by switching to a contract where the county paid a flat rate to GTL every month.

The Sonoma County Sher-iff’s Office has gone the opposite direction, increasing the price inmates had to pay to call loved ones and friends by 10% in 2019, the investigation found.

Spending scrutinized

Essick initially declined to comment on the investigation specifics before his agency crafts an official response.

“I feel I have an obligation to the (grand jury) to provide an answer to them first,” Essick said, adding that his staff worked closely with the grand jury on their investigation.

After this story was published online, Essick stressed that the jail staff salaries the fees funded were for employees who worked for inmates’ benefit, specifically an inmate program manager and commissary staff.

Essick said he was not opposed to a policy change, but wanted “buy-in” from the public and supervisors. He suggested the jail might need more funding to cover the loss of phone revenues. “The commitment to make a change is not the concern here,” he said. “It’s the finances behind it and how are we going to pay for it.”

Essick’s use of the phone revenue was a focus of the grand jury’s concern.

Revenue from the phone system is generally supposed to be spent on programming that benefits inmates. Much of it has gone to help pay for jail staff salaries and has piled up in a trust fund — the Inmate Welfare Trust — that as of the grand jury’s report held $1.6 million.

The sum, which is also swelled by steep markups on commissary items, is enough to pay for the next two years of phone calls, the investigation concluded.

The grand jury focused on two years of the trust fund’s revenues and expenditures, fiscal years 2017-2019. Over those two years, the Sheriff’s Office spent more than $566,000 on salaries. It spent a little more than $1 million on educational programs for inmates and put an unspent $274,037 into the trust fund.

The Sheriff’s Office price increase came at the end of the 2019 fiscal year.

For the grand jury, a price hike even as the trust fund swelled called into question the purpose of the steep prices on the county’s incarcerated.

“Our jail should not be a profit generating entity,” the grand jury concluded.

Global Tel Link is a private-equity-backed operator with a big footprint in the lucrative prison business ecosystem. During the company’s last sale, in 2011, investment banking giant Goldman Sachs sold the company to a hedge fund, American Securities Capital, for $1 billion.

Prison activists have accused GTL of monopolizing the inmate phone market, and the company has faced class action lawsuits in multiple states. In 2017, GTL paid $2.5 million to settle a racketeering and bribery case in Mississippi.

The company denied any wrongdoing in the case and said it settled to focus on “innovation.”

In Sonoma County, GTL sells phone cards that carry 90 minutes at a cost of 7 cents a minute. From there, the Sheriff’s Office tacks on a 15-cent surcharge, bringing the price up to 22 cents a minute, according to the grand jury. The company and the Sher-iff’s Office also leverage steep commissions on families transferring money online to their incarcerated loved ones’ phone accounts, charging $3 on every $20 transferred. The Sheriff’s Office collects 70% of those fees, according to the grand jury.

According to the investigation, the Sheriff’s Office has complete control over how much of a commission it places on top of GTL’s prices.

Recent annual budget proposals the sheriff presents county supervisors do not contain a detailed accounting of the phone fees, appearing to lump it into a line item for agency revenues that includes donations and fines.

Calls for change

Supervisor Lynda Hopkins, the current board chair, called on Essick to bring changes to the Board of Supervisors based on the recommendation of the grand jury report, which she called “shocking.”

“It’s important for the sheriff to step forward and take action on this issue,” Hopkins said.

If Essick does not offer changes, the board may be able to act without him, Hopkins said. The grand jury cited San Diego County, where, in March, supervisors rejected the sheriff’s proposal to fund programming through phone and prison commissary fees.

Sonoma County Supervisor David Rabbitt said he agreed that the jail’s contract with GTL deserves review. “I don’t know what the contract’s negotiations were, but it’s something that we would look into to make sure we got the best all-around deal, and that would be for the sheriff, the county and the inmates,” Rabbitt said.

Rabbitt questioned why the price of the calls increased in 2019, he said. He also wanted to know how much the jail was spending in overhead to run programs under the Inmate Welfare Fund, and how that amount compares with the money being pulled from the fund to pay for jail staff salaries, Rabbitt said.

But Rabbitt warned against comparing a much larger county like San Francisco’s new free call system to Sonoma County’s.

“Just because San Francisco leveraged one solution, it doesn’t mean we have the same capacity to leverage the same solution,” Rabbitt said.

Hunger strike by inmates

Supervisors got some insight into the phone system earlier this year, Rabbitt said, when inmates on a hunger strike put free phone calls on their list of demands after coronavirus-related restrictions cut off in-person visits at the facility.

After the strike, and the involvement of Sonoma County’s Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Oversight, the jail began giving inmates 10 free phone call minutes a day. The grand jury questioned whether those calls were really “free,” given that the Sheriff’s Office paid for them out of the inmates’ own trust fund.

During the pandemic, the educational programs the trust fund is supposed to support were canceled, but the steep charges on inmates’ commissary items and phone calls remained.

“The result is a phone charge that serves mainly to enlarge the $1.6 million (trust fund) surplus,” the grand jury concluded.

Though in-person visiting has resumed at the jail, the committee that manages the Inmate Welfare Trust is maintaining the free phone calls, Essick said. “They decided there was plenty of money available to continue,” he said.

Offering 10 free minutes a day for the inmate population has been running around $4,000 a month, Essick said.

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
By Staff Writer Andrew Graham
July 24,2021

New [San Mateo County civil grand jury] ‘watchdog’ panel member married to city councilwoman

 The new group of civil grand jurors in San Mateo County — a panel that is supposed to investigate local government corruption — includes the husband of a Menlo Park City Council member.

…

Palo Alto Daily
By the Daily  Post Staff
July 19, 2021

 

The following response was published two days later:

Subject: Response to new watchdog member married to Menlo Park Councilwoman

As a former member of the 2008-2009 San Mateo County Grand Jury, I can tell you that this situation is not unique. This type of circumstance can present from time to time. People who apply to be on the grand jury are people who are interested in government and helping it to work as best as possible for the people.

Potential jurors come from various backgrounds, including clubs, organizations and civic groups. They can also be citizens who belong to no groups and know no one in governmental power.

It’s been my experience to have worked with fellow grand jurors who had been involved in multiple organizations throughout the county. Some were even former mayors of cities. That fact alone did not preclude them from membership on the jury.

When one applies to be a member of the grand jury, one fills out a multi-page application, undergoes a background check by the sheriff’s department and then completes a personal interview with the Grand Jury Superior Court judge before their name is put “in the bin” for the final selection of being put on the jury.

By that time, the Superior Court has developed quite a bit of info about a potential juror, including whom their spouse is and what that spouse does for a living.

In summary, the fact that this particular grand juror is the husband of a sitting city councilwoman does not preclude him from being a part of the 2021-2022 Grand Jury.

However, he will be recused from participating in any and all investigations concerning the City of Menlo Park throughout his tenure on the jury, thus preventing any perceived or real conflict of interest.

Barbara Arietta
July 22, 2021

Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury tackles housing, information technology and Ukiah’s Orr Street Bridge

MENDOCINO Co., 7/22/21 — The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury, which conducts non-criminal investigations into local government agencies and policy issues, released reports on three separate investigations July 16 covering the urgent need for more housing in Mendo, an update on the county’s efforts to update their Information Technology and the 13-year closure of the Orr Street bridge in Ukiah. Here’s a round-up of the most recent three reports.

Housing challenges

There is a “critical lack of affordable and available housing” in Mendocino County, according to the grand jury’s report, and it could be addressed by expanding the scope of operations for the Planning and Building Services Department (PBS) beyond permit approval by seeking modifications to state building standards that would help efforts to meet local housing needs.

There have also been more than 375 housing units lost due to fires since 2017, with only 196 residential building permits issued for new home construction and just 125 of those permits completed. The grand jury also faults difficulties in working with the planning department, and regulatory burdens associated with low-income housing.

 “Building developers complain that Mendocino County’s requirement for 25% of low-income units is 15% higher than other areas in the State,” the grand jury wrote in Meeting Mendocino County’s needs for housing require’s coordination and planning.

Jurors found that a lack of housing in Mendocino county drives up prices for existing housing, making it unaffordable for working families, and the housing shortage is likely to persist until the county hires “housing and community development planners” dedicated to expanding the housing inventory.

The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors is required by law to respond to the report by October 14, 90 days after its initial publication July 16. The grand jury has also requested responses from the City of Ukiah’s Community Development Department Director and the assistant director for the county’s Planning and Building Services Department.

County information technology

In Mendocino County’s Trailing Information Technology the grand jury follows up on the county’s Information Technology Master Plan, which they described as an “outdated” collection of 99 initiatives proposed by a consultant in 2018 and slated for full implementation by 2023.

“Since IT evolves rapidly, an upgrade made five years ago may be obsolete due to the availability of newer, less expensive, and more capable alternatives,” the jury wrote.

Compounding that problem, the time frame for implementation on these already outdated initiatives has been pushed back to 2025.

“Mendocino County needs to commit to excellence. Effective application of IT provides the public with improved communications, greater transparency and better service,” the jury wrote, adding that the county’s plan is “good” but it will take commitment from the Board of Supervisors and effective leadership in the IT department to accomplish it in a timely fashion.

The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors are required to respond to the grand jury’s report by October 14, 2021. Auditor-Controller Lloyd Weer are required to respond to the grand jury’s report within 60 days, by Sept. 21.

The Orr Street bridge

In the matter of the Orr Street Bridge — Twelve years of delay jurors responding to a blight complaint from the public discovered a bridge over Orrs Creek on the North East side of Ukiah has been closed due to safety concerns for more than a decade.

At one point residents of the surrounding Wagenseller neighborhood established a “pop-up park,” adding a bench, some decking and a number of flowers. Despite $254,000 allocated in the city budget since 2018, repairs have still not been completed and the bridge remains in a state of disrepair.

“Although the bridge has been deemed to have structurally sound footings and steel beams, there is currently a dangerous open hole in the decking,” jurors wrote. “The asphalt surface is littered with uneven aging plywood and a rotted wood safety railing.”

The bridge’s ongoing closure also presents safety concerns in the surrounding area, according to the grand jury. There’s no good place for garbage trucks to turn around, and the bridge can’t be used by vehicles during emergency evacuations. In 2018 police suggested that the unused bridge could attract unpermitted camping and other illegal activity. Meanwhile, the costs associated with the project continue to rise, relative to what they would have been in 2010.

The grand jury recommends that the city prevent any and all use of the bridge until repairs can be completed. The Ukiah City Council is required to respond to the grand jury by Oct. 14, 2021. Additional responses have been requested from the city engineer, community development director, and city manager.

The Mendocino Voice
By Dave Brooksher, Staff Writer
July 22, 2021 

No evidence of fraud in Riverside County 2020 election, grand jury says

Riverside County election workers organize mail-in ballots in October 2020. A new civil grand jury report found no evidence of fraud or major problems with how the county conducted last November’s general election. (File photo by Cindy Yamanaka, The Press-Enterprise/SCNG)

Riverside County election workers organize mail-in ballots in October 2020. A new civil grand jury report found no evidence of fraud or major problems with how the county conducted last November’s general election. (File photo by Cindy Yamanaka, The Press-Enterprise/SCNG)

A civil grand jury probe into how Riverside County handled the November 2020 election found no evidence of election fraud or malfeasance by those who ran polling places and counted votes.

While there were “minor departures from expected election procedures” that were later corrected, “the election was conducted as required” and “votes were accurately counted and verified,” read a 41-page report posted on the grand jury’s website Friday, July 2.

In an emailed statement, county spokeswoman Brooke Federico said the county is reviewing the report and will respond within the legally required 90-day timeframe. That means the county should respond by the end of September.

Civil grand juries are citizens empaneled by a judge to examine public agencies’ inner workings, identify problems and suggest improvements.

Questions and doubts about the Nov. 3 general election persist more than 7 months after the results were certified, driven by former President Donald Trump and his supporters who falsely claim the election was rigged. Courts have rejected dozens of lawsuits seeking to overturn President Joe Biden’s victory, and anger over Biden’s win fueled the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection.

Roughly 82% of Riverside County’s registered voters — more than 1 million people — cast ballots in the general election, the highest turnout since at least 1999 if not in county history. Of those votes, 89% were cast by mail, according to the jury.

Unlike past elections, every California voter got a ballot in the mail to prevent the spread of coronavirus, and the county consolidated its vast network of neighboring voting precincts into 130 voter assistance centers that could be used by any registered voter.

Locally, voters complained of receiving more than one ballot and getting their voter information guides after they mailed their ballots. Registrar of Voters Rebecca Spencer said built-in safeguards ensure voters can’t vote more than once and that her office sent the voter guides to the post office before the ballots, an assertion backed up by the jury.

Spencer also has accused District Attorney Mike Hestrin of interfering with her office. Hestrin denied any wrongdoing and the jury’s report did not address Spencer’s allegations.

Citing voters’ concerns and ongoing election doubts, the jury decided to investigate the county’s handling of the last election. Jurors interviewed dozens of election workers, city clerks, city managers, Sheriff’s Department staff, elected officials and others, visited Registrar of Voters’ facilities on Nov. 3 and 4 and examined 76 documents and 18 websites and videos.

City officials “expressed gratitude (to Spencer’s staff) for keeping them well informed” of election law changes and the county elections office “made extensive efforts to inform voters of their voting options,” the jury found.

Elections workers were well-trained, and while a technical problem temporarily disrupted in-person voting at voter centers and there were some long lines to vote in person, the county followed the law in conducting the election, the jury found.

While county registrars help fix inaccuracies in the statewide voter registration database, maintaining that database is up to the Secretary of State, the jury’s report read. Complaints about the location of ballot drop-off boxes and the practice of people dropping off other voters’ ballots — a legal practice derisively known in conservative circles as “ballot harvesting” — are beyond the jury’s purview, according to the report.

“The evidence is conclusive that ballots were accurately processed, counted, and reported,” the report read.

“The abundance of evidence leads to the conclusion, Yes, the November 2020 election within Riverside County was administered fairly and impartially and there is no evidence of fraud.’” The report noted that Hestrin’s office, which is responsible for prosecuting voter fraud, has found no evidence of widespread fraud.

The jury offered recommendations to improve future elections, including having the registrar submit a detailed plan on mailing voter guides and vote-by-mail ballots; more videos for voters explaining how ballots are processed and certified; allowing the public to view a livestreamed video of ballot processing and a plan to generate election results faster.

Riverside Press Enterprise
By JEFF HORSEMAN
July 6, 2021

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY GRAND JURY RELEASES 2019-2020 REPORT

The 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury has released a Response Report detailing relevant statistics concerning the ten reports issued by the 2019-20 Grand Jury. In total there were 250 Findings and 335 Recommendations made by the several respondents.

The provisions of California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require the responding governmental officers and agencies to respond whether they agree, wholly disagree, disagree in part, with an explanation, or need additional time, not to exceed six months, to analyze the Recommendation. With respect to the 335 Recommendations, the respondents informed the Grand Jury that 136 had been implemented, 66 would be implemented, 24 required further analysis, and 109 would not be implemented.

The Response Report may be found on our website, www.sbcgj.org.

Edhat Santa Barbara
Source: Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
July 19, 2021

[San Joaquin County] Grand jury report: 'San Joaquin County's COVID-19 response was fragmented'

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, Calif. —

The civil grand jury in San Joaquin County found that the county's response to COVID-19 was fragmented, "hampered and delayed by organizational and policy issues."

"We found that because there was not the optimal amount of collaboration between the public health department and the office emergency services that there were delays," Gary Cooper, the foreperson of the jury said

Cooper said the overall lack of communication led to issues when it came to inoculating the community. He noted that there were instances when there were vaccines to be administered but not enough staffing, and there were also times when there was sufficient staffing, but not enough doses.

He ultimately blamed a lack of communication between the departments.

Cooper also advised that county officials review the organizational chart, encouraging the county to review roles, and who reports to whom. He believes peeling back the layers of bureaucracy would help the department in its handling of the pandemic.

The jury recommended a written policy be put in place, in case another emergency of this magnitude arises again. Cooper said it seemed that everyone had the same goal, but different paths to achieve it.

"The objective of all our elected officials is the safety of the citizens of this county. I really do believe that. And our job is just to shine light into areas we think could be improved," Cooper said.

KCRA Sacramento
By Kay Recede
July 19, 2021

MENDOCINO COUNTY GRAND JURY RELEASED REPORT SAYING MENDOCINO COUNTY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IS OUTDATED

The 2020-21 Mendocino County Grand Jury has released a report on Mendocino County Information technology.

“Mendocino County’s Information Technology (IT) is outdated with 99 Initiatives identified for improvement. The composition and priorities of the Board of Supervisors (BOS) evolved over time and more recently the Supervisors are keenly aware of the need for improvement. Setting priorities, providing leadership, or committing funds to modernize the County’s information systems has been a persistent management challenge”.

FINDINGS

F1.  The CEO and BOS have not clearly defined the scope, authority or recruitment strategy for the proposed CIO position.

F2.  The completion of the 99 Initiatives of the IT Master Plan has been delayed by 21 months due to factors such as a low priority for improving IT, uncoordinated project management, budgetary commitments and demonstrated deficient leadership.

F3.  The BOS approves funding for the ITMP but does not participate on the ITMP Steering Committee to communicate priorities, provide leadership and approve resources.

F4.  Since some costs are recorded in departmental budgets but not consolidated into the ITMP, the total cost of the Initiatives is possibly underrepresented by millions of dollars.

F5.  The SO IS Department has been allowed to operate separately from the County’s IS department which is a detriment to efficient delivery of services and cost effectiveness.

F6.  If the IT staff with access to DOJ systems have received clearance to maintain equipment of the SO, there is no legal obstacle that would prevent reporting to a central IT Department headed by a CIO.

F7.  Project status reporting is not clearly or regularly represented to the public and the BOS, thus leaving them uninformed of IT’s priorities and project initiatives.

F8.  Project Manager position(s) are unfilled, or the need not recognized, which leads to project plans not consistently being prepared for the management of IT Initiatives.

F9.  Project managers and process application analysts are critical and unfilled positions in Mendocino County’s IT organization, which is already understaffed given the number of Initiatives in the ITMP as well as on-going operational needs.

F10. The County’s efforts to secure its systems has not been evaluated by an independent audit in more than fifteen years which presents a considerable risk of systems compromise or ransomware attack.

F11. The Auditor/Controller has not established the accounting procedure for the mandated funding reserve established by County Policy 35 which is obsolete and inadequately capped at $850,000.

F12. Unlike many modernized California Counties, there are few mechanisms for the public to request most on-line County services or electronically submit forms thus inadequately serving the needs of the public and efficiently processing through County staff.

F13. The County plans to issue an unnecessary and expensive RFP to select an alternative email service to replace GroupWise, when Microsoft email could simply be implemented. The County already licenses all other Office software from Microsoft except for email which is tightly integrated with all other Microsoft products.

Redheaded Blackbelt
By Kym Kemp
July 19, 2021