Supervisors respond to [Contra Costa County] civil grand jury report saying county has homeless animal problem

'As much as we all love animals, the department is not eligible for Measure X funding', Mitchoff says

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors officially responded Tuesday to a civil grand jury report from last year that said the county has a serious homeless animal problem that's not being addressed.

Released Nov. 30, the report concludes the county can improve the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department by sharing resources with other municipalities and better distributing resources by geography.

Currently, the county department runs one centralized facility in Martinez. The only other public facility is Antioch Animal Services.

"Public and private animal shelters are experiencing pressure from the explosive growth in the homeless animal and abandoned pet populations," the report says. "Community outreach and education are high priorities for both Contra Costa and Antioch Animal Services, the two public animal shelters within the county."

"Wildlife retrieval provided by the County Animal Services is one of its most valuable services, especially in those areas of the county that border large open spaces. Recent funding restrictions have severely undermined the ability of Animal Services to retrieve live, wounded, or dead animals."

The grand jury recommended that the county "engage a consulting firm for guidance on the possible redistribution of animal services that could be achieved by a gradual process of cost-sharing and shelter coordination."

It said the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office already uses a similar cooperation agreement among county law enforcement agencies that could serve as a model.

The grand jury also recommended both county shelters step up when it comes to community outreach to confront the homeless animal problem, a situation many animal advocates told the board Tuesday is even worse than described in the report.

At the same meeting, the board approved a response to the report, agreeing with many of its findings.

"The county plans to implement a new service agreement with the cities in Fiscal Year 2022-23," the written response says. "The county anticipates that under the new city agreements, there will be a greater level of service throughout the county."

The response addressed other points, including that people in cities aren't aware of county-provided services (the county agreed) and that funding reductions have hindered live wildlife retrieval and rescue (the county partially disagreed, saying it's not a locally mandated service and the state provides no funding for it).

The report also said the county hasn't allocated Measure X money for the Animal Services Department, something supervisors said Tuesday isn't within its purview. When voters in 2020 passed Measure X -- a half-cent sales tax -- nothing in the ballot measure said anything about animal services, something members of the public protested Tuesday.

"Measure X does not allow for dollars to go to anything other than human services, such as health and to public safety, childcare, those kind of things," board chairperson Karen Mitchoff said during Tuesday's meeting. "As much as we all love animals, the department is not eligible for Measure X funding."

"However, if you participated in our board meeting two weeks ago, you know that direction was given to our animal services director to come back sometime in April, around budget time, relative to expansion of spay/neuter programs," Mitchoff said.

In its grand jury response, the county rejected some recommendations, saying there's not enough funding for more outreach concerning available animal services and there's lack of funding and "logistical complexities" making it too difficult to embed animal service officers at some police stations.

Antioch residents voted in 1978 to establish its own shelter. Concern about overpopulation there led to a 2017 civil grand jury investigation concluding there were deficiencies in shelter management, operations, and the facility itself. Improvements were made in response, including the help of a private rescue facility.

But the latest report also says the Antioch shelter has problems with non-Antioch residents abandoning animals there due to a lack of more local facilities. The report also said the cost of spaying and neutering cats and dogs, even at the county site, contributes to pet abandonment.

Budget cuts forced the county in 2020 to shut down its Pinole shelter, cut field officers from 16 to 10, reduce operating hours, stop dead animal retrieval on private property, and refer all wild animal calls to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Danville San Ramon.com
by Tony Hicks / BCN Foundation
February 23, 2022

[Sacramento County] Grand Jury Looks Into County’s COVID Spending

Report Calls For Independent Audit Of How County Officials Used $181 Million In Federal CARES Act Funding

Millions in federal funds for COVID-19 response went to the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, which vowed to not follow pandemic protocol, and now the Sacramento Grand Jury is calling for an independent audit.

The title of the report, released Wednesday, speaks volumes — “Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Abandons Responsibility for COVID-19 CARES Act Spending.”

A statement from the County Superior Court reads, “The Sacramento County Grand Jury is calling into question the use and distribution of more than $181 million received in federal CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security) Act funding by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. Following a nearly year-long secret investigation, the Grand Jury has learned that in the midst of a countywide emergency, the Supervisors made questionable and opaque maneuvers that skirted the intent of the CARES Act, to the benefit of County coffers and with scant regard for the needs of its citizens.”

As first reported by the Sacramento OBSERVER, the County Board of Supervisors allowed then County Chief Executive Officer Nav Gill to give $132.86 million of its federal pandemic response funds for “payroll for public health and safety employees,” with the Sheriff’s Department receiving 78%, $104.2 million, of that money.

The OBSERVER obtained documents from a whistleblower that detailed the spending.  Residents were outraged upon learning of the County’s action, especially in light of the disclosure that Public Health Officer Dr. Olivia Kasirye had made a request for money for COVID-specific needs and was initially denied.

County officials were forced to explain themselves.

Gill and Deputy Executive Bruce Wagstaff said they were flipping the money in order to keep it all and not have to give the unallocated portion back to the federal government.

According to the Grand Jury report, “The County Executive and CEO asserted that since there was no deadline on use of County General Fund dollars, switching the Sheriff’s County General Fund allocation with CARES Act funds would guarantee that the entire $181 million of CARES Act funding ($147.97 million FY 2019-2020/$33.1 million FY 2020-2021) would be retained by the County.”

The report goes on to state, “Switching County General Fund dollars with CARES Act funds may have provided the County with flexibility to maximize all the available federal and state funds that carry spending deadlines. However, the Grand Jury found that this maneuver had adverse consequences to the local community at a critical time in County history.”

At the time, officials implied that the community should be grateful that, in doing so, there would be no loss to much-needed services. Supervisors claimed ignorance of Gill’s actions.

Members of the community weren’t buying it and called it an old-fashioned bait and switch. Among the most vocal was well-connected activist Kula Koenig. Koenig, the founder of Social Justice PolitiCorps and a member of what became known as a the People’s Budget Coalition, literally called the Board of Supervisors on their “bullshi**.” Koenig’s expletive-filled public comment during a December 16, 2020 County meeting on the spending went viral. She called the report “validating.”

“Sometimes when we’re doing this work and you’re screaming and hollering and thinking, ‘Does anyone else think this is crazy?’ You start to think, ‘Am I crazy?’” Koenig said. “Are we just these crazy activists that they say we are? But this was kind of like, ‘Yes, in your face.’”

Koenig says she was asked by County Supervisor Phil Serna and new County CEO Ann Edwards, who replaced Gill, to not speak out about the County’s CARES Act spending in an effort to help the situation blow over. She didn’t and it didn’t.

Someone filed a formal complaint and a grand jury investigation resulted.

The Grand Jury Report says the comprehensive review of the County’s budgeting process uncovered a failure to operate with transparency.  “The result of this failure undermined public confidence in government during a countywide emergency. The County Board of Supervisors failed to engage in governance and oversight at a critical moment,” the report reads.

The Grand Jury clearly states what the County did or didn’t do, but is unclear on whether or not those actions violated federal requirements and recommends that the Board of Supervisors appoint an independent panel to conduct an audit of its CARES Act allocations.

The Board of Supervisors and County Sheriff’s Department have 60 days to respond in writing. “Each grand jury report and response is unique,” said County Public Information Director Kim Nava, who declined to “speculate how long a response may or may not take.”

“The Board of Supervisors will provide a comprehensive response to the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations. This response process will include a presentation at an upcoming Board meeting, during which the Board can provide input, review and approve the response to the findings and recommendations,” Nava said.

Most officials the OBSERVER tried to reach for comment declined to do so.

“The Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office was not listed as a governmental agency that was required to or invited to respond,” Chief Deputy District Attorney Rod Norgaard said in a statement. “The report contemplates further actions by the Board of Supervisors and it would not be prudent for the District Attorney’s Office to comment at this time.”

Kim Pedersen, Deputy Director of Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento’s Satellite Court Operations and Communications also issued a statement: “Unfortunately, since the matter continues as an investigation, the court, Grand Jury Advisor or Grand Jury foreperson is unable to comment at this time.”

The spending and the report could have far-reaching ramifications as federal officials attempt to, at least retroactively, crack down on misuse of COVID-19 funds, large and small.

The Grand Jury also investigated the City of Sacramento’s spending of its $89.6 million CARES Act funds, finding that the City and County’s use of the money were vastly different — the City distributed nearly all of its allotment to community agencies and businesses to help alleviate COVID-19 impacts, as intended.

“This whole thing with the CARES Act is a microcosm of how the City and the County act when it comes to doing policy work that is centered around social justice and helping people who really need it,” Koenig said. “The County is really focused on law enforcement and is really focused on not being transparent.

“It is really focused on just doing things the way that they want to do and on bureaucracy. The City, it’s not perfect, but they’re way better in terms of at least trying to do right and involve people in discussion.”

The Observer
by Genoa Barrow
February 22, 2022

Guest Commentary - The benefits and rewards of serving on the Santa Cruz County grand jury

I had the honor of serving on the Santa Cruz County civil grand jury for the past two years; for the 2020-21 session, I was the grand jury foreperson. I write to you to encourage citizens across the county to apply for a grand jury position by going to

www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Departments/GrandJury.aspx#apply. The benefits to each individual, and the community, are numerous.

First of all, it’s a great opportunity to learn about your county and city government. I hadn’t realized the broad set of responsibilities our government officials held, nor whether they were living up to their commitments.

Second, it’s an opportunity to develop new skills, for problem solving, investigation, report writing, or valuable computer skills. In this world where we increasingly rely on the internet and virtual connection and communication, this is a great environment to exercise those capabilities.

Odds are, when you join the grand jury, you meet those 18 other jury members for the first time. It’s an interesting forum where you can collaborate with diverse members of the community, who share a passion for civic duty and service, to research and report on key issues.

We jurors were glad to serve the needs of the community. We incorporated the inputs from residents on those issues, along with our own ideas, to consider how we could influence our government leaders to improve their effectiveness and efficiency.

Our influence came from the reports we published. We felt gratified when the public favorably received our reports, and when the government officials, who frequently contest our findings and recommendations, ultimately took action on our suggestions.

In the past two years, the grand jury addressed many important topics: homelessness, fire risk and response, law enforcement, public health and safety, education, and more. We did our part to hold our government accountable to the people.

I truly appreciate what a meaningful way this was to meet people from around the county, enjoy their company and camaraderie, and work together and socialize, even well after our term of service ended. It’s nice to be able to say that while we worked hard, we had some fun too. The rewards aren’t financial (that’s an understatement!) but they are considerable.

I urge those who care about Santa Cruz County to make a difference and apply to join the grand jury. It’s an enriching and rewarding experience.

SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL
By Rich Goldberg
February 17, 2022

Rich Goldberg was the Foreperson of the 2020-21 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury.

Opinion: A [Sacramento County] grand jury was right to slam Sacramento County officials for mishandling COVID funds

Blog note: This article appeared just two days after we posted the article about the grand jury report. It is nice to see media suppor for a grand jury recommendation.

In the strongest possible terms, a grand jury has laid bare the astonishing lack of oversight and complete mishandling of millions in federal COVID relief dollars by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and the bureaucrats working for them.

It was in the summer of 2020, in those early, frightening months of the pandemic, that the public learned that $104 million of $181 million allocated to Sacramento County for the purpose had been funneled into the budget of Sheriff Scott Jones.

The revelation was in keeping with the broader mismanagement of county affairs under then-CEO Nav Gill. It was Gill who announced that he had moved the money into the Sheriff’s Office budget for existing public safety employees. The grand jury believes that may turn out to be a violation of federal regulations, as the CARES Act, which provided the funds, specifically prohibits their use for already-budgeted staffing.

Gill subsequently resigned, but not before he was caught flouting the county’s indoor mask mandate and accused of creating a “caustic” workplace

 The grand jury report called the county’s actions “questionable and opaque maneuvers that skirted the intent of the CARES Act to the benefit of county coffers with scant regard for the needs of its citizens.”

It also made it abundantly clear that the county mishandled the funds in contrast with the city, highlighting the enormity of the county’s failure to serve its citizens.

The jury wrote: “The City of Sacramento was the only other local governmental entity located in Sacramento with a large enough population to qualify for its own CARES Act funding,” and it “distributed nearly its entire $89.6 million CARES Act allocation to community agencies and business to help alleviate COVID-19 impacts.”

But the county’s CEO chose to fund law enforcement, and the Board of Supervisors looked the other way.

In doing so, the grand jury said, the supervisors abdicated their duty to provide oversight. The board did not request or receive any reports on the allocation or use of the funding until more than three months after the funds were in hand.

Using this money for the Sheriff’s Office “ignored many of the critical public health needs” needed to contain the spread of COVID-19 during the early days of the pandemic, said the jury, and that more than likely increased the number of deaths in Sacramento County.

The Sheriff’s Office, the main beneficiary of the funds expressly set aside to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on our county, chose instead not to enforce numerous active emergency orders issued by the state.

County officials said later that Gill had put the money into the sheriff’s budget and transferred the same amount from that budget back to the general fund. They said it was a placeholder to ensure the county wouldn’t lose the money if it failed to allocate quickly enough to meet federal guidelines. The money was eventually returned to its stated purpose, county officials said.

Still, the city was able to put its federal aid to good use in the specified time frame without such a ridiculous spectacle.

The jury rightly recommended that the supervisors appoint an independent panel by June to conduct a full audit of the county’s allocation of CARES Act funding as well as adopt a transparent budget allocation and approval process for the board, the CEO’s office and the sheriff’s department.

Sacramento County District 1 Supervisor Phil Serna has since released a statement in which he calls for a full and independent audit of the CARES Act money received by the county.

“Despite many known attempts to explain what actually occurred separate from conjecture, assumption and at times misguided inference, the fact remains that there’s a good deal of confusion in our community concerning the very serious matter of pandemic response and the use of scare resources to fulfill Sacramento County’s responsibilities,” Serna wrote.

“The lack of governance and oversight by the Board of Supervisors,” the grand jury wrote, “allowed the county executive to violate the first goal of the county’s stated criteria for use of the CARES Act funds.”

The Sacramento Bee
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board
February 17, 2022

[Kern County] Grand Jury calls on county Fire Department to update facilities; county notes progress is costly, underway

The Kern County grand jury released a report Thursday claiming the Kern County Fire Department must upgrade or replace aging facilities, reduce firefighters' exposure to diesel exhaust and find new recruits.

"As a facility ages, it may no longer meet the needs of an evolving workforce and community," the report said. "This can negatively affect efficiency, morale, safety, security and overall efforts to provide quality fire, rescue and emergency medical services."

The report begins by acknowledging the Kern County Board of Supervisors conducted an analysis of KCFD through the Center for Public Safety Management in 2017, which addressed many similar concerns. Of the 62 recommendations, 55 instances have been fixed or are currently in progress. The grand jury sought to address unfinished items from the CPSM report, and other issues discovered during the investigation.

Ryan Alsop, Kern County's chief administrative officer, said the county understands work still needs to be done, but referenced the Board of Supervisors' investment of more than $10 million to replace fire engines, bulldozers and other vehicles.

Some difficulties also arise when trying to make these upgrades, he said.

"There is a backlog of infrastructure and equipment need, and that is something that we are working with our fire chief to address," Alsop said in an emailed statement. "It's not an overnight fix, replacing helicopters and fire stations is tens of millions of dollars in each instance, but we are currently working to get our county into a position where our backlog of these projects is largely eliminated and additional funding for these critical investments can be provided more rigorously."

A "significant number" of KCFD facilities are "well past their serviceable" life, according to the grand jury. Nine stations are more than 60 years old. The oldest facility — Station 53 on Old River Road and Taft Highway — is 71 years old, the report states. The document claims fire stations have a service life of approximately 50 years.

The grand jury also visited numerous fire stations and documented other concerns for a variety of stations.

Station 45 on Edison Highway had exposed rebar, water-damaged ceiling tiles and cracks on the exterior wall. A bathroom remodel was completed, and all water damage was repaired this fiscal year, KCFD Chief Aaron Duncan said in an email. Next month, the department plans to resurface, texture and paint the exterior of the station, he added.

The report also states the facilities' exercise area is located in the department's Fleet Maintenance shop.

"This area is a major health concern," said the grand jury in the report. "Firefighters are exposed to diesel exhaust, carbon monoxide, metallic abrasion particles, sulfates and silicates."

Duncan did not answer a question about this claim; however, the chief said an official response will be given to the Board of Supervisors within 90 days.

The report also claims a diesel exhaust removal system is missing in seven stations, while 39 facilities possess the filtration. Furthermore, 28 stations are missing back-up power generators or a fire sprinkler suppression system, according to the grand jury.

"A fire or power outage at any station would disrupt the entire KCFD operations," the report states.

Duncan said he has received $1.2 million in grants that will buy 32 generators this fiscal year for fire stations without a back-up generator or an outdated generator.

KCFD struggles to find new recruits, the report said, "which leads to mandated overtime, sleep deprivation and burn-out."

Duncan said staffing is a "top priority." He added the current budget funds all safety positions, and has created a bridge program for Kern County Fire Department Seasonal Wildland Firefighters to become full-time firefighters. Moreover, he added 27 recruits graduated in January 2022 and 19 recruits began training Jan. 31.

The grand jury recommends the KCFD develop a plan to replace or repair stations 50 years or older over the next five to 10 years. Funding should be secured by the Board of Supervisors and by tapping into President Joe Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, according to the report.

KCFD invests money each fiscal year to address the backlog of equipment and infrastructure needs, Duncan said in an email.

The county has 90 days to provide an official response to the grand jury report.

The Bakersfield Californian
Ishani Desai
February 18, 2022

‘Questionable and opaque’: [Sacramento County] Grand jury calls for audit after $104 million in COVID-19 aid given to Sac Co. Sheriff’s Office

The Sacramento County Grand Jury is calling for an audit into the board of supervisors after an investigation found that $104 million of the more than $181 million set aside for COVID-19 aid was given directly to the sheriff’s office in "questionable and opaque maneuvers."

The grand jury said it learned of the spending after a nearly year-long investigation, saying the actions by the board of supervisors “skirted the intent of the CARES Act, to the benefit of County coffers and with scant regard for the needs of its citizens.”

Sacramento County received $181 million in 2020 from CARES Act funding, which was meant to be used for pandemic-specific activities.

However, the grand jury investigation found that there was no CARES Act funding plan in place for COVID-19 relief, and instead, the money was used to fund salaries and benefits of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office.

Findings in the grand jury report said the board of supervisors provided “minimal support to the Sacramento County Health Department or other county agencies to address community needs resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, neglecting its public support responsibility.”

It also said the county’s decision to allocate most of the funding toward the sheriff’s office ignored critical public health needs to stop the spread of the virus, also citing the sheriff office’s decision to not enforce the state’s active emergency orders meant to minimize the COVID-19 spread among the general public.

That amount of money was then transferred back into the county’s general fund, a move the grand jury says is “confusing at best and possibly illegal.”

“The County Chief Executive has argued that the budget move was legal, however the grand jury has not been able to make that determination,” grand jury foreperson Deanna Hanson said in a press release. “We are calling for an independent audit, because Sacramento County residents deserve answers.”

The grand jury said the CARES Act does allow for funding to support public safety, but the county’s move was inconsistent with the intent that funds be used toward community challenges that were caused by the pandemic.

The report also points out the contrast to the city of Sacramento, which used nearly all of its funding for community agencies and businesses to help relieve pandemic impacts.

Both the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Scott Jones are required to submit formal responses to the report.

KCRA.com
Hilda Flores
February 17, 2022

 

Tuolumne County Civil Grand Jury releases first report of new term, TUD responds

The 2020-22 Tuolumne County Civil Grand Jury released its first report last Friday that covers how public agencies responded to findings and recommendations made by the previous grand jury.

It was also the first report released by the citizen-led watchdog group since June 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in the previous jury’s term being extended until the end of that year.

Each year, superior courts in all 58 California counties are required by state law to appoint a civil grand jury consisting of ordinary citizens who volunteer their time for the purpose of reviewing local detention facilities and investigating complaints against other public agencies and officials.

Alicia Bergmann, foreperson for the current county Grand Jury, said the group plans to release reports on its investigations individually this year, as opposed to dropping them all at one time as some had done in the past.

Bergmann said they have not scheduled the dates for releasing the other reports.

The 28-page document released on Friday is called a “continuity report,” which is produced by each year’s jury to track the responses to the previous year’s jury’s findings and recommendations.  

Civil grand juries in the county typically serve from July 1 one year to June 30 the following year, though the county’s 2019-20 jury’s term was extended through Dec. 31, 2020, to give its members additional time in light of complications caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The county’s current Grand Jury was impaneled in February 2021 for a term that goes through June 30 this year. 

Seven investigative reports were issued by the 2019-20 Grand Jury that covered the Amador-Tuolumne Community Action Agency, the county government’s employment practices, fire safety in the county, the jail, Sierra Conservation Center, the county’s transit program, and Tuolumne Utilities District.

State law requires the governing body of any public agency that a civil grand jury investigates to respond within 90 days of the report’s release. If a department or agency is headed by an elected county official, such as the sheriff for the jail, that elected official must also respond within 60 days.

According to the continuity report released Friday, the seven reports made a combined total of 29 recommendations. The 2020-22 Grand Jury reviewed all responses from the investigated agencies and found that all elected officials and governing bodies required to respond did so on time.

“Many of the agencies accepted the Grand Jury’s findings and took recommended corrective actions in a reasonable time frame,” the continuity report released Friday stated. “When an agency disagreed with the Grand Jury’s recommendations, they usually provided explanations.”

One of the more attention-grabbing investigative reports released by the 2019-20 Grand Jury was about Tuolumne Utilities District, which included findings and recommendations related to the water and sewer agency’s finances; a 2019 agreement to supply water for the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians’ Teleli Golf Club (formerly Mountain Springs Golf Course) in Sonora; potential conflicts of interest involving a former TUD director; membership to a private group that advocates on behalf of business interests; and inconsistent verification of reimbursement claims made by directors before they are paid out.

The district disagreed with all of the jury’s findings and recommendations in a 17-page response that was drafted by then-TUD General Manager Ed Pattison in coordination with the district’s staff and approved by three out of the five members of the agency’s elected board of directors at the time.

Two of the three directors that voted to approve the responses, Bob Rucker and Ron Kopf, are no longer on the TUD board.

Rucker decided to retire from the board that year. Kopf, who was the director the jury found had “real and/or perceived” conflicts between his elected role and personal financial and business interests, lost his bid for reelection that November.

Prior to the November election, the Tuolumne County Republican Central Committee sent a letter to the Tuolumne County Superior Court requesting a review of the jury’s report on TUD.

The letter, which was signed by former District 2 County Supervisor Randy Hanvelt, who was serving as chairman of the local GOP committee at the time, pointed to discrepancies between the report and TUD’s responses and argued that it had challenged the reputation of the district’s leadership and “one board member in particular.”

A response from the court in October 2020 declined the committee’s request, stating that it must respect the jury’s autonomy as a “statutorily created citizen watchdog body that is expected to address controversial subjects in our community.”

Pattison’s employment contract was prematurely terminated by a majority of the board in April 2021.

Barbara Balen, the TUD board president, submitted a rare, formal response to the continuity report released by the current jury to clarify the steps that are now being taken since the shake up in the district’s leadership.

“This action in itself has positioned TUD towards improving communication and inclusiveness,” she said of the turnover in board members and the general manager position since the jury’s last report.

Balen then went through the recommendations that the district previously said were not warranted or were not reasonable in its previous responses, which she disagreed with submitting.

With regard to TUD’s finances, which the jury found were still falling short of revenue meeting expenses despite a five-year rate increase, Balen said the district is embarking on a rate study and will be working with water users to “make it as fair and transparent as possible.”

The jury also recommended that the TUD board should reevaluate its February 2019 approval of an agreement for providing the golf course with raw or reclaimed water, which typically goes to agricultural customers, after finding the deal was inconsistent with the district’s rules and regulations.

While TUD’s original response refuted the allegations and denied the recommendation, Balen wrote that the district “has made enormous strides in recognizing the importance of delivering reclaimed water to our agricultural community and not take water away from anyone’s livelihood for recreational use.”

Balen further stated the district was “making sure some of these fuzzy areas are cleaned up” as a “course correction.”

Since the turnover in leadership, Balen also said the TUD board has been “very diligent in recusing themselves” when necessary and some of the potential conflicts of interest cited in the 2019-20 jury’s report have been resolved.

The response submitted by Balen to the jury’s recommendation regarding memberships to outside organizations stated that TUD has reviewed and dropped any groups that are not open to the public, including the Tuolumne County Business Council, of which Kopf was serving as executive director at the time that TUD was a dues-paying member.

Union Democrat
By Alex MacLean
February 17, 2021

Superior Court leaders seek applicants to serve on [Solano County] grand jury

Solano County Superior Court leaders seek applicants to serve on the jury, a group of citizens permitted by law to conduct legal proceedings, investigate potential criminal conduct and determine whether criminal charges should be brought.

In a press release issued Wednesday, Brian K. Taylor, the court’s executive officer, said anyone interested in being part of the grand jury for the 2022-23 year also must be citizens of the United States and be at least 18 years old.

Prospective jurors must also have lived in the county for at least one year immediately before being sworn in by the court’s current Presiding Judge, Donna Stashyn.

In the prepared statement, Taylor said, “Due to the uncertainty of COVID and the need to rely on technology to conduct the jury’s business,” it is also important to have some proficiency and access to technology.

Grand jurors come from all walks of life, so it is beneficial for volunteers to be in good health, to have good writing skills, to be open-minded, to work effectively with others and have sufficient knowledge of English, he added.

Anyone interested in joining the grand jury can access an application at https://solano.courts.ca.gov/divisions/grand-jury/apply, or call 435-2575.

The court’s announcement comes as the county’s Board of Supervisors declared February as Civil Grand Jury Month, celebrating a history of grand juries that predates the founding of the United States.

“Grand juries were established to oversee the functions of local governments to ensure they are functioning to the best advantage of the community,” said Taylor.

During its tenure in Solano, the grand jury has been “instrumental in awakening a conversation regarding dangerously overprescribed opiates,” he added. “That conversation continues today as members of the grand jury that produced that report continue to travel throughout the country, discussing their findings with health professionals and decision-makers.”

In addition, the grand jury has been responsible for “leading the charge in saving the county thousands of dollars in wasted or misplaced funds,” said Taylor.

The jury investigates complaints about fire districts, law enforcement, and any other city or county department that is part of a citizen complaint.

The idea of a civil grand jury is often confusing, even for those who have legal careers, said Taylor.

“When we hear about a grand jury, thoughts often turn to criminal actions and courts,” he explained. “However, the civil grand jury in Solano County does not handle such cases. Its involvement is as a ‘watchdog’ group that oversees county and city governments and how they function.”

The process begins when the 19 volunteers on the jury receive a complaint from a Solano County citizen. The jury reviews the complaint to determine if it falls within its jurisdiction. If the jury determines the complaint is viable, it conducts research, interviews and tours to determine the root of the “problem” and makes recommendations to resolve the issue. The jury sends the reports to the Solano County Superior Court and the department or agency under investigation for further action, said Taylor.

Every county in California has a grand jury. Although the Solano’s has 19 members, each grand jury varies in size.

Members serve for one year but may extend their term for one more year at the discretion of the Presiding Judge. After they serve their term, grand jurors must take a year off before serving again, said Taylor.

Vacaville Reporter
By Richard Bammer
February 9, 2022 

[Sacramento County] Grand jury: Isleton city council broke law

The Sacramento County Grand Jury announced on Thursday that an investigation found the Isleton City Council violated state law following the death of one of its members last year.

The position remains vacant today, the grand jury said, adding it could potentially be unfilled throughout 2022, "diluting the public's representation in government."

On April 23, 2021, an Isleton city council member unexpectedly passed away, leaving a vacancy on the five-member panel.

California law requires a vacancy be filled either by appointment or by calling for a special election within 60 days.

The City of Isleton posted a "Notice of Appointment" to its website asking candidates to apply, and specifically stating the seat would be filled in June 2021.

That never happened, the grand jury found.

At a June meeting, the city council learned it would cost $32,000 to hold a special mail-in ballot election.

While several individuals applied for the seat, the grand jury said, council members publicly stated they did not want to pay for a special election, nor appoint anyone to the position.

The grand jury said the decision was made despite the Isleton city attorney warning the council that not filling the vacancy was a violation of state law, as well as a violation of requests from Isleton residents.

"The council essentially voted unanimously to break the law," grand jury foreperson Deanna Hanson said in a media statement.

"They did not adequately explore options available to them to remedy the situation," she said.

"This is a disservice to the residents of Isleton who are not fully being represented in government decisions and actions."

However, during its investigation, the grand jury found that Government Code 36512 does not provide any penalty when a city council ignores the mandate to fill a vacancy in 60 days.

The grand jury determined that the lack of a penalty appeared to be a major factor in the council's decision, and set a June 30, 2022 deadline to fill the vacancy.

If not filled by that date, the grand jury recommends the council hold a special election.

Lodi News-Sentinel
New Sentinel-Staff
February 11, 2022

Santa Barbara County agrees with grand jury on programs for housing homeless

 

In a circumstance rarely encountered with grand jury reports, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors agreed with all six findings in a 2021 report about housing the homeless that focused on using two state programs.

And while the board agreed with all the findings, it only agreed with four of the six recommendations that accompanied them.

The response said four of the six recommendations had already been implemented, but the remaining two would not be implemented because they aren’t warranted.

Supervisors unanimously approved the response to the report titled “The Keys to Housing the Homeless” on Tuesday to meet the Feb. 15 deadline for submitting it to the presiding judge of the County Superior Court.

The “keys” addressed in the grand jury report were the state Roomkey and Homekey programs that provide funding for temporary and permanent housing.

Through Roomkey, vulnerable elderly homeless with underlying health conditions were provided with rooms plus appropriate services. Through Homekey, a county-owned office building was converted into housing for homeless individuals.

“Well, I think this is the most agreement I’ve ever seen in five years on the board with a grand jury finding — and that’s a good sign,” 1st District Supervisor Das Williams said after hearing a staff report on the proposed response.

“It’s because of two things,” he continued. “It’s because, No. 1, the dynamism of the level of progress the staff and and this board has made in the last couple of years.

“Normally, even when there’s a lot of recommendations we agree with, it takes a while to get there,” he said. “This level of progress for the first time that I’ve seen in addressing homelessness in a couple of decades worth of trying, this is the fastest momentum, the most momentum I’ve ever seen.”

He said that allowed the staff to say, “Hey, we already did that,” when preparing the response to the report.

“Even the points of disagreement really aren’t,” Williams added.

He said the staff could have responded “already implemented” for recommendation five — that the county and all city councils get together to develop and implement a funding plan for the programs — because that’s what the Elected Leaders Forum does.

He said the other recommendation that won’t be implemented actually was, just not in the manner the grand jury envisioned.

That recommendation was that the Community Services Department to form an alliance with all city councils to develop a roster of hotels and motels willing to participate in a Roomkey-type program.

“I think, fortunately, people are ready for solutions — more ready for solutions — than they ever have been,” Williams said.

Recommendations already implemented included that the supervisors and all city councils collaborate to establish Roomkey-type programs in both ends of the county and that they jointly identify potential Homekey sites.

Other already implemented recommendations are that County Community Services Department solidify a team to replicate the successful efforts in converting buildings into homeless housing and that the Public Health, Behavioral Wellness, Social Services and Community Services departments seek ways to fund wraparound services.

Second District Supervisor Gregg Hart thanked the grand jury for bringing the state programs to the attention of the public along with how the county has been implementing them.

“I think the public should be really pleased that we are making progress,” Hart said. “It is not easy to do, as we heard earlier about some of the challenges in these projects, but the successes are real, and they are individual people, our neighbors, who have been living on the street for many, many years and [in] circumstances that are really difficult for us to contemplate.”

Hart said using hotels and commercial spaces to provide individual housing with dignity is the right solution.

“The success is evident in the number of people we’re actually moving off the streets,” he said, noting 700 homeless people were provided with housing in each of the last two years.

However, he said, the problem is finding a continuous, stable flow of money to support the programs.

“But we’re going to continue because we know this approach works,” he said.

He asked the public to urge their federal and state legislators to provide more funds.

santamariatimes.com
Mike Hodgson
Feb 9, 2022