Alameda County Grand Jury
2018-2019
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (12)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
19-1:
The city of Alameda’s failure to provide councilmembers with adequate training upon first being elected to council as well as annual training on governance helped contribute to inappropriate interference in the fire chief hiring process.
F19-1:
The city of Alameda’s failure to provide councilmembers with adequate training upon first being elected to council as well as annual training on governance helped contribute to inappropriate interference in the fire chief hiring process.
19-2:
The city of Alameda’s charter fails to provide enforcement mechanisms when councilmembers and staff violate provisions of the charter, creating uncertainty when such violations occur.
F19-2:
The city of Alameda’s charter fails to provide enforcement mechanisms when councilmembers and staff violate provisions of the charter, creating uncertainty when such violations occur.
19-3:
Councilmembers who were the obvious subjects of the independent investigation were allowed to participate in the editing of the outside investigator’s report, damaging the “independence” of the analysis.
F19-3:
Councilmembers who were the obvious subjects of the independent investigation were allowed to participate in the editing of the outside investigator’s report, damaging the “independence” of the analysis.
19-4:
In violation of the city’s charter they had sworn to uphold, two councilmembers did interfere with the city manager’s ability to conduct an open and transparent recruitment for a new fire chief.
F19-4:
In violation of the city’s charter they had sworn to uphold, two councilmembers did interfere with the city manager’s ability to conduct an open and transparent recruitment for a new fire chief.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
19-1:
The Alameda City Council must establish policies mandating initial training and orientation and ongoing annual training for elected officials and senior staff related to ethics and governance.
19-2:
The Alameda City Council must investigate possible charter or municipal code amendments to clarify and strengthen provisions relating to city governance. The charter should delineate the specific types of conduct that constitute a violation of section 7-3, as well as outline an enforcement process.
19-3:
The Alameda City Council should adopt a policy stating that councilmembers who knowingly violate ethical codes of conduct or charter provisions may not seek reimbursement for related legal representation.
19-4:
The Alameda City Council working with the city attorney, city manager and city clerk must develop and implement a code of conduct and councilmember handbook.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
19-22:
Although most independent living home operators are well intentioned and do their best to provide a safe and secure living environment for their tenants, profits are so low in this industry that the money needed for repairs, capital investments and suitable client services often does not exist.
F19-22:
Although most independent living home operators are well intentioned and do their best to provide a safe and secure living environment for their tenants, profits are so low in this industry that the money needed for repairs, capital investments and suitable client services often does not exist.
19-23:
Existing programs – Healthy Homes Department, Independent Living Association, Group Living Facilities Working Group – have laid the groundwork for a comprehensive approach to addressing independent living issues, but a lack of resources, coordination and focal leadership has limited their effectiveness.
F19-23:
Existing programs – Healthy Homes Department, Independent Living Association, Group Living Facilities Working Group – have laid the groundwork for a comprehensive approach to addressing independent living issues, but a lack of resources, coordination and focal leadership has limited their effectiveness. 83
19-24:
There is a need for a searchable web-based database containing information about the location and quality of independent living homes in Alameda County. The database would allow investigators to systematically document complaints and conditions and would assist social workers and consumers to make appropriate placements.
F19-24:
There is a need for a searchable web-based database containing information about the location and quality of independent living homes in Alameda County. The database would allow investigators to systematically document complaints and conditions and would assist social workers and consumers to make appropriate placements.
19-25:
The service area of the Group Living Facilities Working Group and the Group Living Strike Team is limited in geographic scope to unincorporated areas of Alameda County. Furthermore, the Strike Team is ad hoc and dependent on interpersonal relationships between individual agency staff.
F19-25:
The service area of the Group Living Facilities Working Group and the Group Living Strike Team is limited in geographic scope to unincorporated areas of Alameda County. Furthermore, the Strike Team is ad hoc and dependent on interpersonal relationships between individual agency staff.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R19:
– 20: Alameda County must provide ongoing support for the Healthy Homes Department’s Independent Living Initiative and implement a proactive rental inspection program that will identify and evaluate independent living homes throughout Alameda County, including incorporated areas.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
19-5:
The Oakland Unified School District consistently spends near or below the median of the 37district sample on the needs of students (teachers’ salaries, local administration, classroom support, books and materials and pupil services). It spends above and sometimes far above the median on non-classroom administrative, central office staff, contractors and consultants.
F19-5:
The Oakland Unified School District consistently spends near or below the median of the 37- district sample on the needs of students (teachers’ salaries, local administration, classroom support, books and materials and pupil services). It spends above and sometimes far above the median on non-classroom administrative, central office staff, contractors and consultants. 46
19-6:
The Oakland Unified School District’s financial problems result from a combination of spending priorities skewed toward non-classroom staff and activities plus poor enforcement of competitive bidding requirements, expensive contracting policies, poor financial discipline and poor business practices.
F19-6:
The Oakland Unified School District’s financial problems result from a combination of spending priorities skewed toward non-classroom staff and activities plus poor enforcement of competitive bidding requirements, expensive contracting policies, poor financial discipline and poor business practices.
19-7:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department does not follow best practices in developing and managing its operating budgets.
F19-7:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department does not follow best practices in developing and managing its operating budgets.
19-8:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department staff frequently ignored direct orders from superiors, often going over their manager’s heads.
F19-8:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department staff frequently ignored direct orders from superiors, often going over their manager’s heads.
19-9:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department has not provided appropriate leadership in managing the capital program for the district. Approved project costs and schedules have not been controlled, required bidding was often avoided through exceptions, and the district’s use of the lease-leaseback method has not demonstrated cost savings or resulted in speedy completion of projects.
F19-9:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department has not provided appropriate leadership in managing the capital program for the district. Approved project costs and schedules have not been controlled, required bidding was often avoided through exceptions, and the district’s use of the lease-leaseback method has not demonstrated cost savings or resulted in speedy completion of projects.
19-10:
The Oakland Unified School District’s 50% local business utilization policy adds significant cost to projects.
F19-10:
The Oakland Unified School District’s 50% local business utilization policy adds significant cost to projects.
19-11:
The Oakland Unified School District has been using Measure J bond funds to pay rent (now over $12.5 million) for their administration offices at 1000 Broadway. There is no approved plan to relocate the district’s central administrative offices to a permanent location, raising serious legal questions about its continued use of bond funds to pay rent at 1000 Broadway.
F19-11:
The Oakland Unified School District has been using Measure J bond funds to pay rent (now over $12.5 million) for their administration offices at 1000 Broadway. There is no approved plan to relocate the district’s central administrative offices to a permanent location, raising serious legal questions about its continued use of bond funds to pay rent at 1000 Broadway.
19-12:
The Oakland Unified School District’s culture is broken. It has been described as a district of exceptions with an attitude of “what’s in it for me?” These attitudes harm the district whether it is displayed as favoritism, nepotism, or disregard for board policies. Employees trying to change this culture and move the district forward are sidelined and sometimes forced to leave because the proposed changes “aren’t the way it’s done at OUSD.”
F19-12:
The Oakland Unified School District’s culture is broken. It has been described as a district of exceptions with an attitude of “what’s in it for me?” These attitudes harm the district whether it is displayed as favoritism, nepotism, or disregard for board policies. Employees trying to change this culture and move the district forward are sidelined and sometimes forced to leave because the proposed changes “aren’t the way it’s done at OUSD.”
19-13:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Board policies are out-of-date.
F19-13:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Board policies are out-of-date. 47
19-14:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Board meetings and meeting processes create extraordinary burdens for Board members, the district’s management and staff, and the public. Excessively long meetings fail to focus the Board on its priorities and details, which results in a lack of actionable decisions on key issues.
F19-14:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Board meetings and meeting processes create extraordinary burdens for Board members, the district’s management and staff, and the public. Excessively long meetings fail to focus the Board on its priorities and details, which results in a lack of actionable decisions on key issues.
19-15:
The Oakland Unified School District Board has failed in its responsibilities to serve the students of Oakland. Collectively, the Board has not provided leadership and strategic direction to correct the severe financial problems facing the district.
F19-15:
The Oakland Unified School District Board has failed in its responsibilities to serve the students of Oakland. Collectively, the Board has not provided leadership and strategic direction to correct the severe financial problems facing the district.
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F19-1:
The city of Alameda’s failure to provide councilmembers with adequate training upon first being elected to council as well as annual training on governance helped contribute to inappropriate interference in the fire chief hiring process.
F19-2:
The city of Alameda’s charter fails to provide enforcement mechanisms when councilmembers and staff violate provisions of the charter, creating uncertainty when such violations occur.
F19-3:
Councilmembers who were the obvious subjects of the independent investigation were allowed to participate in the editing of the outside investigator’s report, damaging the “independence” of the analysis.
F19-4:
In violation of the city’s charter they had sworn to uphold, two councilmembers did interfere with the city manager’s ability to conduct an open and transparent recruitment for a new fire chief.
F19-5:
The Oakland Unified School District consistently spends near or below the median of the 37- district sample on the needs of students (teachers’ salaries, local administration, classroom support, books and materials and pupil services). It spends above and sometimes far above the median on non-classroom administrative, central office staff, contractors and consultants. 46 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
F19-6:
The Oakland Unified School District’s financial problems result from a combination of spending priorities skewed toward non-classroom staff and activities plus poor enforcement of competitive bidding requirements, expensive contracting policies, poor financial discipline and poor business practices.
F19-7:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department does not follow best practices in developing and managing its operating budgets.
F19-8:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department staff frequently ignored direct orders from superiors, often going over their manager’s heads.
F19-9:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department has not provided appropriate leadership in managing the capital program for the district. Approved project costs and schedules have not been controlled, required bidding was often avoided through exceptions, and the district’s use of the lease-leaseback method has not demonstrated cost savings or resulted in speedy completion of projects.
F19-10:
The Oakland Unified School District’s 50% local business utilization policy adds significant cost to projects.
F19-11:
The Oakland Unified School District has been using Measure J bond funds to pay rent (now over $12.5 million) for their administration offices at 1000 Broadway. There is no approved plan to relocate the district’s central administrative offices to a permanent location, raising serious legal questions about its continued use of bond funds to pay rent at 1000 Broadway.
F19-12:
The Oakland Unified School District’s culture is broken. It has been described as a district of exceptions with an attitude of “what’s in it for me?” These attitudes harm the district whether it is displayed as favoritism, nepotism, or disregard for board policies. Employees trying to change this culture and move the district forward are sidelined and sometimes forced to leave because the proposed changes “aren’t the way it’s done at OUSD.”
F19-13:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Board policies are out-of-date. 47 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
F19-14:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Board meetings and meeting processes create extraordinary burdens for Board members, the district’s management and staff, and the public. Excessively long meetings fail to focus the Board on its priorities and details, which results in a lack of actionable decisions on key issues.
F19-15:
The Oakland Unified School District Board has failed in its responsibilities to serve the students of Oakland. Collectively, the Board has not provided leadership and strategic direction to correct the severe financial problems facing the district.
Findings & Recommendations
30 findings
F19-5:
The Oakland Unified School District consistently spends near or below the median of the 37- district sample on the needs of students (teachers’ salaries, local administration, classroom support, books and materials and pupil services). It spends above and sometimes far above the median on non-classroom administrative, central office staff, contractors and consultants. 46 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
F19-6:
The Oakland Unified School District’s financial problems result from a combination of spending priorities skewed toward non-classroom staff and activities plus poor enforcement of competitive bidding requirements, expensive contracting policies, poor financial discipline and poor business practices.
F19-7:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department does not follow best practices in developing and managing its operating budgets.
F19-8:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department staff frequently ignored direct orders from superiors, often going over their manager’s heads.
F19-9:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department has not provided appropriate leadership in managing the capital program for the district. Approved project costs and schedules have not been controlled, required bidding was often avoided through exceptions, and the district’s use of the lease-leaseback method has not demonstrated cost savings or resulted in speedy completion of projects.
F19-10:
The Oakland Unified School District’s 50% local business utilization policy adds significant cost to projects.
F19-11:
The Oakland Unified School District has been using Measure J bond funds to pay rent (now over $12.5 million) for their administration offices at 1000 Broadway. There is no approved plan to relocate the district’s central administrative offices to a permanent location, raising serious legal questions about its continued use of bond funds to pay rent at 1000 Broadway.
F19-12:
The Oakland Unified School District’s culture is broken. It has been described as a district of exceptions with an attitude of “what’s in it for me?” These attitudes harm the district whether it is displayed as favoritism, nepotism, or disregard for board policies. Employees trying to change this culture and move the district forward are sidelined and sometimes forced to leave because the proposed changes “aren’t the way it’s done at OUSD.”
F19-13:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Board policies are out-of-date. 47 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
F19-14:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Board meetings and meeting processes create extraordinary burdens for Board members, the district’s management and staff, and the public. Excessively long meetings fail to focus the Board on its priorities and details, which results in a lack of actionable decisions on key issues.
F19-15:
The Oakland Unified School District Board has failed in its responsibilities to serve the students of Oakland. Collectively, the Board has not provided leadership and strategic direction to correct the severe financial problems facing the district.
F19-16:
Mismanagement of the review process by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors resulted in the loss of essential regional emergency preparedness training, leaving county residents less safe.
F19-17:
The Board of Supervisors failed to provide clear and complete guidelines to the ad hoc committee, particularly in regard to making recommendations that are consistent with grant guidelines.
F19-18:
The Board of Supervisors failed to ensure that the ad hoc committee worked with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office to assure a successful grant application.
F19-19:
The Board of Supervisors selected members to the ad hoc committee that virtually guaranteed partisan advocacy and predictable intractability.
F19-20:
The Board of Supervisors failed to involve county administrative staff for counsel and oversight, a practice routine for important votes involving grants, liability and expenditures.
F19-21:
The ad hoc committee failed to make available to the public materials under consideration at its meetings in a timely manner. 68 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
F19-22:
Although most independent living home operators are well intentioned and do their best to provide a safe and secure living environment for their tenants, profits are so low in this industry that the money needed for repairs, capital investments and suitable client services often does not exist.
F19-23:
Existing programs – Healthy Homes Department, Independent Living Association, Group Living Facilities Working Group – have laid the groundwork for a comprehensive approach to addressing independent living issues, but a lack of resources, coordination and focal leadership has limited their effectiveness. 83 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
F19-24:
There is a need for a searchable web-based database containing information about the location and quality of independent living homes in Alameda County. The database would allow investigators to systematically document complaints and conditions and would assist social workers and consumers to make appropriate placements.
F19-25:
The service area of the Group Living Facilities Working Group and the Group Living Strike Team is limited in geographic scope to unincorporated areas of Alameda County. Furthermore, the Strike Team is ad hoc and dependent on interpersonal relationships between individual agency staff.
F19-26:
The Department of Children and Family Services has not recruited and retained an adequate number of approved foster homes within Alameda County.
F19-27:
An excessive percentage (more than half) of Alameda County’s foster care placements are made to homes located outside of Alameda County, despite evidence that out-of-county placements are generally not in the best interests of foster children.
F19-28:
Average caseloads for Department of Family and Child Services emergency response and family maintenance child welfare social workers are too high, which is not conducive to the delivery of high-quality services to Alameda County’s foster children.
F19-29:
The Department of Children and Family Services has not been timely in its implementation of the Child and Family Team concept that is a central element of California’s Continuum of Care Reform legislation.
F19-30:
BART’s police department staffing has been insufficient to meet crime levels, as reported by an outside expert, who recommended substantially more patrol officers and revamped patrol assignments.
F19-31:
Although overall crime on BART is up only slightly from 2014 to 2018, the incidence of violent crime more than doubled during that time. All crime is serious, but the potential for violent crime is particularly frightening to riders. The high volume of lesser offenses, especially thefts of items like phones, computers, wallets, etc., dramatically affects riders’ perceptions of safety and well-being on the BART system.
F19-32:
Public concern about fare evasion has been one of the top issues on every customer satisfaction study since 2014. The lack of enforcement erodes confidence in BART and costs upwards of $25 million, or 5% of passenger revenue.
F19-33:
Cleanliness of BART trains and stations was the concern most cited in the Customer Satisfaction Study from 2012 through 2018. BART introduced several initiatives to target cleaning resources where most needed and to prevent messes in the first place (e.g., elevator attendants, Pit Stop program). However, continuing dissatisfaction with cleanliness was repeatedly cited in the most recent survey, in large part due to an increase in the homeless population using BART facilities.
F19-34:
Board-related documents are difficult to find on the BART website because some, especially those related to the board, are not searchable.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To inquire into all public offenses committed or triable within the county (Penal Code §917);
R2:
To inquire into the case of any person imprisoned and not indicted (Penal Code §919(a));
R3:
To inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every description within the county (Penal Code §919(c));
R4:
To inquire into sales, transfers, and ownership of lands which might or should revert to the state by operation of law (Penal Code §920); 140 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
R5:
To examine, if it chooses, the books and records of a special purpose, assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly in the county and the methods or systems of performing the duties of such district or commission. (Penal Code §933.5);
R6:
To submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to the county government (Penal Code §933), with a copy transmitted to each member of the Board of Supervisors of the county (Penal Code §928); and,
R7:
To submit its findings on the operation of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority. The governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility (Penal Code §914.1) and shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. (Penal Code §933(c)). Secrecy/Confidentiality Members of the grand jury are sworn to secrecy and all grand jury proceedings are secret. This secrecy guards the public interest and protects the confidentiality of sources. The minutes and records of grand jury meetings cannot be subpoenaed or inspected by anyone. Each grand juror must keep secret all evidence presented before the Grand Jury, anything said within the Grand Jury, or the manner in which any grand juror may have voted on a matter (Penal Code §924.1). The grand juror’s promise or oath of secrecy is binding for life. It is a misdemeanor to violate the secrecy of the grand jury room. Successful performance of grand jury duties depends upon the secrecy of all proceedings. A grand juror must not divulge any information concerning the testimony of witnesses or comments made by other grand jurors. The confidentiality of interviewees and complainants is critical. Legal Advisors In the performance of its duties, the grand jury may ask the advice (including legal opinions) of the district attorney, the presiding judge of the superior court, or the county counsel. This can be done by telephone, in writing, or the person may be asked to attend a grand jury session. The district attorney may appear before the grand jury at all times for the purpose of giving information or advice. Under Penal Code section 936, the California Attorney General may also be consulted when the grand jury's usual advisor is disqualified. The grand jury has no inherent investigatory powers beyond those granted by the legislature. 141 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ Annual Final Report At the end of its year of service, a grand jury is required to submit a final report to the superior court. This report contains an account of its activities, together with findings and recommendations. The final report represents the investigations of the entire grand jury. Citizen Complaints As part of its civil function, the grand jury receives complaints from citizens alleging government inefficiencies, suspicion of misconduct or mistreatment by officials, or misuse of taxpayer money. Complaints are acknowledged and may be investigated for their validity. All complaints are confidential. If the situation warrants and corrective action falls within the jurisdiction of the grand jury, appropriate solutions are recommended. The grand jury receives dozens of complaints each year. With many investigations and the time constraint of only one year, it is necessary for each grand jury to make difficult decisions as to what it wishes to investigate during its term. When the grand jury receives a complaint it must first decide whether or not an investigation is warranted. The grand jury is not required by law to accept or act on every complaint or request. In order to maintain the confidentiality of complaints and investigations, the Alameda County Grand Jury only accepts complaints in writing. Complaints should include the name of the persons or agency in question, listing specific dates, incidents or violations. The names of any persons or agencies contacted should be included along with any documentation or responses received. Complainants should include their names and addresses in the event the grand jury wishes to contact them for further information. A complaint form can be obtained from the Grand Jury’s website at: http://grandjury.acgov.org/complaints.page. Complaints are accepted electronically via the website, by email ([email protected]), or by US Mail. Mail complaints to: Lakeside Drive, Suite 1104 Oakland, CA 94612 An acknowledgment letter is routinely sent within one week of receipt of a complaint. How to Become a Grand Juror Citizens who are qualified and able to provide one year of service, and who desire to be nominated for grand jury duty, may send a letter with their resume or complete a Grand Jury Questionnaire (contained at the end of this report) and mail it to: Office of the Jury Commissioner - Alameda County Superior Court, Grand Jury Selection, 1225 Fallon Street, 142 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ Room 100, Oakland, CA 94612; or by calling (510) 818-7575. On the basis of supervisory district, six members from each district for a total of 30 nominees are assigned for grand jury selection. After the list of 30 nominees is completed, the selection of 19 jurors who will actually be impaneled to serve for the year are selected by a random drawing. This is done in late June before the jury begins its yearly term on July 1. To obtain an application, please visit: www.acgov.org/grandjury. Qualification of Jurors Prospective grand jurors must possess the following qualifications pursuant to Penal Code section 893: be a citizen of the United States; at least 18 years of age; a resident of Alameda County for at least one year immediately before being selected; possess ordinary intelligence, sound judgement and fair character; and possess sufficient knowledge of the English language. Other desirable qualifications include: an open mind with concern for others’ positions and views; the ability to work well with others in a group; an interest in community affairs; possession of investigative skills and the ability to write reports; and a general knowledge of the functions and responsibilities of county and city government. A person may not serve on the grand jury if any of the following apply: the person is serving as a trial juror in any court in the state; the person has been discharged as a grand juror in any court of this state within one year; the person has been convicted of malfeasance in office or any felony or other high crime; or the person is serving as an elected public officer. Commitment Persons selected for grand jury service must make a commitment to serve a one-year term (July 1 through June 30). Grand jurors should be prepared, on average, to devote two days each week to grand jury meetings. Currently, the grand jury meets every Wednesday and Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., with additional days if needed. Grand jurors are required to complete and file a Statement of Economic Interest as defined by the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, as well as a Conflict of Interest form. Grand jurors are paid $15.00 per day for each day served, as well as a county mileage rate (currently 58 cents per mile) portal to portal, for personal vehicle usage. Persons selected for grand jury duty are provided with an extensive, month-long orientation and training program in July. This training includes tours of county facilities and orientation by elected officials, county and department heads, and others. The orientation and training, as well as the weekly grand jury meetings, take place in Oakland. An application is contained in this report for interested citizens. Selection for grand jury service is a great honor and one that offers an opportunity to be of value to the community. 143 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ CITIZEN COMPLAINT GUIDELINES The Alameda County Grand Jury welcomes communication from the public as it can provide valuable information regarding matters for investigation. Receipt of all complaints will be acknowledged. The information provided will be carefully reviewed to assist the Grand Jury in deciding what action, if any, to take. If the Grand Jury determines that a matter is within the legally permissible scope of its investigative powers and would warrant further inquiry, additional information may be requested. If the matter is determined not to be within the Grand Jury’s authority to investigate (e.g., a matter involving federal or state agencies or institutions, courts or court decisions, or a private dispute), there will be no further contact by the Grand Jury. By law, the Grand Jury is precluded from communicating the results of its investigation, except in one of its formal public reports. All communications are considered, but may not result in any action or report by the Grand Jury. The jurisdiction of the Alameda County Grand Jury includes the following: Consideration of evidence of misconduct by officials within Alameda County. Investigation and reports on operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments or functions of the county and cities, including special districts and joint powers agencies. Inquiry into the condition and management of jails within the county. A complaint form can be obtained from the Grand Jury’s website at: http://grandjury.acgov.org/complaints.page. Complaints are accepted via the website, by email, or US Mail. 144 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ HOW TO RESPOND TO FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS REPORT Pursuant to the California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the person or entity responding to each grand jury finding shall indicate one of the following:
R19:
– 20: Alameda County must provide ongoing support for the Healthy Homes Department’s Independent Living Initiative and implement a proactive rental inspection program that will identify and evaluate independent living homes throughout Alameda County, including incorporated areas.
Findings & Recommendations
34 findings
F19-1:
The city of Alameda’s failure to provide councilmembers with adequate training upon first being elected to council as well as annual training on governance helped contribute to inappropriate interference in the fire chief hiring process.
F19-2:
The city of Alameda’s charter fails to provide enforcement mechanisms when councilmembers and staff violate provisions of the charter, creating uncertainty when such violations occur.
F19-3:
Councilmembers who were the obvious subjects of the independent investigation were allowed to participate in the editing of the outside investigator’s report, damaging the “independence” of the analysis.
F19-4:
In violation of the city’s charter they had sworn to uphold, two councilmembers did interfere with the city manager’s ability to conduct an open and transparent recruitment for a new fire chief.
F19-5:
The Oakland Unified School District consistently spends near or below the median of the 37- district sample on the needs of students (teachers’ salaries, local administration, classroom support, books and materials and pupil services). It spends above and sometimes far above the median on non-classroom administrative, central office staff, contractors and consultants. 46 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
F19-6:
The Oakland Unified School District’s financial problems result from a combination of spending priorities skewed toward non-classroom staff and activities plus poor enforcement of competitive bidding requirements, expensive contracting policies, poor financial discipline and poor business practices.
F19-7:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department does not follow best practices in developing and managing its operating budgets.
F19-8:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department staff frequently ignored direct orders from superiors, often going over their manager’s heads.
F19-9:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Facilities Department has not provided appropriate leadership in managing the capital program for the district. Approved project costs and schedules have not been controlled, required bidding was often avoided through exceptions, and the district’s use of the lease-leaseback method has not demonstrated cost savings or resulted in speedy completion of projects.
F19-10:
The Oakland Unified School District’s 50% local business utilization policy adds significant cost to projects.
F19-11:
The Oakland Unified School District has been using Measure J bond funds to pay rent (now over $12.5 million) for their administration offices at 1000 Broadway. There is no approved plan to relocate the district’s central administrative offices to a permanent location, raising serious legal questions about its continued use of bond funds to pay rent at 1000 Broadway.
F19-12:
The Oakland Unified School District’s culture is broken. It has been described as a district of exceptions with an attitude of “what’s in it for me?” These attitudes harm the district whether it is displayed as favoritism, nepotism, or disregard for board policies. Employees trying to change this culture and move the district forward are sidelined and sometimes forced to leave because the proposed changes “aren’t the way it’s done at OUSD.”
F19-13:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Board policies are out-of-date. 47 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
F19-14:
The Oakland Unified School District’s Board meetings and meeting processes create extraordinary burdens for Board members, the district’s management and staff, and the public. Excessively long meetings fail to focus the Board on its priorities and details, which results in a lack of actionable decisions on key issues.
F19-15:
The Oakland Unified School District Board has failed in its responsibilities to serve the students of Oakland. Collectively, the Board has not provided leadership and strategic direction to correct the severe financial problems facing the district.
F19-16:
Mismanagement of the review process by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors resulted in the loss of essential regional emergency preparedness training, leaving county residents less safe.
F19-17:
The Board of Supervisors failed to provide clear and complete guidelines to the ad hoc committee, particularly in regard to making recommendations that are consistent with grant guidelines.
F19-18:
The Board of Supervisors failed to ensure that the ad hoc committee worked with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office to assure a successful grant application.
F19-19:
The Board of Supervisors selected members to the ad hoc committee that virtually guaranteed partisan advocacy and predictable intractability.
F19-20:
The Board of Supervisors failed to involve county administrative staff for counsel and oversight, a practice routine for important votes involving grants, liability and expenditures.
F19-21:
The ad hoc committee failed to make available to the public materials under consideration at its meetings in a timely manner. 68 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
F19-22:
Although most independent living home operators are well intentioned and do their best to provide a safe and secure living environment for their tenants, profits are so low in this industry that the money needed for repairs, capital investments and suitable client services often does not exist.
F19-23:
Existing programs – Healthy Homes Department, Independent Living Association, Group Living Facilities Working Group – have laid the groundwork for a comprehensive approach to addressing independent living issues, but a lack of resources, coordination and focal leadership has limited their effectiveness. 83 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
F19-24:
There is a need for a searchable web-based database containing information about the location and quality of independent living homes in Alameda County. The database would allow investigators to systematically document complaints and conditions and would assist social workers and consumers to make appropriate placements.
F19-25:
The service area of the Group Living Facilities Working Group and the Group Living Strike Team is limited in geographic scope to unincorporated areas of Alameda County. Furthermore, the Strike Team is ad hoc and dependent on interpersonal relationships between individual agency staff.
F19-26:
The Department of Children and Family Services has not recruited and retained an adequate number of approved foster homes within Alameda County.
F19-27:
An excessive percentage (more than half) of Alameda County’s foster care placements are made to homes located outside of Alameda County, despite evidence that out-of-county placements are generally not in the best interests of foster children.
F19-28:
Average caseloads for Department of Family and Child Services emergency response and family maintenance child welfare social workers are too high, which is not conducive to the delivery of high-quality services to Alameda County’s foster children.
F19-29:
The Department of Children and Family Services has not been timely in its implementation of the Child and Family Team concept that is a central element of California’s Continuum of Care Reform legislation.
F19-30:
BART’s police department staffing has been insufficient to meet crime levels, as reported by an outside expert, who recommended substantially more patrol officers and revamped patrol assignments.
F19-31:
Although overall crime on BART is up only slightly from 2014 to 2018, the incidence of violent crime more than doubled during that time. All crime is serious, but the potential for violent crime is particularly frightening to riders. The high volume of lesser offenses, especially thefts of items like phones, computers, wallets, etc., dramatically affects riders’ perceptions of safety and well-being on the BART system.
F19-32:
Public concern about fare evasion has been one of the top issues on every customer satisfaction study since 2014. The lack of enforcement erodes confidence in BART and costs upwards of $25 million, or 5% of passenger revenue.
F19-33:
Cleanliness of BART trains and stations was the concern most cited in the Customer Satisfaction Study from 2012 through 2018. BART introduced several initiatives to target cleaning resources where most needed and to prevent messes in the first place (e.g., elevator attendants, Pit Stop program). However, continuing dissatisfaction with cleanliness was repeatedly cited in the most recent survey, in large part due to an increase in the homeless population using BART facilities.
F19-34:
Board-related documents are difficult to find on the BART website because some, especially those related to the board, are not searchable.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To inquire into all public offenses committed or triable within the county (Penal Code §917);
R2:
To inquire into the case of any person imprisoned and not indicted (Penal Code §919(a));
R3:
To inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every description within the county (Penal Code §919(c));
R4:
To inquire into sales, transfers, and ownership of lands which might or should revert to the state by operation of law (Penal Code §920); 140 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
R5:
To examine, if it chooses, the books and records of a special purpose, assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly in the county and the methods or systems of performing the duties of such district or commission. (Penal Code §933.5);
R6:
To submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to the county government (Penal Code §933), with a copy transmitted to each member of the Board of Supervisors of the county (Penal Code §928); and,
R7:
To submit its findings on the operation of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority. The governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility (Penal Code §914.1) and shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. (Penal Code §933(c)). Secrecy/Confidentiality Members of the grand jury are sworn to secrecy and all grand jury proceedings are secret. This secrecy guards the public interest and protects the confidentiality of sources. The minutes and records of grand jury meetings cannot be subpoenaed or inspected by anyone. Each grand juror must keep secret all evidence presented before the Grand Jury, anything said within the Grand Jury, or the manner in which any grand juror may have voted on a matter (Penal Code §924.1). The grand juror’s promise or oath of secrecy is binding for life. It is a misdemeanor to violate the secrecy of the grand jury room. Successful performance of grand jury duties depends upon the secrecy of all proceedings. A grand juror must not divulge any information concerning the testimony of witnesses or comments made by other grand jurors. The confidentiality of interviewees and complainants is critical. Legal Advisors In the performance of its duties, the grand jury may ask the advice (including legal opinions) of the district attorney, the presiding judge of the superior court, or the county counsel. This can be done by telephone, in writing, or the person may be asked to attend a grand jury session. The district attorney may appear before the grand jury at all times for the purpose of giving information or advice. Under Penal Code section 936, the California Attorney General may also be consulted when the grand jury's usual advisor is disqualified. The grand jury has no inherent investigatory powers beyond those granted by the legislature. 141 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ Annual Final Report At the end of its year of service, a grand jury is required to submit a final report to the superior court. This report contains an account of its activities, together with findings and recommendations. The final report represents the investigations of the entire grand jury. Citizen Complaints As part of its civil function, the grand jury receives complaints from citizens alleging government inefficiencies, suspicion of misconduct or mistreatment by officials, or misuse of taxpayer money. Complaints are acknowledged and may be investigated for their validity. All complaints are confidential. If the situation warrants and corrective action falls within the jurisdiction of the grand jury, appropriate solutions are recommended. The grand jury receives dozens of complaints each year. With many investigations and the time constraint of only one year, it is necessary for each grand jury to make difficult decisions as to what it wishes to investigate during its term. When the grand jury receives a complaint it must first decide whether or not an investigation is warranted. The grand jury is not required by law to accept or act on every complaint or request. In order to maintain the confidentiality of complaints and investigations, the Alameda County Grand Jury only accepts complaints in writing. Complaints should include the name of the persons or agency in question, listing specific dates, incidents or violations. The names of any persons or agencies contacted should be included along with any documentation or responses received. Complainants should include their names and addresses in the event the grand jury wishes to contact them for further information. A complaint form can be obtained from the Grand Jury’s website at: http://grandjury.acgov.org/complaints.page. Complaints are accepted electronically via the website, by email ([email protected]), or by US Mail. Mail complaints to: Lakeside Drive, Suite 1104 Oakland, CA 94612 An acknowledgment letter is routinely sent within one week of receipt of a complaint. How to Become a Grand Juror Citizens who are qualified and able to provide one year of service, and who desire to be nominated for grand jury duty, may send a letter with their resume or complete a Grand Jury Questionnaire (contained at the end of this report) and mail it to: Office of the Jury Commissioner - Alameda County Superior Court, Grand Jury Selection, 1225 Fallon Street, 142 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ Room 100, Oakland, CA 94612; or by calling (510) 818-7575. On the basis of supervisory district, six members from each district for a total of 30 nominees are assigned for grand jury selection. After the list of 30 nominees is completed, the selection of 19 jurors who will actually be impaneled to serve for the year are selected by a random drawing. This is done in late June before the jury begins its yearly term on July 1. To obtain an application, please visit: www.acgov.org/grandjury. Qualification of Jurors Prospective grand jurors must possess the following qualifications pursuant to Penal Code section 893: be a citizen of the United States; at least 18 years of age; a resident of Alameda County for at least one year immediately before being selected; possess ordinary intelligence, sound judgement and fair character; and possess sufficient knowledge of the English language. Other desirable qualifications include: an open mind with concern for others’ positions and views; the ability to work well with others in a group; an interest in community affairs; possession of investigative skills and the ability to write reports; and a general knowledge of the functions and responsibilities of county and city government. A person may not serve on the grand jury if any of the following apply: the person is serving as a trial juror in any court in the state; the person has been discharged as a grand juror in any court of this state within one year; the person has been convicted of malfeasance in office or any felony or other high crime; or the person is serving as an elected public officer. Commitment Persons selected for grand jury service must make a commitment to serve a one-year term (July 1 through June 30). Grand jurors should be prepared, on average, to devote two days each week to grand jury meetings. Currently, the grand jury meets every Wednesday and Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., with additional days if needed. Grand jurors are required to complete and file a Statement of Economic Interest as defined by the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, as well as a Conflict of Interest form. Grand jurors are paid $15.00 per day for each day served, as well as a county mileage rate (currently 58 cents per mile) portal to portal, for personal vehicle usage. Persons selected for grand jury duty are provided with an extensive, month-long orientation and training program in July. This training includes tours of county facilities and orientation by elected officials, county and department heads, and others. The orientation and training, as well as the weekly grand jury meetings, take place in Oakland. An application is contained in this report for interested citizens. Selection for grand jury service is a great honor and one that offers an opportunity to be of value to the community. 143 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ CITIZEN COMPLAINT GUIDELINES The Alameda County Grand Jury welcomes communication from the public as it can provide valuable information regarding matters for investigation. Receipt of all complaints will be acknowledged. The information provided will be carefully reviewed to assist the Grand Jury in deciding what action, if any, to take. If the Grand Jury determines that a matter is within the legally permissible scope of its investigative powers and would warrant further inquiry, additional information may be requested. If the matter is determined not to be within the Grand Jury’s authority to investigate (e.g., a matter involving federal or state agencies or institutions, courts or court decisions, or a private dispute), there will be no further contact by the Grand Jury. By law, the Grand Jury is precluded from communicating the results of its investigation, except in one of its formal public reports. All communications are considered, but may not result in any action or report by the Grand Jury. The jurisdiction of the Alameda County Grand Jury includes the following: Consideration of evidence of misconduct by officials within Alameda County. Investigation and reports on operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments or functions of the county and cities, including special districts and joint powers agencies. Inquiry into the condition and management of jails within the county. A complaint form can be obtained from the Grand Jury’s website at: http://grandjury.acgov.org/complaints.page. Complaints are accepted via the website, by email, or US Mail. 144 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ HOW TO RESPOND TO FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS REPORT Pursuant to the California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the person or entity responding to each grand jury finding shall indicate one of the following:
R19:
– 20: Alameda County must provide ongoing support for the Healthy Homes Department’s Independent Living Initiative and implement a proactive rental inspection program that will identify and evaluate independent living homes throughout Alameda County, including incorporated areas.
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
19-30:
BART’s police department staffing has been insufficient to meet crime levels, as reported by an outside expert, who recommended substantially more patrol officers and revamped patrol assignments.
F19-30:
BART’s police department staffing has been insufficient to meet crime levels, as reported by an outside expert, who recommended substantially more patrol officers and revamped patrol assignments.
19-31:
Although overall crime on BART is up only slightly from 2014 to 2018, the incidence of violent crime more than doubled during that time. All crime is serious, but the potential for violent crime is particularly frightening to riders. The high volume of lesser offenses, especially thefts of items like phones, computers, wallets, etc., dramatically affects riders’ perceptions of safety and well-being on the BART system.
F19-31:
Although overall crime on BART is up only slightly from 2014 to 2018, the incidence of violent crime more than doubled during that time. All crime is serious, but the potential for violent crime is particularly frightening to riders. The high volume of lesser offenses, especially thefts of items like phones, computers, wallets, etc., dramatically affects riders’ perceptions of safety and well-being on the BART system.
19-32:
Public concern about fare evasion has been one of the top issues on every customer satisfaction study since 2014. The lack of enforcement erodes confidence in BART and costs upwards of $25 million, or 5% of passenger revenue.
F19-32:
Public concern about fare evasion has been one of the top issues on every customer satisfaction study since 2014. The lack of enforcement erodes confidence in BART and costs upwards of $25 million, or 5% of passenger revenue.
19-33:
Cleanliness of BART trains and stations was the concern most cited in the Customer Satisfaction Study from 2012 through 2018. BART introduced several initiatives to target cleaning resources where most needed and to prevent messes in the first place (e.g., elevator attendants, Pit Stop program). However, continuing dissatisfaction with cleanliness was repeatedly cited in the most recent survey, in large part due to an increase in the homeless population using BART facilities.
F19-33:
Cleanliness of BART trains and stations was the concern most cited in the Customer Satisfaction Study from 2012 through 2018. BART introduced several initiatives to target cleaning resources where most needed and to prevent messes in the first place (e.g., elevator attendants, Pit Stop program). However, continuing dissatisfaction with cleanliness was repeatedly cited in the most recent survey, in large part due to an increase in the homeless population using BART facilities.
19-34:
Board-related documents are difficult to find on the BART website because some, especially those related to the board, are not searchable.
F19-34:
Board-related documents are difficult to find on the BART website because some, especially those related to the board, are not searchable.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
19-26:
The Department of Children and Family Services has not recruited and retained an adequate number of approved foster homes within Alameda County.
F19-26:
The Department of Children and Family Services has not recruited and retained an adequate number of approved foster homes within Alameda County.
19-27:
An excessive percentage (more than half) of Alameda County’s foster care placements are made to homes located outside of Alameda County, despite evidence that out-of-county placements are generally not in the best interests of foster children.
F19-27:
An excessive percentage (more than half) of Alameda County’s foster care placements are made to homes located outside of Alameda County, despite evidence that out-of-county placements are generally not in the best interests of foster children.
19-28:
Average caseloads for Department of Family and Child Services emergency response and family maintenance child welfare social workers are too high, which is not conducive to the delivery of high-quality services to Alameda County’s foster children.
F19-28:
Average caseloads for Department of Family and Child Services emergency response and family maintenance child welfare social workers are too high, which is not conducive to the delivery of high-quality services to Alameda County’s foster children.
19-29:
The Department of Children and Family Services has not been timely in its implementation of the Child and Family Team concept that is a central element of California’s Continuum of Care Reform legislation.
F19-29:
The Department of Children and Family Services has not been timely in its implementation of the Child and Family Team concept that is a central element of California’s Continuum of Care Reform legislation.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
19-16:
Mismanagement of the review process by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors resulted in the loss of essential regional emergency preparedness training, leaving county residents less safe.
F19-16:
Mismanagement of the review process by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors resulted in the loss of essential regional emergency preparedness training, leaving county residents less safe.
19-17:
The Board of Supervisors failed to provide clear and complete guidelines to the ad hoc committee, particularly in regard to making
F19-17:
The Board of Supervisors failed to provide clear and complete guidelines to the ad hoc committee, particularly in regard to making recommendations that are consistent with grant guidelines.
19-18:
The Board of Supervisors failed to ensure that the ad hoc committee worked with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office to assure a successful grant application.
F19-18:
The Board of Supervisors failed to ensure that the ad hoc committee worked with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office to assure a successful grant application.
19-19:
The Board of Supervisors selected members to the ad hoc committee that virtually guaranteed partisan advocacy and predictable intractability.
F19-19:
The Board of Supervisors selected members to the ad hoc committee that virtually guaranteed partisan advocacy and predictable intractability.
19-20:
The Board of Supervisors failed to involve county administrative staff for counsel and oversight, a practice routine for important votes involving grants, liability and expenditures.
F19-20:
The Board of Supervisors failed to involve county administrative staff for counsel and oversight, a practice routine for important votes involving grants, liability and expenditures.
19-21:
The ad hoc committee failed to make available to the public materials under consideration at its meetings in a timely manner.
F19-21:
The ad hoc committee failed to make available to the public materials under consideration at its meetings in a timely manner. 68