Alameda County Grand Jury
2020-2021
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 (5)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F21-1:
Interference in the chancellors’ recommended appointments of management employees by Peralta trustees between 2018 and 2020 irreparably damaged the chancellor/board governance relationship.
F21-2:
Individual board member interference in the formal hiring process of management employees between 2018 and 2020 by performing informal vetting and challenging the formal recruitment/vetting process and chancellor recommendations, irreparably harmed the chancellor/board governance relationship.
F21-3:
Holding closed session discussions to reevaluate the formal recruitment/vetting process and chancellor recommendations of management employees between 2018 and 2020 compromised the fair and independent hiring process. 35 2020-2021 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ____________________________________________________________________________________
F21-4:
Peralta Board Policy 7110 which gives the Peralta Board of Trustees the power to approve the appointment of management employees was interpreted by the board between 2018 and 2020 in a manner that conflicts with Board Policy 2430 Delegation of Authority to the Chancellor and the portion of Board Policy 7110 that delegates the authority for human resources to the chancellor. Incivility
F21-5:
Individual board members’ incivility and harsh treatment of other trustees and administrators between 2018 and 2020 damaged staff morale and compromised the authority of the chancellor and other administrators.
F21-6:
The 2018-2020 Peralta Board of Trustees failed to recognize that disrespectful and demeaning comments directed at staff were interpreted as racially insensitive which consequently damaged district morale and board/administrator relationships.
F21-7:
Board leadership between 2018-2020 consistently failed to intervene consistent with board policies in situations where board members and staff were treated in an uncivil and harsh manner by other board members and the public. Brown Act
F21-8:
During the late-night hours of July 18, 2020, a majority of the Peralta Board of Trustees secretly met with academic leaders to discuss district business, excluding the public and three trustees who would have disagreed with the purpose of the meeting. The gathering violated the sanctity of participatory governance in California as described in the Brown Act.
F21-9:
On the morning of July 19, 2020, a majority of the Peralta Academic Senate met secretly to discuss district business with other academic leaders and one Peralta trustee without proper notice and public access. The gathering violated the sanctity of participatory governance in California as described in the Brown Act. 36 2020-2021 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ____________________________________________________________________________________
F21-10:
The Oakland Police Department failed to fill the victims of crime liaison officer in accordance with Cal. Gov. Code § 13962(c) and 2 CCR § 649.36 and by OPD’s own general orders, in a timely fashion, causing lost opportunity for the victims of violent crime to obtain needed support. The Oakland Police Department was aware of the directive and in April 2021 complied with the requirement.
F21-11:
Failing to have a victims of crime liaison officer for years, the Oakland Police Department missed out on relevant and available training mandated by Cal. Gov. Code sec. [13962(d).]
F21-12:
Racial disparities exist in the number of applications for crime victim compensation that are denied for lack of cooperation with law enforcement, lack of cooperation with the claims group, and involvement in events leading to crimes. Black applicants receive a disproportionate number of denials for these reasons compared to applicants in other racial/ethnic categories.
F21-13:
The claims group relies on information from law enforcement as the basis of their determinations that an applicant or victim has failed to cooperate or was involved in events leading to crimes. 50 2020-2021 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ____________________________________________________________________________________
F21-14:
Determinations about cooperativeness and involvement include subjective judgments on the part of police and other law enforcement personnel that could lead to a denial of victim compensation funds, and consequently are relatively more likely to be influenced by overt or implicit bias, among other factors.
F21-15:
The Oakland Police Department’s website is maintained in an opaque fashion with no provision for globally searching for any particular policy or procedure.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
21-1:
Interference in the chancellors’ recommended appointments of management employees by Peralta trustees between 2018 and 2020 irreparably damaged the chancellor/board governance relationship.
F21-1:
Interference in the chancellors’ recommended appointments of management employees by Peralta trustees between 2018 and 2020 irreparably damaged the chancellor/board governance relationship.
21-2:
Individual board member interference in the formal hiring process of management employees between 2018 and 2020 by performing informal vetting and challenging the formal recruitment/vetting process and chancellor
F21-2:
Individual board member interference in the formal hiring process of management employees between 2018 and 2020 by performing informal vetting and challenging the formal recruitment/vetting process and chancellor recommendations, irreparably harmed the chancellor/board governance relationship.
21-3:
Holding closed session discussions to reevaluate the formal recruitment/vetting process and chancellor
F21-3:
Holding closed session discussions to reevaluate the formal recruitment/vetting process and chancellor recommendations of management employees between 2018 and 2020 compromised the fair and independent hiring process. 35
21-4:
Peralta Board Policy 7110 which gives the Peralta Board of Trustees the power to approve the appointment of management employees was interpreted by the board between 2018 and 2020 in a manner that conflicts with Board Policy 2430 Delegation of Authority to the Chancellor and the portion of Board Policy 7110 that delegates the authority for human resources to the chancellor. Incivility
F21-4:
Peralta Board Policy 7110 which gives the Peralta Board of Trustees the power to approve the appointment of management employees was interpreted by the board between 2018 and 2020 in a manner that conflicts with Board Policy 2430 Delegation of Authority to the Chancellor and the portion of Board Policy 7110 that delegates the authority for human resources to the chancellor. Incivility
21-5:
Individual board members’ incivility and harsh treatment of other trustees and administrators between 2018 and 2020 damaged staff morale and compromised the authority of the chancellor and other administrators.
F21-5:
Individual board members’ incivility and harsh treatment of other trustees and administrators between 2018 and 2020 damaged staff morale and compromised the authority of the chancellor and other administrators.
21-6:
The 2018-2020 Peralta Board of Trustees failed to recognize that disrespectful and demeaning comments directed at staff were interpreted as racially insensitive which consequently damaged district morale and board/administrator relationships.
F21-6:
The 2018-2020 Peralta Board of Trustees failed to recognize that disrespectful and demeaning comments directed at staff were interpreted as racially insensitive which consequently damaged district morale and board/administrator relationships.
21-7:
Board leadership between 2018-2020 consistently failed to intervene consistent with board policies in situations where board members and staff were treated in an uncivil and harsh manner by other board members and the public. Brown Act
F21-7:
Board leadership between 2018-2020 consistently failed to intervene consistent with board policies in situations where board members and staff were treated in an uncivil and harsh manner by other board members and the public. Brown Act
21-8:
During the late-night hours of July 18, 2020, a majority of the Peralta Board of Trustees secretly met with academic leaders to discuss district business, excluding the public and three trustees who would have disagreed with the purpose of the meeting. The gathering violated the sanctity of participatory governance in California as described in the Brown Act.
F21-8:
During the late-night hours of July 18, 2020, a majority of the Peralta Board of Trustees secretly met with academic leaders to discuss district business, excluding the public and three trustees who would have disagreed with the purpose of the meeting. The gathering violated the sanctity of participatory governance in California as described in the Brown Act.
21-9:
On the morning of July 19, 2020, a majority of the Peralta Academic Senate met secretly to discuss district business with other academic leaders and one Peralta trustee without proper notice and public access. The gathering violated the sanctity of participatory governance in California as described in the Brown Act.
F21-9:
On the morning of July 19, 2020, a majority of the Peralta Academic Senate met secretly to discuss district business with other academic leaders and one Peralta trustee without proper notice and public access. The gathering violated the sanctity of participatory governance in California as described in the Brown Act. 36
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
21-9:
The Peralta Board of Trustees must discuss the
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F21-1:
Interference in the chancellors’ recommended appointments of management employees by Peralta trustees between 2018 and 2020 irreparably damaged the chancellor/board governance relationship.
F21-2:
Individual board member interference in the formal hiring process of management employees between 2018 and 2020 by performing informal vetting and challenging the formal recruitment/vetting process and chancellor recommendations, irreparably harmed the chancellor/board governance relationship.
F21-3:
Holding closed session discussions to reevaluate the formal recruitment/vetting process and chancellor recommendations of management employees between 2018 and 2020 compromised the fair and independent hiring process. 35 2020-2021 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ____________________________________________________________________________________
F21-4:
Peralta Board Policy 7110 which gives the Peralta Board of Trustees the power to approve the appointment of management employees was interpreted by the board between 2018 and 2020 in a manner that conflicts with Board Policy 2430 Delegation of Authority to the Chancellor and the portion of Board Policy 7110 that delegates the authority for human resources to the chancellor. Incivility
F21-5:
Individual board members’ incivility and harsh treatment of other trustees and administrators between 2018 and 2020 damaged staff morale and compromised the authority of the chancellor and other administrators.
F21-6:
The 2018-2020 Peralta Board of Trustees failed to recognize that disrespectful and demeaning comments directed at staff were interpreted as racially insensitive which consequently damaged district morale and board/administrator relationships.
F21-7:
Board leadership between 2018-2020 consistently failed to intervene consistent with board policies in situations where board members and staff were treated in an uncivil and harsh manner by other board members and the public. Brown Act
F21-8:
During the late-night hours of July 18, 2020, a majority of the Peralta Board of Trustees secretly met with academic leaders to discuss district business, excluding the public and three trustees who would have disagreed with the purpose of the meeting. The gathering violated the sanctity of participatory governance in California as described in the Brown Act.
F21-9:
On the morning of July 19, 2020, a majority of the Peralta Academic Senate met secretly to discuss district business with other academic leaders and one Peralta trustee without proper notice and public access. The gathering violated the sanctity of participatory governance in California as described in the Brown Act. 36 2020-2021 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ____________________________________________________________________________________
F21-10:
The Oakland Police Department failed to fill the victims of crime liaison officer in accordance with Cal. Gov. Code § 13962(c) and 2 CCR § 649.36 and by OPD’s own general orders, in a timely fashion, causing lost opportunity for the victims of violent crime to obtain needed support. The Oakland Police Department was aware of the directive and in April 2021 complied with the requirement.
F21-11:
Failing to have a victims of crime liaison officer for years, the Oakland Police Department missed out on relevant and available training mandated by Cal. Gov. Code sec. [13962(d).]
F21-12:
Racial disparities exist in the number of applications for crime victim compensation that are denied for lack of cooperation with law enforcement, lack of cooperation with the claims group, and involvement in events leading to crimes. Black applicants receive a disproportionate number of denials for these reasons compared to applicants in other racial/ethnic categories.
F21-13:
The claims group relies on information from law enforcement as the basis of their determinations that an applicant or victim has failed to cooperate or was involved in events leading to crimes. 50 2020-2021 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ____________________________________________________________________________________
F21-14:
Determinations about cooperativeness and involvement include subjective judgments on the part of police and other law enforcement personnel that could lead to a denial of victim compensation funds, and consequently are relatively more likely to be influenced by overt or implicit bias, among other factors.
F21-15:
The Oakland Police Department’s website is maintained in an opaque fashion with no provision for globally searching for any particular policy or procedure.
F21-16:
Local ballot questions, as currently written, were not always fully transparent, complete, and impartial, impeding voters from making informed decisions.
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
21-10:
The Oakland Police Department failed to fill the victims of crime liaison officer in accordance with Cal. Gov. Code § 13962(c) and 2 CCR § 649.36 and by OPD’s own general orders, in a timely fashion, causing lost opportunity for the victims of violent crime to obtain needed support. The Oakland Police Department was aware of the directive and in April 2021 complied with the requirement.
F21-10:
The Oakland Police Department failed to fill the victims of crime liaison officer in accordance with Cal. Gov. Code § 13962(c) and 2 CCR § 649.36 and by OPD’s own general orders, in a timely fashion, causing lost opportunity for the victims of violent crime to obtain needed support. The Oakland Police Department was aware of the directive and in April 2021 complied with the requirement.
21-11:
Failing to have a victims of crime liaison officer for years, the Oakland Police Department missed out on relevant and available training mandated by Cal. Gov. Code sec. [13962(d).]
F21-11:
Failing to have a victims of crime liaison officer for years, the Oakland Police Department missed out on relevant and available training mandated by Cal. Gov. Code sec. [13962(d).]
21-12:
Racial disparities exist in the number of applications for crime victim compensation that are denied for lack of cooperation with law enforcement, lack of cooperation with the claims group, and involvement in events leading to crimes. Black applicants receive a disproportionate number of denials for these reasons compared to applicants in other racial/ethnic categories.
F21-12:
Racial disparities exist in the number of applications for crime victim compensation that are denied for lack of cooperation with law enforcement, lack of cooperation with the claims group, and involvement in events leading to crimes. Black applicants receive a disproportionate number of denials for these reasons compared to applicants in other racial/ethnic categories.
21-13:
The claims group relies on information from law enforcement as the basis of their determinations that an applicant or victim has failed to cooperate or was involved in events leading to crimes.
F21-13:
The claims group relies on information from law enforcement as the basis of their determinations that an applicant or victim has failed to cooperate or was involved in events leading to crimes. 50
21-14:
Determinations about cooperativeness and involvement include subjective judgments on the part of police and other law enforcement personnel that could lead to a denial of victim compensation funds, and consequently are relatively more likely to be influenced by overt or implicit bias, among other factors.
F21-14:
Determinations about cooperativeness and involvement include subjective judgments on the part of police and other law enforcement personnel that could lead to a denial of victim compensation funds, and consequently are relatively more likely to be influenced by overt or implicit bias, among other factors.
21-15:
The Oakland Police Department’s website is maintained in an opaque fashion with no provision for globally searching for any particular policy or procedure.
F21-15:
The Oakland Police Department’s website is maintained in an opaque fashion with no provision for globally searching for any particular policy or procedure.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports, not grand jury reports or responses.