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
3 findings
F1:
To inquire into all public offenses committed or triable within the county (Penal Code §917); 2. To inquire into the case of any person imprisoned and not indicted (Penal Code §919(a)); 3. To inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every description within the county (Penal Code §919(c)); 4. To inquire into sales, transfers, and ownership of lands which might or should revert to the state by operation of law (Penal Code §920); 82 5. 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); 6. 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, 7. 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. 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 (grandjury@acgov.org), 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 complete a grand jury application found on the grand jury website. On the basis of supervisorial districts, approximately six members from each district 84 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 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 complete an online 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. Selection for grand jury service is a great honor and one that offers an opportunity to be of value to the community. Hills of Rural Castro Valley, Alameda County, CA 86 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; and • inquiry into the condition and management of jails within the county. A complaint form can be submitted on the grand jury’s website at: http://grandjury.acgov.org/complaints.page. Complaints are accepted via the website, by email, or US Mail. Ballena Bay, Alameda, CA 88 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: 1. The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The respondent agrees with the finding.
F2:
The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. The person or entity responding to each grand jury recommendation shall report one of the following actions: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. The person or entity responding to each grand jury recommendation shall report one of the following actions:
F3:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency where applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency where applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. SEND ALL RESPONSES TO: Presiding Judge Tara M. Desautels Alameda County Superior Court 1225 Fallon Street, Department One Oakland, California 94612 A COPY MUST ALSO BE SENT TO: Cassie Barner c/o Lakeside Drive, Suite 1104 Oakland, California 94612 All responses for the 2020-2021 Grand Jury Final Report must be submitted no later than 90 days after the public release of the report. Boat Rowing on Lake Merritt, Oakland, CA 90
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
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.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
21-16:
Local ballot questions, as currently written, were not always fully transparent, complete, and impartial, impeding voters from making informed decisions.
F21-16:
Local ballot questions, as currently written, were not always fully transparent, complete, and impartial, impeding voters from making informed decisions.