Los Angeles County 1975-1976 - California Grand Jury Reports

F1: Deputy District Attorney cases presented: 32; Heard by Grand Jury: 32. The subject matter of cases heard by the Grand Jury this year ran the gamut of crime: murder, rape, kidnapping, robbery, grand theft, bombing, youth gang killing, extortion, conspiracy, embezzlement, shoplifting, pandering, perjury, and many types of fraud. An average of twenty-two Grand Jurors attended and participated in each hearing.

Página 1

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Juvenile Court seek to implement the Juvenile Action Coordinating Committee's regionalization plan as modified, and that the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Courts retain authority and jurisdiction over all of the Juvenile Courts in the County.

F2: Indictments returned: 31; Indictments rejected: 1.

Página 1

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors allocate funds to renovate the Juvenile Court building at Eastlake rather than having it demolished and rebuilt.

F3: Number of suspects: 96; Number indicted: 86.

Página 1

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: The Grand Jury recommends that the Juvenile Court establish three detention regions, each to be centered at one of the Juvenile Halls and encompassing the adjacent Juvenile Court regions. Appointment of Judicial Personnel The staff that is responsible for the judicial phase of the Juvenile Justice System can be improved in several ways. The Committee recommends changes in the appoint- ment of judges, the role of the District Attorney, and the use of investigators in juvenile cases. Currently, Superior Court judges are assigned to the Juvenile Court for a one-year term. This short-term assignment is the result of the Juvenile Court being unpopular with most judges. Nonetheless, we believe the expertise gained in juvenile matters by the judges should not be wasted by a short-term assignment. Instead, we believe that the minimum period of Juvenile Court service should be two years. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that judges serve a two-year minimum term in the Juvenile Court and be encouraged to serve a longer term and specialize in the Juvenile Justice System. Role of the District Attorney The District Attorney in Adult Court represents the People. He files charges, controls subpoenas and investigators, and is able to prepare a well-researched case. In Juvenile Court he appears, by law, only at the Probation Department's invitation. He may or may not review the petition, but has no jurisdiction to file it. He does not control the subpoena process and is not assigned investigators. In short, he knows little, or nothing, about the case before he is called upon to present it. The Grand Jury submitted an interim recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on March 2, 1976 concerning investigators for the District Attorney's Juvenile Division. The text of the letter read as follows: It has come to the attention of the Juvenile Justice Committee of the Grand Jury that the District Attorney's Juvenile Division, vested with the responsibility of prosecuting all juvenile crime, has no Case Investigators assigned to it. In contrast the Public Defender's Office, which defends only about 70% of the juvenile cases, has ten investi- gators assigned to its Juvenile Division. We believe the People of the State of California should be as adequately prepared to prosecute serious juvenile felonies as they are to prosecute adult cases. In view of the pervasive juvenile crime problem in the County it is essential that all levels of the Juvenile Justice System be adequately staffed, and that the District Attorney be well-equipped with thorough investigations and available witnesses. At the present time the Deputy District Attorney must rely largely upon the information provided by the Probation Department's petitions and such further investigations as can be provided by police agencies. Current procedure for the prosecution of juvenile crime has been undermined by this lack of investigators. For the same reasons that it was necessary to assign investigators to adult cases, it is necessary to assign investigators to juvenile cases. Cases should not be lost because there is no one to locate witnesses, to do last minute investigation, and to verify or negate defense claims, as is presently happening every day. Vigorous yet fair prosecution requires that there be an adequate number of investigators for both the prosecution and the defense. The Grand Jury urges the Supervisors to take immediate action to correct this situation in our Juvenile Justice System. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney's Juvenile Division be budgeted for 20 Case Investigators, 1 Supervising Investigator and 8 stenographers for secretarial support. Inasmuch as there are no prior statistics available regarding the investigative effort required for the Juvenile Division, this number may not be adequate. Based on 1975 statistics, our request would assign 1350 cases per investigator per year. As of the writing of this report, no action had been taken by the Board of Supervisors. An Additional interim recommendation made to the Board of Supervisors on April 5, 1976 concerned the Committee's review of legislative proposals designed to improve the Juvenile Justice System. The text of the recommendation read as follows: The Juvenile Justice Committee of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury has looked into many proposals designed to improve the Juvenile Justice System. We have found in Assembly Bill 3121, authored by Assemblyman Julian Dixon, positive and constructive steps necessary to correct the current system. We are convinced that stronger actions should be taken against major juvenile offenders. The Dixon Bill provides for this by requiring that juvenile offenders charged with com- mitting violent crimes be tried as adults. This will result in removing these major offenders from Juvenile Hall and housing them instead in the County Jail facility, thus eliminating the mixing of the immature and unsophisticated juvenile offender with the major offender. We are pleased that the Dixon Bill legitimizes the presence of the District Attorney in juvenile court proceedings, so that he is there as a matter of right as the Peoples' prosecutor rather than simply by the invitation of the Court. We strongly endorse the Court of Reconciliation, which is provided for in the Dixon Bill, where juveniles with minor problems can be handled in a non-adversary proceeding. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury feels that Assembly Bill 3121 is well-drafted, and recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct its legislative advocates to work towards its passage. The Board of Supervisors did not approve this recommendation, and voted to oppose Assembly Bill 3121. On-Call System for Witnesses An on-call system for witnesses is in operation in the adult courts, but, except for the Norwalk Pilot Project, not in the Juvenile Courts. Under this system the subpoenaed witness comes to court to testify only when and if called. Statistics show that of all subpoenaed witnesses, only about one-third are actually called to testify. This represents a substantial saving to both the County and the witnesses in both time and money. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends the adoption of the on-call system for witnesses in all Juvenile Courts. Police Reports Police reports from different jurisdictions vary widely in quality. The Committee has found that quality relates directly to whether police reports are typewritten or hand- written. Handwritten reports tend to be very brief, frequently illegible, and often lacking in essential information, including the names of some witnesses. Typewritten reports on the other hand, besides being legible, typically contain far more infor- mation. Paucity of information often makes the difference between a case dismissal or successful prosecution. The Committee was surprised to learn that two of the largest police agencies in the County, the Sheriff's Department and the Los Angeles Police Department, use hand- written reports. The explanation given was that funds for clerical personnel and equipment for typewritten reports have never been budgeted. The Long Beach Police Department, however, has been producing typewritten reports for many years. Their systems and procedures were studied by the Committee. In Long Beach the police officer calls in his report to the station by telephone, directly into a tape recorder. A standard report form is used to prevent omission of essential information. The officer may call from the victim's home or the nearest telephone. He is assigned a serial number for the case at the time of the report, which he gives the victim for future reference. The victim can make on-the-spot corrections to the report, or can telephone them in later. Typists are on duty at the station around the clock. The report is quickly typewritten directly from the tape. Copies are then distributed. The typists also prepare follow- up reports, walk-in complaint reports, and take dictation from officers directly after a booking. The ratio of typists to patrol officers is approximately 1 to 20. The Committee learned that the cost of the clerical personnel and the equipment is more than balanced by the savings in time for the police officers. Advantages of typewritten reports include greater legibility and more detailed information for investigators, district attorneys, and judges. This results in a higher conviction rate. Not to be overlooked is the public relations aspect of inviting the victim's participation in the process. We conclude that there is no financial justification for not having typewritten police reports. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, The Los Angeles Police Department, and any other city police departments, presently using handwritten police reports take the necessary steps to implement the use of typewritten police reports. C. Disposition of Juvenile Cases At present the courts have several options in reference to the disposition of juveniles following their court hearing. The court may place a juvenile at the California Youth Authority, a detention camp, a placement home, or return him to his home on probation. It is the current practice that a juvenile disposition, following a finding of delinquency, must be based on the "needs" of the juvenile offender rather than on the nature of the act committed or any concern for the protection of society. This practice has led to community outrage when it is applied to juvenile perpetrators of violent crime. The Committee feels that dispositions based solely on "the best interests of the child" and the unfettered exercise of discretionary decision-making in closed proceedings are unwise, and should be replaced by legislation instituting new procedures which recognize the protection of the community as a legitimate concern of the Juvenile Courts. The Committee also feels that a disposition should be consistent with the gravity of the offense. During the course of the year, the Committee undertook a number of field investi- gations. The Committee inspected six camps housing boys ages 13-18 and ages 16-18 who had committed criminal offenses. They also inspected the California Youth Authority and various detention homes. Camps For the most part the camps visited were adequately staffed by well-trained, dedicated people who have a good rapport with minors. Programs at Paige and Afflerbaugh offer skills in forestry, fire fighting, auto mechanics, welding, gardening and arts and crafts. The Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation Department operates a 35-acre nursery which provides job skills in tree boxing and planting assignments around the County. The Forestry Department offers basic techniques in forestry management. These provide the boys with on-the-job training and an opportunity of employment upon their release. The quality of education differs in each camp. All attempt to provide basic fundamentals which the minor lacks. The abilities of the boys vary greatly from first grade to college level. Programs consequently require a close relationship between student and teacher. This requires individualized teaching modes for each resident. The Committee found that cleanliness was uniform in the dorms, kitchen areas and classrooms, and that the grounds were well-kept. The boys often take pride in their work and are generally well-mannered, respectful, and cooperative, indicating a good self-image. Counseling is responsible for reversing and modifying their anti-social attitudes, hostility and aggressive behavior. Each Deputy Probation Officer develops an individual treatment plan according to the needs of the boys assigned to him. Treatment may also include family counseling. At some camps, entering boys were provided with written instructions containing rules and regulations to facilitate the ability of the minor to conform to camp requirements. The Committee noted that in many instances medical reports or probation reports accompanying the juvenile to camp were incomplete. In other cases there were no reports. These deficiencies have sometimes resulted in an inability to provide proper care. Placement Homes Members of the Juvenile Justice Committee visited five detention homes, each one different in character to accommodate the type of child placed there. These visits revealed that: generally, housing was adequate and well-kept; supervision was good; adequate programs were provided; Department of Public Social Services reports were not always adequate, as often the minor arrived without medical records and/or case history; and medical services and counseling were provided as needed. The Committee feels that vocational training should be provided for children ages 15 to 18 in these homes, and that every effort should be made by the home to assist these teenagers in securing employment upon their release. After a comprehensive survey, the Committee discovered a lack of facilities for the care of the severely emotionally disturbed child. At present, Los Angeles County has 45 beds available for these children, although there is a demonstrated need for at least 200 beds. RECOMMENDATIONS

F4: Number of counts: 417; Number of overt acts: 251.

Página 1

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R4: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors take appro- priate action to develop additional facilities for the care of severely emotionally disturbed children. Short-Term Placement At present the juvenile court judge has no option but to release the juvenile into the community or commit him to detention for at least six months. The Committee has become convinced that a short-term program, 60 to 90 days, would provide an additional option which would be of benefit to many minors and tend to discourage their further involvement in criminal activity. The Committee has learned that Nike Site No. 88, on Oat Mountain in Chatsworth, has been approved for acquisition by the Board of Supervisors. The Probation Department has proposed using the existing buildings and appurtenances and occupying this facility for a short-term (60 to 90 day) treatment program for 60 delinquent boys who are first-time offenders. This program will provide an alternative placement for the Juvenile Court, relieve the pressure on County detention facilities, and may affect the rate of juvenile recidivism. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors and the Probation Department take appropriate action to open the Oat Mountain facility as a short-term detention facility as soon as possible. Joyce Whittlesey, Chairman Edith Bogen Mary Lou Howard, Vice Chairman Frieda Chaikin Mary Kimball, Secretary Tillman Thomas Elaine Young CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE PURPOSE The Criminal Complaints Committee is responsible for approval or investigation of all cases referred to the Grand Jury for hearings; complaints from citizens; and requests for subpoenas. It may also focus its attention on various aspects of law enforcement and the criminal justice system. AREAS OF CONCERN A. Criminal Cases and Correspondence B. Sentencing Procedure Reform C. Insurance Fraud in Vehicle Accidents D. Release of Defendants Pending Appeal E. High-speed Vehicle Flight to Avoid Police F. Criminal Investigative Subpoenas G. Witness Inconveniences FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Criminal Cases and Correspondence The Criminal Complaints Committee of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury performs a function which, to the best of its knowledge, is unique among all the State and Federal Grand Juries within the United States. By a long-standing tradition, the District Attorney of Los Angeles County has permitted this Committee to decide which cases his office may present to the full Grand Jury. This function permits the Jury to allocate its time between civil and criminal matters. Less than one-half of one percent of the felony cases in Los Angeles County are presented to the Grand Jury for possible indictment. Criminal hearings conducted by the Grand Jury generally involve: high-publicity crimes (misconduct of professionals or public officials); prominent murder cases; cases involving multiple suspects or large amounts of money or narcotics; cases involving hundreds or thousands of pieces of evidence; cases involving out-of- state and out-of-County witnesses; cases where the Grand Jury offers special advantages, such as when the Statute of Limitations must be tolled; cases where some suspects are in custody and others are not, permitting one Grand Jury hearing rather than a multitude of preliminary hearings; cases in which evidence is consolidated in one presentation rather than a number of separate hearings; and cases in which it is necessary to protect witnesses against fear and intimidation. The Committee also approves any request for Grand Jury investigative subpoenas necessary to gather documentary evidence during the investigational stages of a case. The Committee receives correspondence from citizens who believe they have evidence of criminal conduct that has not been properly handled by a law enforcement agency. All such correspondence is acknowledged and carefully reviewed; and investigations are ordered where appropriate. The police agencies or the District Attorney's Office are requested to make thorough investigations where the facts appear to justify it. The Committee also studies the functioning of the criminal justice system in order to find those areas in which recommendations for improvement may be made. The following statistics summarize the activities of the Criminal Complaints Committee and of the Grand Jury regarding our criminal investigations functions for the first ten months of our term.

F5: Number of witnesses heard: 595.

Página 1

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: Number of witnesses heard: 595.

F6: Number of exhibits reviewed: 3,125.

Página 1

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: Number of exhibits reviewed: 3,125.

F7: Days devoted to hearings: 67.

Página 1

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R7: Days devoted to hearings: 67.

F8: Letters of complaint received: 100; Formal investigations initiated: 28. Another statistic of interest is the saving of court time as a result of bringing a case before the Grand Jury rather than proceeding by way of Preliminary Hearing in the Municipal Court. It is estimated that the normal Preliminary Hearing takes approxi- mately four times as many days as a Grand Jury hearing. Using that figure, the Grand Jury's 32 hearings during this ten month period saved the courts over 200 days. B. Sentencing Procedure Reform The Committee is concerned about the differing sentencing practices of the various judges in Los Angeles County. Equal justice demands that defendants with similar records who have been convicted of similar crimes should receive similar sentences. However, this is not the fact in Los Angeles County. A Rand Report entitled "Prosecution of Adult Felony Defendants in Los Angeles County" points out that there are gross inequities in sentencing. Under the recent case of People v. Edwards, 55 Cal. App. 3d 615, sentencing judges are required to state on the record their reasons for denying a defendant probation. This case is now on appeal to the California Supreme Court. If the Edwards decision is not overturned and remains the law in California, the Committee believes legis- lation is required to make its terms evenhanded. This could be achieved if sentencing judges were required to state on the record their reasons for granting probation as well as those for denying it. The Appellate Courts of California would then have a complete record with all the necessary information to review whether a trial court judge has properly exercised his discretion in granting or denying probation. The Appellate Courts have the power to reverse the case and return it to the trial court or to modify the sentence if they conclude that the trial court judge acted improperly. It is hoped that when sentencing judges state their reasons on the record for granting or denying probation this will tend to produce a degree of uniformity in sentencing.

Página 1

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R8: Letters of complaint received: 100; Formal investigations initiated: 28. Another statistic of interest is the saving of court time as a result of bringing a case before the Grand Jury rather than proceeding by way of Preliminary Hearing in the Municipal Court. It is estimated that the normal Preliminary Hearing takes approxi- mately four times as many days as a Grand Jury hearing. Using that figure, the Grand Jury's 32 hearings during this ten month period saved the courts over 200 days. B. Sentencing Procedure Reform The Committee is concerned about the differing sentencing practices of the various judges in Los Angeles County. Equal justice demands that defendants with similar records who have been convicted of similar crimes should receive similar sentences. However, this is not the fact in Los Angeles County. A Rand Report entitled "Prosecution of Adult Felony Defendants in Los Angeles County" points out that there are gross inequities in sentencing. Under the recent case of People v. Edwards, 55 Cal. App. 3d 615, sentencing judges are required to state on the record their reasons for denying a defendant probation. This case is now on appeal to the California Supreme Court. If the Edwards decision is not overturned and remains the law in California, the Committee believes legis- lation is required to make its terms evenhanded. This could be achieved if sentencing judges were required to state on the record their reasons for granting probation as well as those for denying it. The Appellate Courts of California would then have a complete record with all the necessary information to review whether a trial court judge has properly exercised his discretion in granting or denying probation. The Appellate Courts have the power to reverse the case and return it to the trial court or to modify the sentence if they conclude that the trial court judge acted improperly. It is hoped that when sentencing judges state their reasons on the record for granting or denying probation this will tend to produce a degree of uniformity in sentencing. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors seek legislation to require that trial court judges state on the record their reasons for any grant or denial of probation which they make. C. Insurance Fraud in Vehicle Accidents The Committee and the entire Grand Jury have had several opportunities to observe various forms of insurance fraud. In many of these cases it might have been possible to prevent or detect the fraud at an early stage, rather than allowing it to develop into losses of millions of dollars. These losses to insurance companies are passed on to their clients. In addition, prosecution of these cases costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Typical of the crimes committed are claims for property damage, medical bills, and lost wages for staged accidents or those which never occurred. Also, excessive claims are made through padded bills for accidents which in truth resulted in only minor dollar losses to the insured. Insurance companies investigate claims in varying degrees. Not all damage is inspected. Most medical bills are accepted at face value. Claims for lost wages are not always verified with the employer. A number of insurance policies may be taken out on the same vehicle. RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors seek legislation requiring the following procedures for companies insuring motor vehicles and doing business in California: All vehicles must be inspected at the time they are insured. Payment of claims must not be made until the party insured is identified and personally contacted by the insurance company Claims Investigator. Contact must be made with the repair shops, doctors, and employers to verify claims for property damage, medical bills, and lost wages. D. Release of Defendants During Appeal The Criminal Complaints Committee is concerned with the relative ease with which defendants are released on bail after conviction when their cases are on appeal. While the time between arrest and conviction may typically be approximately 90 days, the Appellate Courts frequently require a year or more to reach a decision. The right of a defendant to be released on bail or on his own recognizance is recognized before trial because at this stage there is a presumption of innocence. Obviously, after conviction a defendant has been found guilty and there is no presumption of innocence. Criminal law loses its effect if punishment is not swift and sure. This principle is violated when a defendant is released on bail during a lengthy period of appeal. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors seek legislation which would prohibit a convicted defendant from being released while his case is on appeal. E. High-Speed Vehicle Flight to Avoid Police The Committee is concerned about high-speed police auto chases, which have become very commonplace. They often result in a traffic accident, causing serious injury to either the fleeing suspect, the pursuing police officers, or to innocent by- standers. Apparently the only statutes violated, if a death does not result, are the misdemeanor sections of the Vehicle Code, 23103 or 23104. The Committee feels that the present code is inadequate, and therefore recommends the following: RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors seek legislation to make it a felony to flee in a vehicle from the police, thereby initiating a high speed police auto chase. F. Criminal Investigative Subpoenas The Committee has the function of approving all requests for Grand Jury investiga- tive subpoenas. These subpoenas are used in the investigational stages of a case where evidence exists in documentary form in the hands of some third party; for example, a financial institution or utility company. The Grand Jury, however, is extremely selective about the types of cases in which it will become involved. These cases, as mentioned previously in this report, constitute less than one-half of one percent of the felony cases in Los Angeles County. It has come to the attention of the Committee that in the early stages of investigation in a normal felony case, there is no provision for obtaining an investigative subpoena. A search warrant cannot be used to obtain documentary evidence at this stage, because in order to obtain a search warrant there must be a showing of probable cause, a highly technical standard which is rarely met in the early investi- gational stages of a case. As a result, many investigations are frustrated. Just as the Grand Jury investigative subpoena assists us in our investigations, the Committee believes that California law should provide for an administrative subpoena to facilitate the investigation of normal criminal cases. We believe the rights of suspects, and the rights of any institution involved, should be protected by requiring that all requests for such a subpoena be made by a prosecutorial agency to a Superior or Municipal Court judge, with a showing of good faith that a crime has been committed and that documents are needed. The court could then authorize the issuance of an investigative subpoena for the documents. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors seek legislation authorizing the use of investigative subpoenas for documentary evidence in the hands of third parties, upon Court approval. G. Witness Inconveniences Witnesses constitute one of the most important factors in our judicial system. After an investigation of the Courts, the Committee found a lack of consideration extended to most witnesses. The inconveniences include: intimidation attempts in the public hallways; a lack of parking facilities; and lack of child care. The County has made relatively little effort to meet these concerns of witnesses. A token number of parking and child care facilities have been provided in the downtown courts, but this is clearly not sufficient. Volunteer groups have assumed the staffing for the child care areas, and it is believed that volunteers could be obtained for other courts, if the space were made available. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors provide wit- nesses in all County court facilities where appropriate, with: child care areas; a safe witness waiting area; and parking facilities. Paul E. Haines, Chairman Jacques Attie Tillman Thomas, Vice Chairman Sanford J. Baines Mary Lou Howard, Secretary Edwin Colwell Hal J. Flammer Louise Ada Sterling EDUCATION COMMITTEE PURPOSE After reviewing statistics which indicated a decline in academic skills at schools across the country, this Committee determined to look for ways of upgrading the quality and standard of education in our country. AREAS OF CONCERN The Committee's study included the following areas: A. Student Competence B. Teachers' Tenure C. School Attendance Review Board (SARB) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Student Competence The inability to read and write in this technologically sophisticated society is an insurmountable handicap, and all School Districts in our County must ensure that "functional literacy," at the very minimum, will be attained by every student. The Committee, therefore, focused its student competence study on the best methods of attaining that goal. In the course of this study, the Committee interviewed representatives of the State Department of Education, the Los Angeles County Board of Education, and the Los Angeles City Unified School District. The Committee also visited schools and studied pertinent materials. Of the many programs presently offered by school districts to upgrade the general level of basic academic skills, the Committee found the Developmental Reading Program (DRP) to be the most outstanding effort to date. This program was produced by the Reading Task Force of the Los Angeles City Unified School District The DRP is based on a sequence of reading skills expressed in behavioral terms, keyed to selected materials, teaching techniques and assessment tests. It is designed to lead to competence in reading. Tests have shown that a child achieves "functional literacy" by the fourth grade when enrolled in the DRP continuously from kindergarten. Children in this program consistently score above the national norms on standardized tests. The Committee is most impressed by the program's documented success in helping students achieve basic reading competence at an early This program is now being implemented in many of the Los Angeles City Unified School District schools, in Adult Education Programs, and by the Los Angeles Police Department to upgrade the reading skills of its minority recruits. It has attracted nationwide attention and is in such demand that it was copyrighted by the Los Angeles City Unified School District in 1975. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the County Schools, and encourage all of the School Districts in the County, to adopt the Developmental Reading Program as part of their reading curriculum. B. Teachers' Tenure The greatest influence on the quality of education is the teaching staff itself. Educators agree that there is a direct correlation between student competence and the abilities and skills of the teacher. The Committee therefore undertook a study into the present structure of hiring, evaluating, and removing teachers. To research these areas it was also necessary to review the history of teacher tenure laws. The Committee interviewed representatives of the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers (affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers), the Professional Educators of Los Angeles and several superintendents of school districts. Teachers' Tenure Law The Committee found that tenure for teachers originally grew out of a necessity to protect individual teachers from arbitrary and capricious actions of administrators and school board members. It served a useful purpose when the profession was young and the present legislation for the protection of teachers' rights had not been enacted. Today teachers are no longer dealing with administrators and Boards of Education on an individual basis. Teachers are united in strong teachers' professional organizations which represent them on every major issue. The Committee has concluded from its study that the original and legitimate reasons for tenure no longer exist. Tenure, earned after three years of successful experience, gives the teacher-holder practically a lifetime guarantee of job security. Tenure has become a haven for the incompetent teacher. It should be altered to include a system of merit pay and periodic evaluation which provides real incentives for quality teaching. The Committee urges a modification of the law to facilitate removal of incompetent teachers. This modification need not infringe upon academic freedom, due process, or a teacher's right to select the teaching techniques which he or she judges to be the most effective. A school district would no longer be obligated to retain those teachers who could not receive a successful evaluation on their teaching skills, and whose presence in the classroom hinders learning and, in some cases, even retards the progress of pupils. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors seek legislation modifying the current Teachers' Tenure Laws to provide for the establishment of a merit pay system, and easier removal of unsatisfactory teachers. Evaluation Process for Teachers The Committee feels that each school district should appoint a board composed of school administrators, staff, parents, and teachers to develop criteria for a fair evaluation, to be made of all teachers once every three years. At the high school level it would be advisable to include student representation. Knowing that his teaching competence will be reviewed periodically, a teacher would strive to perform at his or her optimum level throughout his or her career. The guarantee of a fair evaluation procedure would make for more competent and effective teachers and would enable school districts to provide a better educational system. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, and encourage all of the School Districts in the County, to establish a review board and set uniform standards to evaluate teachers' performance at least once every three years as a condition of continued employment. The Rodda Act (Senate Bill 160) The Rodda Act (S.B. 160), passed by the 1975 California State Legislature, regulates employer-employee relations for both certificated and classified employees of schools in California. It repeals the Winton Act as of July 1, 1976. The Committee undertook a study of the bill, and discovered some disturbing factors.

F1975: The Grand Jury has become aware of the substantial advantages of video-taped civil depositions in comparison with the present standard typed transcripts of testimony. Unfortunately, California law does not permit the use of video-taped civil depositions in lieu of an official reporter's transcript unless the attorneys stipulate to their use, and the judge presiding agrees. A video-taped civil deposition allows the trial lawyers, judges, and possibly juries in civil cases, to see the demeanor of the witnesses when they testify, rather than reading the cold written record. Some studies have suggested that as video-taped depositions would permit a fuller assessment by attorneys of the impact of witnesses' testimony on the trier of fact, the use of this technique would tend to produce more pretrial settlements, with con- comitant savings of courtroom time and costs. It also appears that video-taped depositions are less expensive to prepare than an official reporter's transcript. They are especially advantageous whenever witnesses are from out of state or otherwise not easily available. Furthermore, video-taped records are available without delay and when replayed before a judge or jury they give a far more accurate impression of the witnesses' testimony. A number of detailed studies have been made, and articles have been written, on the advantages and disadvantages of video-taped depositions. Among them are: 1. "The Use of Videotape Depositions in Judicial Proceedings", reported by the National Conference of Metropolitan Courts; final report dated October, 1974. 2. "Videotape Recording in the California Criminal Justice System", prepared by McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, dated March, 1974. 3. "Effects of Videotaped Testimony on Information Processing and Decision Making in Jury Trials", prepared as an R.A.N.N. project of the National Science Foundation by the Department of Communications, Michigan State University; Progress Report 2, dated January, 1975. 4. "Real Versus Reel: What's the Verdict?" An article in the Journal of Communications, Summer, 1974, Volume 24:3. All of the above-mentioned reports have concluded in favor of video-taped depositions. In conclusion, the Grand Jury believes that the various California statutes which require the presence of an official reporter during the taking of civil depositions should be changed to permit video-taped depositions.

Página 1

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1975: The Grand Jury has become aware of the substantial advantages of video-taped civil depositions in comparison with the present standard typed transcripts of testimony. Unfortunately, California law does not permit the use of video-taped civil depositions in lieu of an official reporter's transcript unless the attorneys stipulate to their use, and the judge presiding agrees. A video-taped civil deposition allows the trial lawyers, judges, and possibly juries in civil cases, to see the demeanor of the witnesses when they testify, rather than reading the cold written record. Some studies have suggested that as video-taped depositions would permit a fuller assessment by attorneys of the impact of witnesses' testimony on the trier of fact, the use of this technique would tend to produce more pretrial settlements, with con- comitant savings of courtroom time and costs. It also appears that video-taped depositions are less expensive to prepare than an official reporter's transcript. They are especially advantageous whenever witnesses are from out of state or otherwise not easily available. Furthermore, video-taped records are available without delay and when replayed before a judge or jury they give a far more accurate impression of the witnesses' testimony. A number of detailed studies have been made, and articles have been written, on the advantages and disadvantages of video-taped depositions. Among them are: