Los Angeles County Grand Jury
2009-2010
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Continuity Report
Continuity Committee
From the consolidated annual report · 8 pages
Individual reports (27)
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The SCAR system does not currently have a good method of tracking the sources of SCARs e.g., schools and hospitals. This would be helpful in historical comparisons to determine where training and education should take place.
F2:
The E-SCAR grant is scheduled to terminate June 30, 2010. There would be funds still available within the grant. This can be extended by the CEO.
F3:
There is a concern that law enforcement officers are not aware of the need to make SCAR reports in cases of child endangerment. The case of a DUI arrestee with a small child in a vehicle is an example that needs to be reported and more thoroughly investigated by both DCFS and law enforcement.
F4:
There remain a number of improvements to E-SCARs to be made. These include the handling of rerouted E-SCARs, proper contact individuals, the roles of the users and E-SCAR search capabilities. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 11 DCFS
F5:
An insufficient number of Human Service Aides are used to augment the efforts of the social workers.
F6:
DCFS co-location with law enforcement appears to have benefits toward improving child abuse response and investigation effectiveness
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Office of the District Attorney, Department of Child and Family Services and LASD should lead an effort to develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Operational Agreement, as appropriate, among all of the parties within Los Angeles County involved in the E-SCAR system for communicating cases of suspected child abuse.
R2:
The E-SCAR Memorandum of Understanding/Operational Agreement should define the roles of the participants as to the communication and transmission of data and information among themselves and their coordination of responses. Time-to-respond and best practices standards should be established by DA, DCFS, LASD and the other parties to the Memorandum of Understanding/Operational Agreement for use as benchmarks by the participants. The Memorandum/Agreement should not, however, attempt to define or dictate the operations of the various groups as to their internal processes and protocols used in investigating, prosecuting or resolving reported child abuse allegations. STEERING COMMITTEE
R3:
The DA’s Office, DCFS and LASD should lead an effort to establish an expanded, permanent Steering Committee composed of representatives of the various agencies that participate in the E-SCAR process to oversee the system from the standpoint of enhancements, user friendliness and effectiveness of the various stakeholders.
R4:
The Steering Committee as a body should assure that the system receives optimal use and is enhanced periodically with such items as: • Clarifying documentation of the procedures for rerouting E-SCARs that have been sent to the incorrect LEA • Establishing and maintaining a list of the critical contact individuals in the various groups involved. This list should be part of the system and should be available to all who have access to it • Expanding the search capabilities of the system to the extent possible within statutory privacy concerns to include responding officer’s name, victim’s mother’s name and other relevant criteria 12 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT • Incorporating a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) into the system as a ready reference for users to assure that the system is receiving optimal use • Establishing a formal process to seek suggested enhancements or modifications to the system among its various users • Incorporating a list of recent enhancements or changes to the system for ready reference • Monitoring the consistency and speed of handling of E-SCARs by the various law enforcement agencies • Encouraging training of Mandated Reporters as to their reporting role • Maintaining, updating and communicating a chart of information flows and action responsibilities for all of the participants in the child abuse reporting and response effort in Los Angeles County (An abbreviated flowchart of DCFS’s recently updated version is attached as Appendix A.) SCARs
R5:
The DA’s office and DCFS should amend the SCAR/E-SCAR process to im- prove the identification of the sources of SCARs to the maximum extent pos- sible under privacy law concerns. This will help to better monitor the compli- ance with Mandated Reporter rules at the institution level e.g., schools, hos- pitals, and law enforcement. This can be accomplished by requiring the use of the existing fields in the SCAR input process. Results should be mon- itored and followed up with the appropriate training and education. E-SCARs
R6:
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors should take steps to assure that there will be adequate continuing funding to maintain the systems integri- ity of the E-SCAR process. Any complex system requires ongoing maintenan- ce to make minor improvements and changes as the system matures. It has been estimated that one to two full time systems analysts plus support for a cost of $100,000 to $250,000 per year would be adequate. opment grant until all authorized funds have been expended.
R7:
The DA’s Office, DCFS and LASD should expand the awareness of all law en- forcement personnel as to their roles as Mandated Reporters especially as the requirement to cross-report suspected child abuse or endangerment cases en- countered in the field. DCFS
R8:
The Department of Children and Family Services should consider the employ- ment of additional Human Services Aides to alleviate some of the less critical work performed by the social workers. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 13
R9:
As demonstrated at the Palmdale Sheriff’s station, co-location of DCFS social workers at law enforcement facilities has helped foster better cooperation and more effective communication between the two groups. LASD and DCFS should make a thorough evaluation of this approach and expand the concept wherever practical.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The majority of the citizens’ complaints revealed misconceptions of CGJ authority by the general public and incarcerated individuals. There was a wide range of complaints from investigating court officials, obtaining court records, re-hearing of evidence, filing complaints for indictments, to proving the allegations and evidence were false. In addition, requests were submitted to overturn alleged wrongful convictions or penalties, changes to the Penal Code and investigation of State and Federal officials and employees. The majority of the complaints had adjudication pending with the courts or had been referred to other complaint processes.
F2:
A complaint was filed against the City of Los Angeles Zoo alleging mistreatment of the elephants and operation and oversight malfeasance. This complaint was submitted to the Investigative Oversight Committee which was formed to review all suggestions submitted by CGJ members for possible investigation. Since a full investigation had recently been conducted by the City of Los Angeles and corrective actions were being considered, no action was taken.
F3:
A complaint alleged that a family member’s death resulted from improper suicide prevention procedures. The complaint was referred to the Detention Facilities Committee.
F4:
A complaint alleging fraud involving the care of a parent was referred to the In- Home Social Services of the Department of Public Social Services and was investigated. The results of the investigation determined no fraud was committed.
F5:
A neighbor complained of a barking dog and had not received any assistance in resolving the problem with Animal Control. The County of Los Angeles Ombudsman’s Office was contacted and the complaint was referred to them for mediation.
F6:
A complainant was detained and manhandled by Los Angeles Airport Police. He was advised to file a citizen’s complaint with Airport Police.
F7:
A complaint alleging unlawful treatment by a social worker with the Department of Children and Family Services. A letter was sent advising that the complaint be referred to the department’s Public Inquiry Section.
F8:
A complaint alleged the City of Long Beach failed to consider several concerns before the deployment of the 9-1-1 Wireless services. The CGJ voted to conduct a full investigation. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 135 The seventy-seven complaints received fell into fourteen basic categories, as follow: COMPLAINT CATEGORES NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS
F9:
Property – Real Estate and personal
F12:
LAUSD 13. 9-1-1 Wireless
F14:
Miscellaneous 14 4 12 4 4 9 3 5 2 2 1 1 1 15 TOTALS 77 DISPOSTION ACTIONS BY CIVIL GRAND JURY NUMBERS No Jurisdiction over subject-matter 70 No Action taken 2 Referred for further investigations 4 Some other appropriate disposition of the complaint 1 TOTALS 77 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 136 This page intentionally left blank 137 ATTACHMENT A CITIZEN COMPLAINT FORM Los Angeles County
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
a) No Jurisdiction ______ b) No Action ___________ c) Acknowledgment letter______ d) That there be a Referral of the Complaint to the Appropriate Committee for Further Investigation ___________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Signature of Committee Member Date Disposition of Grand Jury________________________________________________ Endorse and Accept Committee Recommendation___________________________ Alternative Disposition ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Signature of Grand Jury Foreperson Date
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The complainant contended that during the planning and deployment phase the staffing allocation was not adequate to handle the anticipated increase in calls. The PCS civilian staff allocation, originally budgeted in FY 2004, included: Communication Dispatcher levels I-IV (sixty-one), Supervisors (five) and Center Coordinator (one) for a total of sixty-seven staff positions. A concentrated effort to add staff was deferred until August 2009. In response to the public posting of the Communication Dispatcher position, over 400 applications were received. The application process includes: written test, oral interview, psychological assessment and background check. Of the total applicants only thirty-seven candidates advanced to the background check. Twenty-seven applicants did not proceed in the process for the following reasons: • Seven declined to participate in the process • Two disqualified • Six not recommended for hire as a result of background check • Twelve withdrew The standards and requirement levels are high. As of January 2010 there were ten applicants still in the hiring process. Upon hiring, trainees will be required to complete training for twelve months, plus an additional six months of supervised training. The complainant alleged that the number of calls upon deployment of W911 increased by 67%. Statistical records indicated an overall increase of calls at 53%. The complainant also contended the increase in calls caused a delay in answering Calls For Service. The standard time for answering emergency calls is ten seconds. The first phase-in of the six major wireless carriers began in November 2008 and was completed March 2009. The CGJ reviewed Calls For Service statistical data for January 2009 through December 2009. The record indicates that during ten months of the period reviewed, the ten second standard for answering calls was met 91.7% of the time. Records indicated the answer time dropped below the ten second standard during a two month period in July and August 2009 when it declined to 86.7% and 89.4%, respectively.
F2:
The City of Long Beach is currently conducting an audit of the CPS which includes operations, increase of calls and best business practices. Results of that audit are pending. 18 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Long Beach should continue to aggressively hire staff to operate the PCS in spite of the difficulties of hiring and training qualified applicants.
R2:
An Audit firm should be hired to: • Conduct a comprehensive review of the staffing, operations and practices • Determine what additional procedures should be implemented • Evaluate a cost-effective-manner to operate the PCS 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 19 This page intentionally left blank . 20 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Los Angeles County Chief Executive Officer should allocate the funds re- quired to maintain the level of budgetary support needed for the Coroner’s op- timum operations.
R2:
The Coroner should implement a bar code system for tracking specimen and evidence storage which will reduce manual labor and decrease identification errors.
R3:
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services should increase the capa- city of the Los Angeles County Crematorium to meet the needs of the Coroner and revise the usage schedule to avoid outsourcing any cremations.
R4:
The Coroner should establish a priority of converting to an updated Internet- based Chief Medical Examiner case management system.
R5:
The Coroner should maintain an employee succession plan and monitor plan- ned retirements so that all vacant positions can be filled quickly. As the CGJ completed its investigation, the Los Angeles County Department of Auditor- Controller published a Management Audit of the Department of Coroner. Many of the CGJs recommendations are similar to those in the aforementioned Report 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 186 This page intentionally left blank
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Upgrade wiring to a standard capable of supporting the power equipment
R2:
Upgrade and increase all video and audio surveillance equipment
R3:
Provide hardware and software to state of the art technology
R4:
Install mesh-protector fencing on upper level lock-up walkways
R5:
Provide a van for Police Activities League (PAL) program
R6:
Replace or repair gun lockers
R7:
Obtain a lockable floor cabinet, a new shredder, desks with locking drawers, and drawer locks for existing desks in the System Wide Mental Assessment Response Team Area
R8:
Install handcuff hooks in booking area
R9:
Provide an additional pepper spray deliverance system in addition to the hand held spray system 10.Provide working telephones in all work areas 11.Provide custodial supplies on a regular basis e.g., paper towels, hand sanitizers, toilet tissue, etc. 12.Purchase sports equipment for PAL e.g., baseball, basketball, soccer, etc. 13.Increase Station personnel by three; (two supervisors in lock-up/booking and one in crime analysis) 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 161 LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Auditor-Controller does not have a policy/procedural manual outlining the process of receiving calls and cataloging key statistical records
F2:
There is no special emphasis on reporting drug/alcohol abuse
F3:
The availability of this public 800 number hotline resource is not well known
F4:
To improve the quality of laboratory services provided to the criminal justice system
F5:
To offer the general public and users of laboratory services a national standard and means of identifying laboratory facilities that satisfy accreditation criteria
F6:
To develop and maintain criteria which can be used by a laboratory to assess its level of performance and strengthen the operation 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 39
F7:
To provide an independent, impartial, and objective system by which laboratory facilities can benefit from a total organization review In 2005, examiners assigned to the Manual Comparison Detail were involved in erroneous identification of evidence in two separate cases. This error resulted in false arrest in each case. The incidents were investigated and revealed a lack of supervisory oversight which may have contributed to the errors. The current ratio of supervisor to employees is 1:14. The industry standards show that an efficient supervisor to employee ratio is 1:8.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A Department of Occupational Health and Safety pre-employment positive drug test should preclude an applicant from applying for any county posit- ion for at least one year. An applicant’s positive test result should be avail- able to other county departments for reference.
R2:
DOH should coordinate with the City of Los Angeles Department of Person- nel in negotiating for drug testing contractors. Utilizing the same contract- ors may result in significant cost savings. Los Angeles Sheriff Risk Management Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) has 10,000 sworn officers and 8,000 civilian employees. Random drug testing began in 1993 with all ranks tested, as well as civilian personnel who handle drug evidence. The CGJ reviewed the LASD drug testing procedures. Random selection of an employee to be tested has a number of thorough steps. Each step protects the employee’s privacy and rights. The results are revealed only to the supervisor when a test is positive. In the final step, a Medical Review Officer interviews the employee to determine if any reason for the positive result may have been overlooked. When there is no further choice or doubt, the supervisor initiates disciplinary action or termination. Refusal to submit to testing is cause which merits the same action. Steroid testing is not deemed necessary. Alcohol abuse is not randomly tested; possible abuse is referred to Internal Affairs. In the matter of an off-duty DUI or domestic violence incident, when alcohol is a factor, the arrest information is published (without using their name). A first offender is offered counseling and is subject to fifteen days off without pay. Cost for tests is $10. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) states that no personnel below the rank of Sergeant may conduct random testing. The 2003 budget crisis forced the Department to eliminate testing teams. In 2005, the Department hired retired Sergeants under a 120-day program to administer random drug tests. Presently random drug testing is not being conducted. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 33 RECOMMENDATION
R3:
LASD Risk Management Department should resume random drug testing. Los Angeles County Fire Department Although the CGJ met with the managers of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the managers were reluctant to provide information regarding their policy procedure and drug testing statistics. Los Angeles County Probation Department The Department of Probation (DOP) has 6,100 budgeted positions of which 4,000 have peace officer status. Pre-employment drug testing began in 2007, however random drug testing of Deputy Probation Officers with peace office status along with other key DOP personnel are not currently conducted. Since August 2007 there have been eighteen individuals charged with possession of controlled substances resulting in: • 12 employees discharged • 2 offenders suspended • 3 pending performance management review • 1 unknown disposition There is a DOT requirement to test transportation/drivers employed by DOP. The Department utilizes the DOT guidelines to test transportation/drivers. Implementation of random testing DOP employees would be a collective bargaining issue. DOP negotiates with two unions consisting of three bargaining units. To date the unions has not agreed to random testing. A probation employee arrested for drug use anywhere at any time is subject to investigation and possible termination under the zero tolerance policy.
R4:
Department of Probation (DOP) key employees should be randomly tested. This would include Deputy Probation Officers who are considered safety of- ficers and should be held responsible and accountable as are the Police, safe- ty Police and Sheriff’s Officers. In addition, permanent county employees of residential detention centers and services should be randomly tested. County of Los Angeles Safety Police The Los Angeles County Office of Safety Police (OSP) is scheduled to merge with the Sheriff’s Department in June 2010. Currently there are 596 sworn officers, 70 civilian and approximately 1,100 contracted employees. OSP provides policing staff for: 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 34 • Board of Supervisors • Chief Economic Office • Registrar Recorder • Department of Public Social Services • Department of Children and Family Services • Department of Health Services • Department of Mental Health • Department of Parks and Recreation • Department of Probation All employment candidates are drug tested. Random drug testing procedures mirror those of the Sheriff’s Department. The OSP also manages a public Hotline. This Hotline is for the public and employees to anonymously report suspected fraud, job abuse, drug abuse as well as malfeasance of vendors, managers, or contractors. OSP is required to report the complaints to the appropriate department for investigation.
R5:
The Los Angeles County Office of Safety Police (OSP) public Hotline should be integrated into the Sheriff’s Department and continue to function. Develop and maintain a categorized log of all calls. Initiate a county wide awareness pro- gram relative to the ability of the Hotline to anonymously report job related abuses. Office of the Auditor Controller The Auditor Controller staff also maintains a free County Fraud Hotline which receives allegations of fraud, drug/alcohol abuse and other complaints pertaining to county employees, managers, contractors and vendors. Allegations are also submitted and received by mail as well by walk-in contact. Each allegation is logged, a report is submitted or referral sent to the appropriate department for investigation and resolution. If a complaint is criminal in nature, the law enforcement agency of jurisdiction is contacted to investigate and adjudicate.
R6:
The Office of Auditor-Controller should develop a policy/procedure manual to categorize, maintain statistical records of complaints, communicate to all 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 35 agencies the availability of the Hotline, publicize the Hotline number and stress the assurance of confidentiality. CITY OF LOS ANGELES FINDING City of Los Angeles Department of Personnel The City of Los Angeles Department of Personnel manages approximately 45,000 employees. There is mandatory pre-employment drug testing for Police, transportation/drivers, Airport Police, Harbor Police and Medical Personnel. A prospective employee who fails a pre-employment drug test may apply for a different position. There is no automatic preclusion from employment. Commercial vehicle drivers fall under DOT rules for testing. DOT requires yearly random testing of 50% of the 3000 commercial drivers. The City uses five clinics for testing and drug tests have a twenty to forty-eight hour turn around. Cost to the City is approximately $13 per test. Testing is conducted by breath or urine specimens; rarely is blood drawn. Individuals who fall under reasonable suspicion are immediately placed on suspension, seen by a doctor and excused for the balance of the day. Human Resources Department (HRD) is contacted to confirm the results. An employee who has tested positive may not return to duty until cleared by the Medical Review Officer (MRO). The MRO requires the employee to complete counseling and/or rehabilitation. Upon returning to duty, the MRO will schedule up to three follow up random tests. A subject’s refusal to be tested is deemed to be the same as a positive test result.
R7:
The Los Angeles City Department of Personnel should collaborate and share contract information with other agencies including the County of Los Angeles to utilize the same drug testing facilities as a possible cost saving measure. Los Angeles Police Department The Los Angeles Police Department has approximately 10,000 officers. Officers are tested up to six times per year during their one year probationary period,. Permanent officers below the rank of Captain are subject to random testing three times per year. Officers testing positive are referred to a Board of Review and may be terminated. Since 1991 sixteen officers have been terminated. If an officer voluntarily informs the department of an addiction or other drug use related problems, he/she will be eligible for the Employee Assistance Program. Participation is confidential and the department cooperates and encourages the employee’s rehabilitation. The employee is allowed to use sick time and other available accrued time during the rehabilitation period. The drug testing procedures for probationary and permanent employees follow a very strict protocol to assure a drug free workplace. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 36 Los Angeles City Fire Department After numerous attempts by the CGJ to schedule an information gathering meeting, Los Angeles City Fire Department failed to respond. FORENSICS COMMITTEE MEMBERS Chairperson- H. Russell Justice Carolyn Cobb Ray O’Keefe 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 37 FORENSICS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Auditor-Controller does not have a policy/procedural manual outlining the process of receiving calls and cataloging key statistical records
F2:
There is no special emphasis on reporting drug/alcohol abuse
F3:
The availability of this public 800 number hotline resource is not well known
F4:
To improve the quality of laboratory services provided to the criminal justice system
F5:
To offer the general public and users of laboratory services a national standard and means of identifying laboratory facilities that satisfy accreditation criteria
F6:
To develop and maintain criteria which can be used by a laboratory to assess its level of performance and strengthen the operation 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 39
F7:
To provide an independent, impartial, and objective system by which laboratory facilities can benefit from a total organization review In 2005, examiners assigned to the Manual Comparison Detail were involved in erroneous identification of evidence in two separate cases. This error resulted in false arrest in each case. The incidents were investigated and revealed a lack of supervisory oversight which may have contributed to the errors. The current ratio of supervisor to employees is 1:14. The industry standards show that an efficient supervisor to employee ratio is 1:8.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A Department of Occupational Health and Safety pre-employment positive drug test should preclude an applicant from applying for any county posit- ion for at least one year. An applicant’s positive test result should be avail- able to other county departments for reference.
R2:
DOH should coordinate with the City of Los Angeles Department of Person- nel in negotiating for drug testing contractors. Utilizing the same contract- ors may result in significant cost savings. Los Angeles Sheriff Risk Management Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) has 10,000 sworn officers and 8,000 civilian employees. Random drug testing began in 1993 with all ranks tested, as well as civilian personnel who handle drug evidence. The CGJ reviewed the LASD drug testing procedures. Random selection of an employee to be tested has a number of thorough steps. Each step protects the employee’s privacy and rights. The results are revealed only to the supervisor when a test is positive. In the final step, a Medical Review Officer interviews the employee to determine if any reason for the positive result may have been overlooked. When there is no further choice or doubt, the supervisor initiates disciplinary action or termination. Refusal to submit to testing is cause which merits the same action. Steroid testing is not deemed necessary. Alcohol abuse is not randomly tested; possible abuse is referred to Internal Affairs. In the matter of an off-duty DUI or domestic violence incident, when alcohol is a factor, the arrest information is published (without using their name). A first offender is offered counseling and is subject to fifteen days off without pay. Cost for tests is $10. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) states that no personnel below the rank of Sergeant may conduct random testing. The 2003 budget crisis forced the Department to eliminate testing teams. In 2005, the Department hired retired Sergeants under a 120-day program to administer random drug tests. Presently random drug testing is not being conducted. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 33 RECOMMENDATION
R3:
LASD Risk Management Department should resume random drug testing. Los Angeles County Fire Department Although the CGJ met with the managers of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the managers were reluctant to provide information regarding their policy procedure and drug testing statistics. Los Angeles County Probation Department The Department of Probation (DOP) has 6,100 budgeted positions of which 4,000 have peace officer status. Pre-employment drug testing began in 2007, however random drug testing of Deputy Probation Officers with peace office status along with other key DOP personnel are not currently conducted. Since August 2007 there have been eighteen individuals charged with possession of controlled substances resulting in: • 12 employees discharged • 2 offenders suspended • 3 pending performance management review • 1 unknown disposition There is a DOT requirement to test transportation/drivers employed by DOP. The Department utilizes the DOT guidelines to test transportation/drivers. Implementation of random testing DOP employees would be a collective bargaining issue. DOP negotiates with two unions consisting of three bargaining units. To date the unions has not agreed to random testing. A probation employee arrested for drug use anywhere at any time is subject to investigation and possible termination under the zero tolerance policy.
R4:
Department of Probation (DOP) key employees should be randomly tested. This would include Deputy Probation Officers who are considered safety of- ficers and should be held responsible and accountable as are the Police, safe- ty Police and Sheriff’s Officers. In addition, permanent county employees of residential detention centers and services should be randomly tested. County of Los Angeles Safety Police The Los Angeles County Office of Safety Police (OSP) is scheduled to merge with the Sheriff’s Department in June 2010. Currently there are 596 sworn officers, 70 civilian and approximately 1,100 contracted employees. OSP provides policing staff for: 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 34 • Board of Supervisors • Chief Economic Office • Registrar Recorder • Department of Public Social Services • Department of Children and Family Services • Department of Health Services • Department of Mental Health • Department of Parks and Recreation • Department of Probation All employment candidates are drug tested. Random drug testing procedures mirror those of the Sheriff’s Department. The OSP also manages a public Hotline. This Hotline is for the public and employees to anonymously report suspected fraud, job abuse, drug abuse as well as malfeasance of vendors, managers, or contractors. OSP is required to report the complaints to the appropriate department for investigation.
R5:
The Los Angeles County Office of Safety Police (OSP) public Hotline should be integrated into the Sheriff’s Department and continue to function. Develop and maintain a categorized log of all calls. Initiate a county wide awareness pro- gram relative to the ability of the Hotline to anonymously report job related abuses. Office of the Auditor Controller The Auditor Controller staff also maintains a free County Fraud Hotline which receives allegations of fraud, drug/alcohol abuse and other complaints pertaining to county employees, managers, contractors and vendors. Allegations are also submitted and received by mail as well by walk-in contact. Each allegation is logged, a report is submitted or referral sent to the appropriate department for investigation and resolution. If a complaint is criminal in nature, the law enforcement agency of jurisdiction is contacted to investigate and adjudicate.
R6:
The Office of Auditor-Controller should develop a policy/procedure manual to categorize, maintain statistical records of complaints, communicate to all 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 35 agencies the availability of the Hotline, publicize the Hotline number and stress the assurance of confidentiality. CITY OF LOS ANGELES FINDING City of Los Angeles Department of Personnel The City of Los Angeles Department of Personnel manages approximately 45,000 employees. There is mandatory pre-employment drug testing for Police, transportation/drivers, Airport Police, Harbor Police and Medical Personnel. A prospective employee who fails a pre-employment drug test may apply for a different position. There is no automatic preclusion from employment. Commercial vehicle drivers fall under DOT rules for testing. DOT requires yearly random testing of 50% of the 3000 commercial drivers. The City uses five clinics for testing and drug tests have a twenty to forty-eight hour turn around. Cost to the City is approximately $13 per test. Testing is conducted by breath or urine specimens; rarely is blood drawn. Individuals who fall under reasonable suspicion are immediately placed on suspension, seen by a doctor and excused for the balance of the day. Human Resources Department (HRD) is contacted to confirm the results. An employee who has tested positive may not return to duty until cleared by the Medical Review Officer (MRO). The MRO requires the employee to complete counseling and/or rehabilitation. Upon returning to duty, the MRO will schedule up to three follow up random tests. A subject’s refusal to be tested is deemed to be the same as a positive test result.
R7:
The Los Angeles City Department of Personnel should collaborate and share contract information with other agencies including the County of Los Angeles to utilize the same drug testing facilities as a possible cost saving measure. Los Angeles Police Department The Los Angeles Police Department has approximately 10,000 officers. Officers are tested up to six times per year during their one year probationary period,. Permanent officers below the rank of Captain are subject to random testing three times per year. Officers testing positive are referred to a Board of Review and may be terminated. Since 1991 sixteen officers have been terminated. If an officer voluntarily informs the department of an addiction or other drug use related problems, he/she will be eligible for the Employee Assistance Program. Participation is confidential and the department cooperates and encourages the employee’s rehabilitation. The employee is allowed to use sick time and other available accrued time during the rehabilitation period. The drug testing procedures for probationary and permanent employees follow a very strict protocol to assure a drug free workplace. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 36 Los Angeles City Fire Department After numerous attempts by the CGJ to schedule an information gathering meeting, Los Angeles City Fire Department failed to respond. FORENSICS COMMITTEE MEMBERS Chairperson- H. Russell Justice Carolyn Cobb Ray O’Keefe 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 37 FORENSICS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
To improve the quality of laboratory services provided to the criminal justice system
F2:
To offer the general public and users of laboratory services a national standard and means of identifying laboratory facilities that satisfy accreditation criteria
F3:
To develop and maintain criteria which can be used by a laboratory to assess its level of performance and strengthen the operation 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 39
F4:
To provide an independent, impartial, and objective system by which laboratory facilities can benefit from a total organization review In 2005, examiners assigned to the Manual Comparison Detail were involved in erroneous identification of evidence in two separate cases. This error resulted in false arrest in each case. The incidents were investigated and revealed a lack of supervisory oversight which may have contributed to the errors. The current ratio of supervisor to employees is 1:14. The industry standards show that an efficient supervisor to employee ratio is 1:8.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Ensure the building plans for the new facility include the essential space ac- commodations for the staff, space for files, work areas conducive to a lab en- vironment and room for growth.
R2:
Upon relocation and consolidation of the Tech Lab, the Latent Print Unit should begin to conform to the American Society of Crime Lab Directors requirements for accreditation. This process requires and includes the following: • Complete Manuals and Standard of Operations • Administrative review of all casework and reports • Technical review of a minimum of 10% of the Analytical Detail assignments • Ensure each subordinate is accountable to only one supervisor per function • Monitor laboratory during vacant hours by an intrusion alarm or by security personnel • Secure storage areas to prevent theft or interference and ensure limited controlled access. The storage conditions shall prevent loss, deterioration, contamination and maintain integrity and identity of the evidence • Ensure staff vacancies are filled and decrease the current ratio of supervisor to employee to 1:8
R3:
All staff should be fully trained and all manuals should be updated and/or com- pleted. Until the accreditation process has been completed utilize Lead Tech- cians in a supervisory capacity to ensure better quality control LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT–SECTION II
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
To improve the quality of laboratory services provided to the criminal justice system
F2:
To offer the general public and users of laboratory services a national standard and means of identifying laboratory facilities that satisfy accreditation criteria
F3:
To develop and maintain criteria which can be used by a laboratory to assess its level of performance and strengthen the operation 38 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F4:
To provide an independent, impartial, and objective system by which laboratory facilities can benefit from a total organization review In 2005, examiners assigned to the Manual Comparison Detail were involved in erroneous identification of evidence in two separate cases. This error resulted in false arrest in each case. The incidents were investigated and revealed a lack of supervisory oversight which may have contributed to the errors. The current ratio of supervisor to employees is 1:14. The industry standards show that an efficient supervisor to employee ratio is 1:8.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Ensure the building plans for the new facility include the essential space ac- commodations for the staff, space for files, work areas conducive to a lab en- vironment and room for growth.
R2:
Upon relocation and consolidation of the Tech Lab, the Latent Print Unit should begin to conform to the American Society of Crime Lab Directors requirements for accreditation. This process requires and includes the following: • Complete Manuals and Standard of Operations • Administrative review of all casework and reports • Technical review of a minimum of 10% of the Analytical Detail assignments • Ensure each subordinate is accountable to only one supervisor per function • Monitor laboratory during vacant hours by an intrusion alarm or by security personnel • Secure storage areas to prevent theft or interference and ensure limited controlled access. The storage conditions shall prevent loss, deterioration, contamination and maintain integrity and identity of the evidence • Ensure staff vacancies are filled and decrease the current ratio of supervisor to employee to 1:8
R3:
All staff should be fully trained and all manuals should be updated and/or com- pleted. Until the accreditation process has been completed utilize Lead Tech- cians in a supervisory capacity to ensure better quality control LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT–SECTION II
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Fewer inmates were housed in the non-specialized unit of the LAC+USC Medical Center in 2010 (one per day) than in 2005 (fifteen per day). In addition, a major safety change has occurred in that all inmates housed in specialized or non- specialized units are accompanied by a Deputy at all times rather than being restrained to the bed.
F2:
The installation of enhanced diagnostic capabilities at Twin Towers such as MRI and CT has not been accomplished and may not be practical because of budgetary and staffing considerations.
F3:
Orthopedic urgent care has not been instituted at Twin Towers primarily because of the inability of the Sheriff’s Department to attract the appropriate medical professionals.
F4:
The layout of the new LAC+USC Jail Ward has tripled the requirement for Deputies and Custody Assistants.
F5:
Twin Towers and LAC+USC have access to each other’s inmate medical records’ systems although they are not integrated.
F6:
Both the Laboratory and Pharmacy functions at Twin Towers are provided by outside contractors. The County may be better served if these services were provided by LAC+USC. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 48
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Executive Management of both the Sheriff’s Department and LAC+USC should establish a task force to review all of the medical services which are currently out-sourced by Twin Towers with the goal of integrating those services into the LAC+USC operations. This would be particularly relevant to Laboratory and Pharmacy which could possibly be established as satellites of LAC+USC’s services. Twin Towers could also possibly piggyback on the existing contracts that LAC+USC currently has for CT and MRI services if appropriate.
R2:
To streamline the hiring process, the Sheriff’s Department should speed up the background investigation process for physicians hired by Twin Towers.
R3:
The Executive Management of both the Sheriff’s Department and LAC+USC should consider the possibility of integrating the computerized Medical Records systems of Twin Towers and LAC+USC as a pilot project for future integration of the medical records of all of the DHS medical facilities.
R4:
LAC+USC Medical Center and Twin Towers should institute a program of informal observation visits for medical personnel from LAC+USC through the Twin Towers medical facility to provide familiarity with the unique issues relating to medical services in an incarceration setting.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Fewer inmates were housed in the non-specialized unit of the LAC+USC Medical Center in 2010 (one per day) than in 2005 (fifteen per day). In addition, a major safety change has occurred in that all inmates housed in specialized or non- specialized units are accompanied by a Deputy at all times rather than being restrained to the bed.
F2:
The installation of enhanced diagnostic capabilities at Twin Towers such as MRI and CT has not been accomplished and may not be practical because of budgetary and staffing considerations.
F3:
Orthopedic urgent care has not been instituted at Twin Towers primarily because of the inability of the Sheriff’s Department to attract the appropriate medical professionals.
F4:
The layout of the new LAC+USC Jail Ward has tripled the requirement for Deputies and Custody Assistants.
F5:
Twin Towers and LAC+USC have access to each other’s inmate medical records’ systems although they are not integrated.
F6:
Both the Laboratory and Pharmacy functions at Twin Towers are provided by outside contractors. The County may be better served if these services were provided by LAC+USC. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 48
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Executive Management of both the Sheriff’s Department and LAC+USC should establish a task force to review all of the medical services which are currently out-sourced by Twin Towers with the goal of integrating those services into the LAC+USC operations. This would be particularly relevant to Laboratory and Pharmacy which could possibly be established as satellites of LAC+USC’s services. Twin Towers could also possibly piggyback on the existing contracts that LAC+USC currently has for CT and MRI services if appropriate.
R2:
To streamline the hiring process, the Sheriff’s Department should speed up the background investigation process for physicians hired by Twin Towers.
R3:
The Executive Management of both the Sheriff’s Department and LAC+USC should consider the possibility of integrating the computerized Medical Records systems of Twin Towers and LAC+USC as a pilot project for future integration of the medical records of all of the DHS medical facilities.
R4:
LAC+USC Medical Center and Twin Towers should institute a program of informal observation visits for medical personnel from LAC+USC through the Twin Towers medical facility to provide familiarity with the unique issues relating to medical services in an incarceration setting.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Staff- Of the twenty-nine parks visited, the CGJ found only two which were adequately staffed.
F2:
Sanitation- In most parks visited, the CGJ found unsanitary, graffiti and trash- filled restrooms.
F3:
Security- Some parks require heightened security due to their location. Yet the CGJ noted that security cameras were inoperable or non-existent. Some parks had infrequent security patrols. Some were unreasonably permissive of homeless and others using the parks for illegal purposes.
F4:
Repair- The CGJ visited some parks where maintenance equipment was not operating. This diminished the attractiveness of the park. Equipment needed for the maintenance and attractiveness of the park was not operating. For example, in one nature park the pumps circulating the water had been out of operation for a long period. Parking areas were unpaved. 52 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F5:
Signage- Some parks have no signs indicating the park office.
F6:
Staff- Some employees did not wear the issued identifying nametags. This could lead to unauthorized persons misleading park visitors.
F7:
Volunteers- Parks need volunteers, from community organizations and businesses.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation and The City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks should ensure that the parks are adequately staffed.
R2:
Ensure that restrooms are regularly inspected and cleaned.
R3:
Coordinate with law enforcement which provides security; ensure existing security cameras are operable
R4:
Maintain equipment; blacktop and mark parking areas.
R5:
Provide signs that clearly identify park offices.
R6:
Employees should wear employee identification nametags.
R7:
Enlist community businesses and residents to contribute resources and volunteers. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 53 This page intentionally left blank 54 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND PARKS INSPECTION REPORT This page intentionally left blank 56
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Staff- Of the twenty-nine parks visited, the CGJ found only two which were adequately staffed.
F2:
Sanitation- In most parks visited, the CGJ found unsanitary, graffiti and trash- filled restrooms.
F3:
Security- Some parks require heightened security due to their location. Yet the CGJ noted that security cameras were inoperable or non-existent. Some parks had infrequent security patrols. Some were unreasonably permissive of homeless and others using the parks for illegal purposes.
F4:
Repair- The CGJ visited some parks where maintenance equipment was not operating. This diminished the attractiveness of the park. Equipment needed for the maintenance and attractiveness of the park was not operating. For example, in one nature park the pumps circulating the water had been out of operation for a long period. Parking areas were unpaved. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 53
F5:
Signage- Some parks have no signs indicating the park office.
F6:
Staff- Some employees did not wear the issued identifying nametags. This could lead to unauthorized persons misleading park visitors.
F7:
Volunteers- Parks need volunteers, from community organizations and businesses.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation and The City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks should ensure that the parks are adequately staffed.
R2:
Ensure that restrooms are regularly inspected and cleaned.
R3:
Coordinate with law enforcement which provides security; ensure existing security cameras are operable
R4:
Maintain equipment; blacktop and mark parking areas.
R5:
Provide signs that clearly identify park offices.
R6:
Employees should wear employee identification nametags.
R7:
Enlist community businesses and residents to contribute resources and volunteers. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 54 This page intentionally left blank 55 RECREATION AND PARKS INSPECTION REPORT This page intentionally left blank
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
LAUSD should implement an emergency plan for the support of Integrated Financial Systems (IFS), the current operating system for accounts payable.
R2:
LAUSD should review alternative methods to support IFS activities in case of a major failure.
R3:
LAUSD should review any considerations to reduce current staff within Information Technology Group (ITG) supporting IFS and review the impact of bumping from future budget reductions on this portion of ITG.
R4:
LAUSD should proceed with a definitive Plan to implement Release III, Accounts Payable and related modules of Business Tools for Schools (BTS) as soon as possible with appropriate oversight, planning, timing and cost estimates.
R5:
LAUSD should review and ensure the lessons learned from Release II implementation be actively followed in Release III implementation.
R6:
LAUSD should ensure proper training processes be completed for all people involved prior to the implementation of Release III Accounts Payable of BTS.
R7:
LAUSD should ensure proper management oversight of normal control reports during the implementation of Release III Account Payable.
R8:
LAUSD should designate appropriate internal upper level management to actively participate in an Information Technology Steering Committee. This group would oversee the decisions, costs, and progress on all ITG projects. This group would also be responsible for responding to audits involving LAUSD system’s projects as well as follow-up to audit recommendations. This group would possibly include the Chief Technology Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Operating Officer, the head of Educational Activities and a member of the LAUSD Board of Education (BOE).
R9:
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) should review any audit with significant findings within a six-month period for compliance and response. The CGJ recommends that OIG should specifically review the four audits previously performed on the payroll system. OFFICE of PUBLIC GUARDIAN COMMITTEE MEMBERS Chairperson- Ron Murphy Olivia Headley Joe Kroening Huong T Do Nguyen
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
LAUSD should implement an emergency plan for the support of Integrated Financial Systems (IFS), the current operating system for accounts payable.
R2:
LAUSD should review alternative methods to support IFS activities in case of a major failure.
R3:
LAUSD should review any considerations to reduce current staff within Information Technology Group (ITG) supporting IFS and review the impact of bumping from future budget reductions on this portion of ITG.
R4:
LAUSD should proceed with a definitive Plan to implement Release III, Accounts Payable and related modules of Business Tools for Schools (BTS) as soon as possible with appropriate oversight, planning, timing and cost estimates.
R5:
LAUSD should review and ensure the lessons learned from Release II implementation be actively followed in Release III implementation.
R6:
LAUSD should ensure proper training processes be completed for all people involved prior to the implementation of Release III Accounts Payable of BTS.
R7:
LAUSD should ensure proper management oversight of normal control reports during the implementation of Release III Account Payable.
R8:
LAUSD should designate appropriate internal upper level management to actively participate in an Information Technology Steering Committee. This group would oversee the decisions, costs, and progress on all ITG projects. This group would also be responsible for responding to audits involving LAUSD system’s projects as well as follow-up to audit recommendations. This group would possibly include the Chief Technology Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Operating Officer, the head of Educational Activities and a member of the LAUSD Board of Education (BOE).
R9:
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) should review any audit with significant findings within a six-month period for compliance and response. The CGJ recommends that OIG should specifically review the four audits previously performed on the payroll system. OFFICE of PUBLIC GUARDIAN COMMITTEE MEMBERS Chairperson- Ron Murphy Olivia Headley Joe Kroening Huong T Do Nguyen
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Manual of Policy and Procedures was not updated nor had it been communicated well to employees. A panel of retired employees updated the manual for inclusion in the new computer system.
F2:
Although the Public Guardian allotted 100 overtime hours per week in the budget, only eight overtime hours were actually claimed weekly.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Communicate to all employees and new hires the Manual of Policy and Proce- dures and instruct them in using it. Emphasize the most pertinent changes. Use specially trained employees to assist fellow employees and new hires in understanding the manual and answering any questions.
R2:
Judiciously assign overtime work to reduce any backlog of cases and to ens- ure timely responses to new cases 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 67 Implementation of these recommendations would have a beneficial impact on the operation of the Office of the Public Guardian. Los Angeles County Public Guardian has a Deputy Director who is moving forward on the recommendations of blue CONSULTING. The County is at a critical juncture in maintaining its guardianship of citizens who need care. In community after community, the Public Guardian has demonstrated a commitment to the welfare of its senior citizens. Recognizing the vital importance of the department in the face of impending enormous budget cuts, it is critical that leaders stay the course and preserve the foundation of trust that has been basic to the support the Public Guardian. To do otherwise would be to deprive the citizens who built our country of well deserved care. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 68 This page intentionally left blank
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Manual of Policy and Procedures was not updated nor had it been communicated well to employees. A panel of retired employees updated the manual for inclusion in the new computer system.
F2:
Although the Public Guardian allotted 100 overtime hours per week in the budget, only eight overtime hours were actually claimed weekly.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Communicate to all employees and new hires the Manual of Policy and Proce- dures and instruct them in using it. Emphasize the most pertinent changes. Use specially trained employees to assist fellow employees and new hires in understanding the manual and answering any questions.
R2:
Judiciously assign overtime work to reduce any backlog of cases and to ens- ure timely responses to new cases 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 67 Implementation of these recommendations would have a beneficial impact on the operation of the Office of the Public Guardian. Los Angeles County Public Guardian has a Deputy Director who is moving forward on the recommendations of blue CONSULTING. The County is at a critical juncture in maintaining its guardianship of citizens who need care. In community after community, the Public Guardian has demonstrated a commitment to the welfare of its senior citizens. Recognizing the vital importance of the department in the face of impending enormous budget cuts, it is critical that leaders stay the course and preserve the foundation of trust that has been basic to the support the Public Guardian. To do otherwise would be to deprive the citizens who built our country of well deserved care. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 68 This page intentionally left blank
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The projected population increase will surpass the county’s ability to export enough solid waste to keep up with the amount of trash generated in the next ten years. The projected export figure for 2018 is 48,000 tons per day, without any new facilities to supplement solid waste reduction. The proposed three demonstration plants will have the combined capacity to process 450 to 900 tons a day. This is far short of keeping up with the burden of an expanding population.
F2:
Even with three successful demonstration plants in place by 2016 or 2017, the capacity of a conversion technology plant will be inadequate to meet the projected estimates of the population at that time. The projected estimated charge to dispose of solid waste at a landfill for these new plants is between $55-95/ ton.
F3:
The projected costs of building each of three plants is approximately $40-90 million. The funding to build will be borne by private companies who operate each facility. The county will be an interested observer and each plant will operate under a conditional use permit.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works should support those Los Angeles County organizations working toward a zero-waste future and work with communities in Southern California to create demonstration conversion technology facilities.
R2:
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works should evaluate and promote the development of the most promising conversion technology to recover energy, products and other benefits from waste.
R3:
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works should educate the public about solid waste challenges. CONCLUSION The CGJ concluded this project is long overdue and must be viewed relative to the long range ramifications that further inaction would engender. The projected population growth in both the state and county brings with it the need for a greater reduction and disposal of solid waste and makes the project of paramount importance. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 72 This page intentionally left blank
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The projected population increase will surpass the county’s ability to export enough solid waste to keep up with the amount of trash generated in the next ten years. The projected export figure for 2018 is 48,000 tons per day, without any new facilities to supplement solid waste reduction. The proposed three demonstration plants will have the combined capacity to process 450 to 900 tons a day. This is far short of keeping up with the burden of an expanding population.
F2:
Even with three successful demonstration plants in place by 2016 or 2017, the capacity of a conversion technology plant will be inadequate to meet the projected estimates of the population at that time. The projected estimated charge to dispose of solid waste at a landfill for these new plants is between $55-95/ ton.
F3:
The projected costs of building each of three plants is approximately $40-90 million. The funding to build will be borne by private companies who operate each facility. The county will be an interested observer and each plant will operate under a conditional use permit.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works should support those Los Angeles County organizations working toward a zero-waste future and work with communities in Southern California to create demonstration conversion technology facilities.
R2:
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works should evaluate and promote the development of the most promising conversion technology to recover energy, products and other benefits from waste.
R3:
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works should educate the public about solid waste challenges. CONCLUSION The CGJ concluded this project is long overdue and must be viewed relative to the long range ramifications that further inaction would engender. The projected population growth in both the state and county brings with it the need for a greater reduction and disposal of solid waste and makes the project of paramount importance. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 71 This page intentionally left blank 72 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
Operations, including work flow
F2:
Management COST A critical component of an MOU is a formal plan outlining a pooled budget. This process, after trust has been established, should be one of the first responsibilities of an Oversight Committee. The degree to which the involved parties are both frank and realistic at the onset of negotiations may determine the eventual success or failure of the project. An assumption may be made that all the participants will have a buy-in, that demand, or a list of demands, that if unmet, will be enough for the involved party to decline to participate. A genuine effort to accommodate each participant’s basic requirements is important. However, it is equally important for each participant to rank its needs. It may not be necessary for all essential items to be attained immediately. Additional components of cost savings are in the areas of transportation, document e-filing, and personnel deployment. Different agencies will realize different savings. Ideally, those who stand to realize the greatest savings will contribute the most, thus sharing their savings to stretch the budgets of the other participants. Another significant cost was the technology which has several components:
F3:
Recurring cost What would be a deal breaker? The participants responded that reduced budgets could affect their support of this effort. OPERATIONS The MOU would clearly define the daily operational responsibilities. An example would be the timely filing of discovery documents to the PD, preferably via electronic-delivery. This topic came up several times during the CGJ’s investigation. In essence, the PD would like to have 90% of their daily case-load delivered by a prescribed time to allow adequate time to schedule, interview and 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 75 appear. This would facilitate better organization of its resources and allow for better representation of its clients. Additionally, it would save time and money. The operational process would include a detailed workflow statement. This statement would show the details when each person involved in the video- conferencing technology hub system would interface as well as the responsibilities of that person in the process. Each participant would have an opportunity to develop processes within the operational section of the MOU that should lead to better efficiency, result in cost savings and set forth the responsibilities, and timelines Another major focus should be directed to the discussion and completion of a five year Strategic Plan for the implementation of a countywide video-conferencing technology hub system. TECHNOLOGY In this section of the MOU, the foundation is set with respect to hardware and software needed. This includes security of information, cameras, video monitors, middleware, compatibility, and required installation. There will be different levels of requirements among the various uses of video- conferencing technology such as need for a life-like experience, versus what is required for interviews, visitations, and conferencing. Consideration also needs to be given to security of information, as well as to privacy of the conversations between the PD and Alternate Public Defender offices and their clients. This would involve a middleware system and encryption. Any system must be compatible with what is already installed within the county and open to further expansion within the county. Allowances must be built into the cost for installations made in older buildings that may have asbestos. Discussions need to be centered on Broadband, Wi-Fi, or the other available technologies based on convenience, cost, and reliability. MANAGEMENT Emphasis should be given to the designation of key personnel from each agency to comprise an Oversight Committee, whose main function would be to proactively resolve any issues or disputes. Consideration is given to the inclusion of three to five members who come from the community to add diversity and balance. It is paramount the appointed leaders have the ability to act on behalf of their agencies. This creates timely resolution of issues and builds trust. The focus of this Oversight Committee is to ensure necessary MOU compliance. Issues or 76 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT disputes are heard and resolved in a timely manner to assure success beyond the pilot stage and for full countywide implementation. This Oversight Committee shall meet monthly, issue an agenda, have public meetings, promote public participation, and issue minutes to assure transparency. Section III TECHNOLOGY FOR VIDEO CONFERENCING Informational Security A key concern for all types of video-conferencing technology was the security of the information being transmitted, the audio being captured and the record of all proceedings. There was also the security of the discussion between the defendant and their legal counsel. It appears there were a number of security measures that need to be taken to ensure the system processes were proper. Technical There were a number of providers for video equipment. The displays can be plasma, LCD or projector images. The key decisions on the service used are experience, reliability, stability and service. The transmission varies by type and distance. The alternatives include:
F4:
Coaxial cable can handle up to 750 feet
F5:
RF cable – cable type depends on distance
F6:
Fiber Optic Cable – in a single or Multi –Node
F7:
UTP – Category 3,4,5 or 6
F8:
ISDN – Dial out to public
F9:
IP– LAN/WAN The implementation being completed by ISD was a Polycom System that was expandable and upgradeable. Two other major suppliers of video-conferencing technology equipment were Nefsis and Vulgate. Cost An expert in the field of video-conferencing technology estimated the cost of installation for video-conferencing technology would be between $30 and $40 thousand for each facility. In Los Angeles County there would be fifteen to twenty installations to achieve a video-conferencing technology hub system. This would mean a cost of between $500 thousand and $1 million. This does not include an estimated cost of $1-1.5million for the middleware which was required to control the access and privacy of the information between the parties. The cost estimate was a maximum $2.5 million for the entire Los Angeles County 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 77 system’s technical expense. This expert estimated the cost savings indicated a twelve to eighteen month short-term payback. Section IV LAPD METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER FINDINGS During its investigation into the implementation of video conferencing technology in various detention facilities in Los Angeles County, members of the CGJ visited the LAPD MDC at 100 N. Los Angeles Street in Los Angeles. It will supplant the older Metropolitan Judicial Center, which opened in 1955 and has been known since summer 1966 as Parker Center. The construction budget for the LAPD MDC was originally $70 million. In 2009, the estimated cost incurred was $85 million. This amount is increasing as design flaws are discovered and necessary corrections are made. The CGJ team noted a number of such basic flaws while touring the building, but the focus here is video-conferencing technology. Video arraignment and video visitation are the only aspects of video- conferencing technology currently being addressed in the LAPD MDC. A room located on the first floor adjacent to the booking area is expected to provide space for video arraignments. The room, approximately 20’ by 20’, had been wired for video, but at the time of the CGJ’s inspection, no equipment had been installed. The otherwise empty room had three rows of benches attached to the floor. The benches were outfitted with restraints. The security cameras failed to properly cover this room. Adjacent to this room were four smaller interview rooms that are better suited for video arraignments as they are more secure and allow for privacy between the defendants and their attorneys. The CGJ noted that the single large room does not allow for the segregation of defendants. Such segregation, by gang affiliation, sexual orientation, and race, was widely accepted by law enforcement agencies to be essential in maintaining the safety of both defendants and security personnel. The CGJ learned that for such safety to be provided, that the area would likely require modification and staffing would have to be increased by five to seven additional employees. The present design of the area offers no provision for client/attorney confidentiality and gives no consideration to the critical function of interpreters. It was expected that when/if this room is utilized, it will be used only for Felony Narcotics Arraignments, resulting in a projected 40 to 60 arraignments per day. The CGJ was satisfied with the video visitation installation at the LAPD MDC which had a room in the main lobby that contained sixteen video display terminals linked to sixteen inmate video visitation rooms within this detention 78 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT facility. This arrangement allowed for greater safety of those visiting and reduces the movement of the defendant within this facility.
F10:
Operations, including work flow
F11:
Management COST A critical component of an MOU is a formal plan outlining a pooled budget. This process, after trust has been established, should be one of the first responsibilities of an Oversight Committee. The degree to which the involved parties are both frank and realistic at the onset of negotiations may determine the eventual success or failure of the project. An assumption may be made that all the participants will have a buy-in, that demand, or a list of demands, that if unmet, will be enough for the involved party to decline to participate. A genuine effort to accommodate each participant’s basic requirements is important. However, it is equally important for each participant to rank its needs. It may not be necessary for all essential items to be attained immediately. Additional components of cost savings are in the areas of transportation, document e-filing, and personnel deployment. Different agencies will realize different savings. Ideally, those who stand to realize the greatest savings will contribute the most, thus sharing their savings to stretch the budgets of the other participants. Another significant cost was the technology which has several components:
F12:
Recurring cost What would be a deal breaker? The participants responded that reduced budgets could affect their support of this effort. OPERATIONS The MOU would clearly define the daily operational responsibilities. An example would be the timely filing of discovery documents to the PD, preferably via electronic-delivery. This topic came up several times during the CGJ’s investigation. In essence, the PD would like to have 90% of their daily case-load delivered by a prescribed time to allow adequate time to schedule, interview and 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 75 appear. This would facilitate better organization of its resources and allow for better representation of its clients. Additionally, it would save time and money. The operational process would include a detailed workflow statement. This statement would show the details when each person involved in the video- conferencing technology hub system would interface as well as the responsibilities of that person in the process. Each participant would have an opportunity to develop processes within the operational section of the MOU that should lead to better efficiency, result in cost savings and set forth the responsibilities, and timelines Another major focus should be directed to the discussion and completion of a five year Strategic Plan for the implementation of a countywide video-conferencing technology hub system. TECHNOLOGY In this section of the MOU, the foundation is set with respect to hardware and software needed. This includes security of information, cameras, video monitors, middleware, compatibility, and required installation. There will be different levels of requirements among the various uses of video- conferencing technology such as need for a life-like experience, versus what is required for interviews, visitations, and conferencing. Consideration also needs to be given to security of information, as well as to privacy of the conversations between the PD and Alternate Public Defender offices and their clients. This would involve a middleware system and encryption. Any system must be compatible with what is already installed within the county and open to further expansion within the county. Allowances must be built into the cost for installations made in older buildings that may have asbestos. Discussions need to be centered on Broadband, Wi-Fi, or the other available technologies based on convenience, cost, and reliability. MANAGEMENT Emphasis should be given to the designation of key personnel from each agency to comprise an Oversight Committee, whose main function would be to proactively resolve any issues or disputes. Consideration is given to the inclusion of three to five members who come from the community to add diversity and balance. It is paramount the appointed leaders have the ability to act on behalf of their agencies. This creates timely resolution of issues and builds trust. The focus of this Oversight Committee is to ensure necessary MOU compliance. Issues or 76 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT disputes are heard and resolved in a timely manner to assure success beyond the pilot stage and for full countywide implementation. This Oversight Committee shall meet monthly, issue an agenda, have public meetings, promote public participation, and issue minutes to assure transparency. Section III TECHNOLOGY FOR VIDEO CONFERENCING Informational Security A key concern for all types of video-conferencing technology was the security of the information being transmitted, the audio being captured and the record of all proceedings. There was also the security of the discussion between the defendant and their legal counsel. It appears there were a number of security measures that need to be taken to ensure the system processes were proper. Technical There were a number of providers for video equipment. The displays can be plasma, LCD or projector images. The key decisions on the service used are experience, reliability, stability and service. The transmission varies by type and distance. The alternatives include:
F13:
Coaxial cable can handle up to 750 feet
F14:
RF cable – cable type depends on distance
F15:
Fiber Optic Cable – in a single or Multi –Node
F16:
UTP – Category 3,4,5 or 6
F17:
ISDN – Dial out to public
F18:
IP– LAN/WAN The implementation being completed by ISD was a Polycom System that was expandable and upgradeable. Two other major suppliers of video-conferencing technology equipment were Nefsis and Vulgate. Cost An expert in the field of video-conferencing technology estimated the cost of installation for video-conferencing technology would be between $30 and $40 thousand for each facility. In Los Angeles County there would be fifteen to twenty installations to achieve a video-conferencing technology hub system. This would mean a cost of between $500 thousand and $1 million. This does not include an estimated cost of $1-1.5million for the middleware which was required to control the access and privacy of the information between the parties. The cost estimate was a maximum $2.5 million for the entire Los Angeles County 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 77 system’s technical expense. This expert estimated the cost savings indicated a twelve to eighteen month short-term payback. Section IV LAPD METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER FINDINGS During its investigation into the implementation of video conferencing technology in various detention facilities in Los Angeles County, members of the CGJ visited the LAPD MDC at 100 N. Los Angeles Street in Los Angeles. It will supplant the older Metropolitan Judicial Center, which opened in 1955 and has been known since summer 1966 as Parker Center. The construction budget for the LAPD MDC was originally $70 million. In 2009, the estimated cost incurred was $85 million. This amount is increasing as design flaws are discovered and necessary corrections are made. The CGJ team noted a number of such basic flaws while touring the building, but the focus here is video-conferencing technology. Video arraignment and video visitation are the only aspects of video- conferencing technology currently being addressed in the LAPD MDC. A room located on the first floor adjacent to the booking area is expected to provide space for video arraignments. The room, approximately 20’ by 20’, had been wired for video, but at the time of the CGJ’s inspection, no equipment had been installed. The otherwise empty room had three rows of benches attached to the floor. The benches were outfitted with restraints. The security cameras failed to properly cover this room. Adjacent to this room were four smaller interview rooms that are better suited for video arraignments as they are more secure and allow for privacy between the defendants and their attorneys. The CGJ noted that the single large room does not allow for the segregation of defendants. Such segregation, by gang affiliation, sexual orientation, and race, was widely accepted by law enforcement agencies to be essential in maintaining the safety of both defendants and security personnel. The CGJ learned that for such safety to be provided, that the area would likely require modification and staffing would have to be increased by five to seven additional employees. The present design of the area offers no provision for client/attorney confidentiality and gives no consideration to the critical function of interpreters. It was expected that when/if this room is utilized, it will be used only for Felony Narcotics Arraignments, resulting in a projected 40 to 60 arraignments per day. The CGJ was satisfied with the video visitation installation at the LAPD MDC which had a room in the main lobby that contained sixteen video display terminals linked to sixteen inmate video visitation rooms within this detention 78 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT facility. This arrangement allowed for greater safety of those visiting and reduces the movement of the defendant within this facility.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles, The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Public Defender, Los Angeles Police Department, and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department should draft/complete a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for a countywide video- conferencing technology hub system. The MOU should include: • A consensus of each participant’s involvement with its role clearly defined and stated • A well defined dispute resolution process • A detailed workflow statement • The cost agreement between the participants, allocated in a shared pool • The establishment of an Oversight Committee with representatives from each participating department, agency, or individual
R2:
The Oversight Committee for the countywide video-conferencing technology hub system should include: • A representative from the District of Attorney of the County of Los Angeles, The CEO of the County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Public Defender, LAPD, and LASD with authority to negotiate and make decisions that are involved in the entire process • Meetings scheduled on a monthly basis • Quarterly meetings with public attendance • Published minutes • Authority to interact with state and federal agencies • Ability to expand video-conferencing technology on a countywide basis
R3:
The District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles, The CEO of the County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Public Defender, Los Angeles Police Department, and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department should draft a Five Year Strategic Plan for a countywide video-conferencing technology hub system that includes the following: • Visitations • Interviews • Conferencing 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 79
R4:
The LAPD should modify the LAPD Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) as follows: • The four small interview rooms at the LAPD MDC should be rewired for video equipment and used as the principal space for video- conferencing applications • The security cameras, at the LADP MDC, should be adjusted, or their location changed, so that the 20’ by 20’ holding room is effectively monitored
R5:
In the future, when the LAPD considers any building project(s), particularly of the magnitude of the LAPD MDC, the design and bidding procedures should be more critically examined at the onset. Further, it is recommended that an Oversight Committee should guide and advise the architects and initial planners. Had this format been followed in the blueprint stage of the LAPD MDC, substantial monetary losses might have been avoided. 80 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT LIST OF ACRONYMS VIDEO-CONFERENCING TECHNOLOGY CGJ The 2009-2010 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury DA District Attorney ISD Internal Service Department LAPD Los Angeles Police Department LASD Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department MDC Metropolitan Detention Center MOU Memorandum of Understanding PD Public Defender 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 81 This page intentionally left blank 82 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
Operations, including work flow
F2:
Management COST A critical component of an MOU is a formal plan outlining a pooled budget. This process, after trust has been established, should be one of the first responsibilities of an Oversight Committee. The degree to which the involved parties are both frank and realistic at the onset of negotiations may determine the eventual success or failure of the project. An assumption may be made that all the participants will have a buy-in, that demand, or a list of demands, that if unmet, will be enough for the involved party to decline to participate. A genuine effort to accommodate each participant’s basic requirements is important. However, it is equally important for each participant to rank its needs. It may not be necessary for all essential items to be attained immediately. Additional components of cost savings are in the areas of transportation, document e-filing, and personnel deployment. Different agencies will realize different savings. Ideally, those who stand to realize the greatest savings will contribute the most, thus sharing their savings to stretch the budgets of the other participants. Another significant cost was the technology which has several components:
F3:
Recurring cost What would be a deal breaker? The participants responded that reduced budgets could affect their support of this effort. OPERATIONS The MOU would clearly define the daily operational responsibilities. An example would be the timely filing of discovery documents to the PD, preferably via electronic-delivery. This topic came up several times during the CGJ’s investigation. In essence, the PD would like to have 90% of their daily case-load delivered by a prescribed time to allow adequate time to schedule, interview and 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 76 appear. This would facilitate better organization of its resources and allow for better representation of its clients. Additionally, it would save time and money. The operational process would include a detailed workflow statement. This statement would show the details when each person involved in the video- conferencing technology hub system would interface as well as the responsibilities of that person in the process. Each participant would have an opportunity to develop processes within the operational section of the MOU that should lead to better efficiency, result in cost savings and set forth the responsibilities, and timelines Another major focus should be directed to the discussion and completion of a five year Strategic Plan for the implementation of a countywide video-conferencing technology hub system. TECHNOLOGY In this section of the MOU, the foundation is set with respect to hardware and software needed. This includes security of information, cameras, video monitors, middleware, compatibility, and required installation. There will be different levels of requirements among the various uses of video- conferencing technology such as need for a life-like experience, versus what is required for interviews, visitations, and conferencing. Consideration also needs to be given to security of information, as well as to privacy of the conversations between the PD and Alternate Public Defender offices and their clients. This would involve a middleware system and encryption. Any system must be compatible with what is already installed within the county and open to further expansion within the county. Allowances must be built into the cost for installations made in older buildings that may have asbestos. Discussions need to be centered on Broadband, Wi-Fi, or the other available technologies based on convenience, cost, and reliability. MANAGEMENT Emphasis should be given to the designation of key personnel from each agency to comprise an Oversight Committee, whose main function would be to proactively resolve any issues or disputes. Consideration is given to the inclusion of three to five members who come from the community to add diversity and balance. It is paramount the appointed leaders have the ability to act on behalf of their agencies. This creates timely resolution of issues and builds trust. The focus of this Oversight Committee is to ensure necessary MOU compliance. Issues or 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 77 disputes are heard and resolved in a timely manner to assure success beyond the pilot stage and for full countywide implementation. This Oversight Committee shall meet monthly, issue an agenda, have public meetings, promote public participation, and issue minutes to assure transparency. Section III TECHNOLOGY FOR VIDEO CONFERENCING Informational Security A key concern for all types of video-conferencing technology was the security of the information being transmitted, the audio being captured and the record of all proceedings. There was also the security of the discussion between the defendant and their legal counsel. It appears there were a number of security measures that need to be taken to ensure the system processes were proper. Technical There were a number of providers for video equipment. The displays can be plasma, LCD or projector images. The key decisions on the service used are experience, reliability, stability and service. The transmission varies by type and distance. The alternatives include:
F4:
Coaxial cable can handle up to 750 feet
F5:
RF cable – cable type depends on distance
F6:
Fiber Optic Cable – in a single or Multi –Node
F7:
UTP – Category 3,4,5 or 6
F8:
ISDN – Dial out to public
F9:
IP– LAN/WAN The implementation being completed by ISD was a Polycom System that was expandable and upgradeable. Two other major suppliers of video-conferencing technology equipment were Nefsis and Vulgate. Cost An expert in the field of video-conferencing technology estimated the cost of installation for video-conferencing technology would be between $30 and $40 thousand for each facility. In Los Angeles County there would be fifteen to twenty installations to achieve a video-conferencing technology hub system. This would mean a cost of between $500 thousand and $1 million. This does not include an estimated cost of $1-1.5million for the middleware which was required to control the access and privacy of the information between the parties. The cost estimate was a maximum $2.5 million for the entire Los Angeles County 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 78 system’s technical expense. This expert estimated the cost savings indicated a twelve to eighteen month short-term payback. Section IV LAPD METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER FINDINGS During its investigation into the implementation of video conferencing technology in various detention facilities in Los Angeles County, members of the CGJ visited the LAPD MDC at 100 N. Los Angeles Street in Los Angeles. It will supplant the older Metropolitan Judicial Center, which opened in 1955 and has been known since summer 1966 as Parker Center. The construction budget for the LAPD MDC was originally $70 million. In 2009, the estimated cost incurred was $85 million. This amount is increasing as design flaws are discovered and necessary corrections are made. The CGJ team noted a number of such basic flaws while touring the building, but the focus here is video-conferencing technology. Video arraignment and video visitation are the only aspects of video- conferencing technology currently being addressed in the LAPD MDC. A room located on the first floor adjacent to the booking area is expected to provide space for video arraignments. The room, approximately 20’ by 20’, had been wired for video, but at the time of the CGJ’s inspection, no equipment had been installed. The otherwise empty room had three rows of benches attached to the floor. The benches were outfitted with restraints. The security cameras failed to properly cover this room. Adjacent to this room were four smaller interview rooms that are better suited for video arraignments as they are more secure and allow for privacy between the defendants and their attorneys. The CGJ noted that the single large room does not allow for the segregation of defendants. Such segregation, by gang affiliation, sexual orientation, and race, was widely accepted by law enforcement agencies to be essential in maintaining the safety of both defendants and security personnel. The CGJ learned that for such safety to be provided, that the area would likely require modification and staffing would have to be increased by five to seven additional employees. The present design of the area offers no provision for client/attorney confidentiality and gives no consideration to the critical function of interpreters. It was expected that when/if this room is utilized, it will be used only for Felony Narcotics Arraignments, resulting in a projected 40 to 60 arraignments per day. The CGJ was satisfied with the video visitation installation at the LAPD MDC which had a room in the main lobby that contained sixteen video display terminals linked to sixteen inmate video visitation rooms within this detention 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 79 facility. This arrangement allowed for greater safety of those visiting and reduces the movement of the defendant within this facility.
F10:
Operations, including work flow
F11:
Management COST A critical component of an MOU is a formal plan outlining a pooled budget. This process, after trust has been established, should be one of the first responsibilities of an Oversight Committee. The degree to which the involved parties are both frank and realistic at the onset of negotiations may determine the eventual success or failure of the project. An assumption may be made that all the participants will have a buy-in, that demand, or a list of demands, that if unmet, will be enough for the involved party to decline to participate. A genuine effort to accommodate each participant’s basic requirements is important. However, it is equally important for each participant to rank its needs. It may not be necessary for all essential items to be attained immediately. Additional components of cost savings are in the areas of transportation, document e-filing, and personnel deployment. Different agencies will realize different savings. Ideally, those who stand to realize the greatest savings will contribute the most, thus sharing their savings to stretch the budgets of the other participants. Another significant cost was the technology which has several components:
F12:
Recurring cost What would be a deal breaker? The participants responded that reduced budgets could affect their support of this effort. OPERATIONS The MOU would clearly define the daily operational responsibilities. An example would be the timely filing of discovery documents to the PD, preferably via electronic-delivery. This topic came up several times during the CGJ’s investigation. In essence, the PD would like to have 90% of their daily case-load delivered by a prescribed time to allow adequate time to schedule, interview and 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 76 appear. This would facilitate better organization of its resources and allow for better representation of its clients. Additionally, it would save time and money. The operational process would include a detailed workflow statement. This statement would show the details when each person involved in the video- conferencing technology hub system would interface as well as the responsibilities of that person in the process. Each participant would have an opportunity to develop processes within the operational section of the MOU that should lead to better efficiency, result in cost savings and set forth the responsibilities, and timelines Another major focus should be directed to the discussion and completion of a five year Strategic Plan for the implementation of a countywide video-conferencing technology hub system. TECHNOLOGY In this section of the MOU, the foundation is set with respect to hardware and software needed. This includes security of information, cameras, video monitors, middleware, compatibility, and required installation. There will be different levels of requirements among the various uses of video- conferencing technology such as need for a life-like experience, versus what is required for interviews, visitations, and conferencing. Consideration also needs to be given to security of information, as well as to privacy of the conversations between the PD and Alternate Public Defender offices and their clients. This would involve a middleware system and encryption. Any system must be compatible with what is already installed within the county and open to further expansion within the county. Allowances must be built into the cost for installations made in older buildings that may have asbestos. Discussions need to be centered on Broadband, Wi-Fi, or the other available technologies based on convenience, cost, and reliability. MANAGEMENT Emphasis should be given to the designation of key personnel from each agency to comprise an Oversight Committee, whose main function would be to proactively resolve any issues or disputes. Consideration is given to the inclusion of three to five members who come from the community to add diversity and balance. It is paramount the appointed leaders have the ability to act on behalf of their agencies. This creates timely resolution of issues and builds trust. The focus of this Oversight Committee is to ensure necessary MOU compliance. Issues or 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 77 disputes are heard and resolved in a timely manner to assure success beyond the pilot stage and for full countywide implementation. This Oversight Committee shall meet monthly, issue an agenda, have public meetings, promote public participation, and issue minutes to assure transparency. Section III TECHNOLOGY FOR VIDEO CONFERENCING Informational Security A key concern for all types of video-conferencing technology was the security of the information being transmitted, the audio being captured and the record of all proceedings. There was also the security of the discussion between the defendant and their legal counsel. It appears there were a number of security measures that need to be taken to ensure the system processes were proper. Technical There were a number of providers for video equipment. The displays can be plasma, LCD or projector images. The key decisions on the service used are experience, reliability, stability and service. The transmission varies by type and distance. The alternatives include:
F13:
Coaxial cable can handle up to 750 feet
F14:
RF cable – cable type depends on distance
F15:
Fiber Optic Cable – in a single or Multi –Node
F16:
UTP – Category 3,4,5 or 6
F17:
ISDN – Dial out to public
F18:
IP– LAN/WAN The implementation being completed by ISD was a Polycom System that was expandable and upgradeable. Two other major suppliers of video-conferencing technology equipment were Nefsis and Vulgate. Cost An expert in the field of video-conferencing technology estimated the cost of installation for video-conferencing technology would be between $30 and $40 thousand for each facility. In Los Angeles County there would be fifteen to twenty installations to achieve a video-conferencing technology hub system. This would mean a cost of between $500 thousand and $1 million. This does not include an estimated cost of $1-1.5million for the middleware which was required to control the access and privacy of the information between the parties. The cost estimate was a maximum $2.5 million for the entire Los Angeles County 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 78 system’s technical expense. This expert estimated the cost savings indicated a twelve to eighteen month short-term payback. Section IV LAPD METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER FINDINGS During its investigation into the implementation of video conferencing technology in various detention facilities in Los Angeles County, members of the CGJ visited the LAPD MDC at 100 N. Los Angeles Street in Los Angeles. It will supplant the older Metropolitan Judicial Center, which opened in 1955 and has been known since summer 1966 as Parker Center. The construction budget for the LAPD MDC was originally $70 million. In 2009, the estimated cost incurred was $85 million. This amount is increasing as design flaws are discovered and necessary corrections are made. The CGJ team noted a number of such basic flaws while touring the building, but the focus here is video-conferencing technology. Video arraignment and video visitation are the only aspects of video- conferencing technology currently being addressed in the LAPD MDC. A room located on the first floor adjacent to the booking area is expected to provide space for video arraignments. The room, approximately 20’ by 20’, had been wired for video, but at the time of the CGJ’s inspection, no equipment had been installed. The otherwise empty room had three rows of benches attached to the floor. The benches were outfitted with restraints. The security cameras failed to properly cover this room. Adjacent to this room were four smaller interview rooms that are better suited for video arraignments as they are more secure and allow for privacy between the defendants and their attorneys. The CGJ noted that the single large room does not allow for the segregation of defendants. Such segregation, by gang affiliation, sexual orientation, and race, was widely accepted by law enforcement agencies to be essential in maintaining the safety of both defendants and security personnel. The CGJ learned that for such safety to be provided, that the area would likely require modification and staffing would have to be increased by five to seven additional employees. The present design of the area offers no provision for client/attorney confidentiality and gives no consideration to the critical function of interpreters. It was expected that when/if this room is utilized, it will be used only for Felony Narcotics Arraignments, resulting in a projected 40 to 60 arraignments per day. The CGJ was satisfied with the video visitation installation at the LAPD MDC which had a room in the main lobby that contained sixteen video display terminals linked to sixteen inmate video visitation rooms within this detention 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 79 facility. This arrangement allowed for greater safety of those visiting and reduces the movement of the defendant within this facility.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles, The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Public Defender, Los Angeles Police Department, and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department should draft/complete a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for a countywide video- conferencing technology hub system. The MOU should include: • A consensus of each participant’s involvement with its role clearly defined and stated • A well defined dispute resolution process • A detailed workflow statement • The cost agreement between the participants, allocated in a shared pool • The establishment of an Oversight Committee with representatives from each participating department, agency, or individual
R2:
The Oversight Committee for the countywide video-conferencing technology hub system should include: • A representative from the District of Attorney of the County of Los Angeles, The CEO of the County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Public Defender, LAPD, and LASD with authority to negotiate and make decisions that are involved in the entire process • Meetings scheduled on a monthly basis • Quarterly meetings with public attendance • Published minutes • Authority to interact with state and federal agencies • Ability to expand video-conferencing technology on a countywide basis
R3:
The District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles, The CEO of the County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Public Defender, Los Angeles Police Department, and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department should draft a Five Year Strategic Plan for a countywide video-conferencing technology hub system that includes the following: • Visitations • Interviews • Conferencing 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 80
R4:
The LAPD should modify the LAPD Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) as follows: • The four small interview rooms at the LAPD MDC should be rewired for video equipment and used as the principal space for video- conferencing applications • The security cameras, at the LADP MDC, should be adjusted, or their location changed, so that the 20’ by 20’ holding room is effectively monitored
R5:
In the future, when the LAPD considers any building project(s), particularly of the magnitude of the LAPD MDC, the design and bidding procedures should be more critically examined at the onset. Further, it is recommended that an Oversight Committee should guide and advise the architects and initial planners. Had this format been followed in the blueprint stage of the LAPD MDC, substantial monetary losses might have been avoided. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 81 LIST OF ACRONYMS VIDEO-CONFERENCING TECHNOLOGY CGJ The 2009-2010 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury DA
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
10 Glendale Water and Power (GWP), Long Beach Water Department, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Pasadena Water and Power Department, City of San Fernando Public Works Water, and the City of Santa Monica Water Department should support instructional literature and possible funding efforts for home purple pipe installations and gray water systems. Geographic Water Use To gain an understanding of water use, six LAC cities’ water departments were reviewed to see if they were targeting any specific geographic areas. The cities 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 98 selected were Santa Monica, Glendale, San Fernando, Long Beach, Pasadena, and Los Angeles. None of the cities questioned targeted specific geographic areas at the current time. San Fernando targeted the top ten internal users for water and has achieved a 5% reduction in use. The city was planning to review the top ten external users of water. HOW WAS THE CITY OF SAN FERNANDO PUBLIC WORKS WATER WAS ABLE TO REPLACE 75% OF ITS WATER CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE?
R2:
Extraction Well Number 2. The NHOU-R2 was not expected to be operational until 2015. The NHOU-R2 would not address the lower concentration or secondary plume that had already escaped the NHOU zone of influence. Although the concentration of the secondary plume was low in terms of Superfund Clean-up targets, it was still too high in terms of a drinking water source. The California Department of Public Health considered this secondary plume an extremely impaired drinking water source that could not be provided to the consumer without further treatment to meet state standards. A viable solution was to construct a groundwater purification complex in the SFB. The purification complex would expedite the groundwater remediation and contaminant mass removal associated with the secondary contamination plume, and enable LADWP to utilize all of its groundwater production wells in the SFB that are threatened or shutdown due to contamination. This purification complex would be a very cost effective way of ensuring LADWP’s future water supply compared to the cost of imported water, recycled water, and desalination. In order to determine the design criteria for the purification complex and to obtain the necessary approval form the California Department of Public Health, LADWP began a six-year, $19 million Groundwater System Improvement Study in the SFB. As part of this study, LADWP would secure a monitoring well-drilling contract by mid 2010 to install approximately forty new monitoring wells in the SFB that would assist with further characterizing the contamination in the SFB. LADWP was also working with the cities of Glendale and Burbank to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a list of projects needed to address various cleanup issues in the SFB. The MOU would allow the cities to more effectively secure federal funding for the needed facilities to clean up the SFB. LADWP was also implementing a cost-effective wellhead treatment to restore groundwater production while centralized treatment facilities were advanced. LADWP was maintaining and operating the initial NHOU-R2 remedy through various funding agreements from USEPA. No other federal funding had been provided to LADWP for addressing the groundwater contamination in the SFB. LADWP believed additional funding would be acquired in the future. Glendale Water and Power stated their supply of water from the SFB has not been affected by the contamination. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 108 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.3 LADWP should continue maximum efforts to obtain USEPA funding for the cleanup of the San Fernando Basin Aquifer. 2.4 LADWP should develop a detailed projection of the cost of the cleanup and securing the filtration processes on the wells of the San Fernando Basin Aquifer to obtain the maximum water output according to its legal rights, including the timeframe for completing this process. 2.5 LADWP should have a new review made of the amount of water that can be pumped from the SFB. Due to the future increased demand for water and possible reductions in water sources the SFB may be a major source of potable water. Owens Valley LADWP reported significant expenditures to date for environmental restoration and annual recurring maintenance of Owens River, and Owens and Mono Lakes. LADWP owned and operated the LAA that transported water from the Owens River and Mono and Owens Lake (OROML) to the City of Los Angeles. No major construction had occurred on the aqueduct or attendant facilities in recent years. There were no planned construction projects for this system known at the time of this report. However, LADWP was required by court order to restore habitat in the OROML, estimated to cost approximately $78 million. Water from the OROML is imported by LADWP. Due to the population growth of the city LADWP purchased water rights and started importing water via the Los Angeles Aqueduct from the OROML in 1913. LADWP expanded its presence and drew more water in successive years causing Mono and Owens lakes to dry up. Flow of the Owens River and other streams and rivers was diverted into the LAA and over time severe environmental damage began to occur. The LADWP was sued by the USEPA for dust mitigation. The main damage was that the dry lakebeds became dust hazards. Even before the environmental concerns became an issue, the diversion of water damaged the agricultural industry creating water wars between the LADWP and the residents of the affected areas. In 1989 the California Supreme Court halted all water diversions by LADWP and ordered an extensive ecosystem study to be prepared by the Water Resources Control Board (WCRB). After a series of legal defeats, the LADWP agreed to increase the permanent flows of the creeks and rivers to restore Owens Lake and Mono Lake. The California Supreme Court ruling required the Owens Lake level must reach three feet before LADWP can take 15,000 AFY. Once the level reached thirteen feet, LADWP will be allowed to take 30,000 AFY. This amount was only one-third of the amount of water taken by LADWP in 1988. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 109 Mono Lake’s recovery plan also followed the same timeline as Owens Lake’s except that it was ordered by the court in response to a lawsuit filed by the Audubon Society which cited the California Fish and Game Code and not any environmental concerns. Weather, over which no one has any control, cooperated with the LADWP for the recovery of the ecosystem by providing a large supply of water, thus advancing the timeline. However, recent years of low rain and snow pack had hampered the supply of water, causing a shortage in the allowable water for the LADWP. Statistics show that in 2008 LADWP received one-half of OROML water it did in 2001. IEA Report In 2002, the Industrial, Economic, and Administration (IEA) prepared a survey of the LADWP that contained numerous important and critical recommendations. The IEA again prepared a survey of LADWP in a report published on February 5, 2009 with follow-up to the 2002 recommendations and significant new recommendations. The significant issues raised from the 2002 review were organizational changes that impact operational continuity, adequate sources of water supply, improved communication with the consumer and required enhancements to infrastructure, and the lack of strategic planning process, Chart 6 delineates the areas covered in the IEA 2002 report that were reviewed in the IEA 2009 report as to the relevancy of the areas covered and the progress by LADWP in responding to those recommendations. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 110 Chart 6 IEA Recommendations (Chart made by CGJ based on information from the IEA Report Chart 6 indicates it was apparent that LADWP had received moderate to highly significant recommendations on the planning process but had only some or limited progress. The CGJ interviewed members of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners (BWPC) and various senior management-level personnel concerning the strategic planning process. It appeared the proper level of recognition in the usefulness of this highly regarded management tool was lacking. The CGJ interviewed the GWP about key issues in the management of its organization and the successes in accomplishing goals and strategies. GWP was extremely proud of its planning process and the output of its strategic plan document. As the CGJ reviewed this document, it was apparent GWP understood how to accomplish the task of completing and utilizing the strategic plan. Its plan included specific targeted tasks, due dates, impact statements, persons responsible and progress measurement criteria. Review Area and specific recommendations Not Moderately High Some Limited Moderate Significant Strategic Planning Emphasize strategic Planning 1 1 Culture change on strategic planning 1 1 Organizational changes 1 1 Examine Preferred Practices Model 1 1 Integrate Joint System 1 1 Joint System performance measurements 1 1 Total 0 2 4 3 3 0 0 Adequacy of Water Resources: Storage on LA Aquaduct 1 1 Use of MWD analysis of need 1 1 Alternate sources other than MWD 1 1 Legal issue with San Diego on MWD volume 1 1 Limitations of recycled water 1 1 New Quality Standards 1 1 Identify unaccounted water sources 1 1 Upgrade Pumping Capacity 1 1 Total 2 1 5 2 0 2 4 Water Quality Number of samples exceeding secondary samples 1 1 BWG-developed single-index measurement 1 1 Establish formal water Quality Goal 1 1 Benchmark against other cities 1 1 IT for useful data 1 1 Formal goals and objectives for the WSCS 1 1 Solicite expert advice on annual report 1 1 Proactive process for customer info on water quality 1 1 Formal well turn-on and turn-off process 1 1 Four alternates in Finding 12 1 1 Total 2 5 3 6 2 0 2 Installation & Maintenance of Water Infrastructure: Main line replacement project costs collected and analyzed 1 1 IT System fior WETS more user friendly 1 1 Time Schedule for in-house truck line construction 1 1 Establish time and cost performance targets for Trunk Line 1 1 Total 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 Grand Total 4 8 16 11 5 2 10 RELEVANCY FOLLOW-UP PROGRESS 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 111 The CGJ also noted that the IEA made recommendations concerning the use of recycled water. The CGJ’s investigation indicated recycled water was a relevant issue with insufficient progress. Later in this report, the CGJ addressed the issues and opportunities of using recycled water. As mentioned earlier in the report, Orange County has made significant strides and accomplished marked results in this area. Further, the IEA 2009 report made new recommendations. Some of the key recommendations included: • Support MWD/DWR current efforts on water transfers, and Delta levee improvements and benchmark progress against new reliability goals • Urge and team with MWD to take a leadership role in the development of a new generation of The California Water Plan that provides a blueprint for a state-wide drought shortage sharing policy, and a long-term drought period water transfer options program • Develop a LADWP drought use reduction targets and performance as a percent of standardized state-wide baseline water use • Use their California Conservation Councils’ Best Management Practices as benchmarks against other utilities’ achievements, through investments in standardized reporting • Create a unit cost of water policy goal, together with acceptable rate increases to achieve policy objectives regarding source reliability, water quality and environmental protection • The linkages between strategic objectives and the budget must be clearly stated. Ideally, all major budget decisions should be based on the strategic plan, and all strategic plan elements should have clear support in the budget • Once a comprehensive strategic plan is in place, an annual review of the strategic plan should be completed in time for the annual budget process to incorporate into the budget proposal any changes in the goal objectives • Each business unit should review its operating plan to assure it is aligned with the strategic plan and to make modifications to their operating plan to reflect changes in the operating environment as well as progress made on achieving business unit goals and objectives. The CGJ again recognized that IEA stressed the importance and the objectives of completing a comprehensive strategic plan. IEA also recommended significant improvements to the billing system and information being provided to the consumer. The CGJ has included these recommendations in Section III of this report concerning Smart Bills. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.6 The Mayor of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should mandate that top management complete a strategic plan with appropriate goals and objectives, target completion
R3:
Panel Discussion The City of San Fernando Public Works Water had an ordinance that required 50% of a yard has vegetation. It also used the water from purged fire hydrants to clean the streets, water the planted median strips in the city and other needs for water in the city. There were no city ordinances restricting daily watering. Pasadena Water and Power held workshops to provide tips for consumers on conservation. The city required consumers to water their properties only once per week for ten minutes per zone. The City of Santa Monica Water Department used processed runoff water from the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Facility for city sprinklers and also at the cemetery. There were no city ordinances restricting water use by homeowners and businesses for landscaping. The Long Beach Water Department required that residents only water their plants and lawns three days per week: Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays for ten minutes per zone. The CGJ had received a number of methods being utilized to promote water conservation. The following list is not in order of effectiveness or number of water districts that are using them: • Promote public participation in reporting excess water usage such as broken sprinklers, watering on unauthorized days and broken water lines • Increase public awareness programs for water conservative appliances • Educate consumers on water availability and supply • Promote water rate structures to encourage heavy users to reduce water usage • Utility employees provide water conservation analysis for commercial and high usage consumers • Water districts promote programs to provide smart meters so the consumer can understand the usage in their household • Water districts provide programs to redirect rain spout water for external usage, including the use of rain barrels 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 103 • Water districts provide increased usage of treated wastewater including educating the user of the safety of using treated wastewater • Use water tank trucks to capture the water from water main purging operations and using this water for various civic water needs • Convert lawns to water conserving plants and flora • Provide intermediate meters that measure inside versus outside consumption. This allows the consumer to determine where the water usage is going. It might be possible for the utility company to distinguish rates for life support versus outside water usage • Promote the use of purple pipes in homes to capture the water from dishwashers, showers and sinks for outside lawn use • Promote the use of rain barrels to capture water runoff • Establish an ordinance for limited watering days and duration of outside landscaping • Establish a comprehensive list of water sensitive plants and ground cover that can be purchased for outside landscaping • Hold quarterly meetings to discuss successful water conservation methods for implementation within each district SECTION II LADWP, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES GENERAL DISCUSSION Mayor’s Plan In May 2008, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa coordinated with the LADWP a report titled, Securing L.A.’s Water Supply. The plan was an attempt to respond to water shortages in 2007 and to initiate a proposal to rethink existing and future water supplies. The plan would respond to a demand for an additional 100 thousand AF of water per year by
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
10 Glendale Water and Power (GWP), Long Beach Water Department, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Pasadena Water and Power Department, City of San Fernando Public Works Water, and the City of Santa Monica Water Department should support instructional literature and possible funding efforts for home purple pipe installations and gray water systems. Geographic Water Use To gain an understanding of water use, six LAC cities’ water departments were reviewed to see if they were targeting any specific geographic areas. The cities 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 98 selected were Santa Monica, Glendale, San Fernando, Long Beach, Pasadena, and Los Angeles. None of the cities questioned targeted specific geographic areas at the current time. San Fernando targeted the top ten internal users for water and has achieved a 5% reduction in use. The city was planning to review the top ten external users of water. HOW WAS THE CITY OF SAN FERNANDO PUBLIC WORKS WATER WAS ABLE TO REPLACE 75% OF ITS WATER CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE?
R2:
Extraction Well Number 2. The NHOU-R2 was not expected to be operational until 2015. The NHOU-R2 would not address the lower concentration or secondary plume that had already escaped the NHOU zone of influence. Although the concentration of the secondary plume was low in terms of Superfund Clean-up targets, it was still too high in terms of a drinking water source. The California Department of Public Health considered this secondary plume an extremely impaired drinking water source that could not be provided to the consumer without further treatment to meet state standards. A viable solution was to construct a groundwater purification complex in the SFB. The purification complex would expedite the groundwater remediation and contaminant mass removal associated with the secondary contamination plume, and enable LADWP to utilize all of its groundwater production wells in the SFB that are threatened or shutdown due to contamination. This purification complex would be a very cost effective way of ensuring LADWP’s future water supply compared to the cost of imported water, recycled water, and desalination. In order to determine the design criteria for the purification complex and to obtain the necessary approval form the California Department of Public Health, LADWP began a six-year, $19 million Groundwater System Improvement Study in the SFB. As part of this study, LADWP would secure a monitoring well-drilling contract by mid 2010 to install approximately forty new monitoring wells in the SFB that would assist with further characterizing the contamination in the SFB. LADWP was also working with the cities of Glendale and Burbank to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a list of projects needed to address various cleanup issues in the SFB. The MOU would allow the cities to more effectively secure federal funding for the needed facilities to clean up the SFB. LADWP was also implementing a cost-effective wellhead treatment to restore groundwater production while centralized treatment facilities were advanced. LADWP was maintaining and operating the initial NHOU-R2 remedy through various funding agreements from USEPA. No other federal funding had been provided to LADWP for addressing the groundwater contamination in the SFB. LADWP believed additional funding would be acquired in the future. Glendale Water and Power stated their supply of water from the SFB has not been affected by the contamination. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 108 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.3 LADWP should continue maximum efforts to obtain USEPA funding for the cleanup of the San Fernando Basin Aquifer. 2.4 LADWP should develop a detailed projection of the cost of the cleanup and securing the filtration processes on the wells of the San Fernando Basin Aquifer to obtain the maximum water output according to its legal rights, including the timeframe for completing this process. 2.5 LADWP should have a new review made of the amount of water that can be pumped from the SFB. Due to the future increased demand for water and possible reductions in water sources the SFB may be a major source of potable water. Owens Valley LADWP reported significant expenditures to date for environmental restoration and annual recurring maintenance of Owens River, and Owens and Mono Lakes. LADWP owned and operated the LAA that transported water from the Owens River and Mono and Owens Lake (OROML) to the City of Los Angeles. No major construction had occurred on the aqueduct or attendant facilities in recent years. There were no planned construction projects for this system known at the time of this report. However, LADWP was required by court order to restore habitat in the OROML, estimated to cost approximately $78 million. Water from the OROML is imported by LADWP. Due to the population growth of the city LADWP purchased water rights and started importing water via the Los Angeles Aqueduct from the OROML in 1913. LADWP expanded its presence and drew more water in successive years causing Mono and Owens lakes to dry up. Flow of the Owens River and other streams and rivers was diverted into the LAA and over time severe environmental damage began to occur. The LADWP was sued by the USEPA for dust mitigation. The main damage was that the dry lakebeds became dust hazards. Even before the environmental concerns became an issue, the diversion of water damaged the agricultural industry creating water wars between the LADWP and the residents of the affected areas. In 1989 the California Supreme Court halted all water diversions by LADWP and ordered an extensive ecosystem study to be prepared by the Water Resources Control Board (WCRB). After a series of legal defeats, the LADWP agreed to increase the permanent flows of the creeks and rivers to restore Owens Lake and Mono Lake. The California Supreme Court ruling required the Owens Lake level must reach three feet before LADWP can take 15,000 AFY. Once the level reached thirteen feet, LADWP will be allowed to take 30,000 AFY. This amount was only one-third of the amount of water taken by LADWP in 1988. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 109 Mono Lake’s recovery plan also followed the same timeline as Owens Lake’s except that it was ordered by the court in response to a lawsuit filed by the Audubon Society which cited the California Fish and Game Code and not any environmental concerns. Weather, over which no one has any control, cooperated with the LADWP for the recovery of the ecosystem by providing a large supply of water, thus advancing the timeline. However, recent years of low rain and snow pack had hampered the supply of water, causing a shortage in the allowable water for the LADWP. Statistics show that in 2008 LADWP received one-half of OROML water it did in 2001. IEA Report In 2002, the Industrial, Economic, and Administration (IEA) prepared a survey of the LADWP that contained numerous important and critical recommendations. The IEA again prepared a survey of LADWP in a report published on February 5, 2009 with follow-up to the 2002 recommendations and significant new recommendations. The significant issues raised from the 2002 review were organizational changes that impact operational continuity, adequate sources of water supply, improved communication with the consumer and required enhancements to infrastructure, and the lack of strategic planning process, Chart 6 delineates the areas covered in the IEA 2002 report that were reviewed in the IEA 2009 report as to the relevancy of the areas covered and the progress by LADWP in responding to those recommendations. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 110 Chart 6 IEA Recommendations (Chart made by CGJ based on information from the IEA Report Chart 6 indicates it was apparent that LADWP had received moderate to highly significant recommendations on the planning process but had only some or limited progress. The CGJ interviewed members of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners (BWPC) and various senior management-level personnel concerning the strategic planning process. It appeared the proper level of recognition in the usefulness of this highly regarded management tool was lacking. The CGJ interviewed the GWP about key issues in the management of its organization and the successes in accomplishing goals and strategies. GWP was extremely proud of its planning process and the output of its strategic plan document. As the CGJ reviewed this document, it was apparent GWP understood how to accomplish the task of completing and utilizing the strategic plan. Its plan included specific targeted tasks, due dates, impact statements, persons responsible and progress measurement criteria. Review Area and specific recommendations Not Moderately High Some Limited Moderate Significant Strategic Planning Emphasize strategic Planning 1 1 Culture change on strategic planning 1 1 Organizational changes 1 1 Examine Preferred Practices Model 1 1 Integrate Joint System 1 1 Joint System performance measurements 1 1 Total 0 2 4 3 3 0 0 Adequacy of Water Resources: Storage on LA Aquaduct 1 1 Use of MWD analysis of need 1 1 Alternate sources other than MWD 1 1 Legal issue with San Diego on MWD volume 1 1 Limitations of recycled water 1 1 New Quality Standards 1 1 Identify unaccounted water sources 1 1 Upgrade Pumping Capacity 1 1 Total 2 1 5 2 0 2 4 Water Quality Number of samples exceeding secondary samples 1 1 BWG-developed single-index measurement 1 1 Establish formal water Quality Goal 1 1 Benchmark against other cities 1 1 IT for useful data 1 1 Formal goals and objectives for the WSCS 1 1 Solicite expert advice on annual report 1 1 Proactive process for customer info on water quality 1 1 Formal well turn-on and turn-off process 1 1 Four alternates in Finding 12 1 1 Total 2 5 3 6 2 0 2 Installation & Maintenance of Water Infrastructure: Main line replacement project costs collected and analyzed 1 1 IT System fior WETS more user friendly 1 1 Time Schedule for in-house truck line construction 1 1 Establish time and cost performance targets for Trunk Line 1 1 Total 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 Grand Total 4 8 16 11 5 2 10 RELEVANCY FOLLOW-UP PROGRESS 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 111 The CGJ also noted that the IEA made recommendations concerning the use of recycled water. The CGJ’s investigation indicated recycled water was a relevant issue with insufficient progress. Later in this report, the CGJ addressed the issues and opportunities of using recycled water. As mentioned earlier in the report, Orange County has made significant strides and accomplished marked results in this area. Further, the IEA 2009 report made new recommendations. Some of the key recommendations included: • Support MWD/DWR current efforts on water transfers, and Delta levee improvements and benchmark progress against new reliability goals • Urge and team with MWD to take a leadership role in the development of a new generation of The California Water Plan that provides a blueprint for a state-wide drought shortage sharing policy, and a long-term drought period water transfer options program • Develop a LADWP drought use reduction targets and performance as a percent of standardized state-wide baseline water use • Use their California Conservation Councils’ Best Management Practices as benchmarks against other utilities’ achievements, through investments in standardized reporting • Create a unit cost of water policy goal, together with acceptable rate increases to achieve policy objectives regarding source reliability, water quality and environmental protection • The linkages between strategic objectives and the budget must be clearly stated. Ideally, all major budget decisions should be based on the strategic plan, and all strategic plan elements should have clear support in the budget • Once a comprehensive strategic plan is in place, an annual review of the strategic plan should be completed in time for the annual budget process to incorporate into the budget proposal any changes in the goal objectives • Each business unit should review its operating plan to assure it is aligned with the strategic plan and to make modifications to their operating plan to reflect changes in the operating environment as well as progress made on achieving business unit goals and objectives. The CGJ again recognized that IEA stressed the importance and the objectives of completing a comprehensive strategic plan. IEA also recommended significant improvements to the billing system and information being provided to the consumer. The CGJ has included these recommendations in Section III of this report concerning Smart Bills. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.6 The Mayor of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should mandate that top management complete a strategic plan with appropriate goals and objectives, target completion
R3:
Panel Discussion The City of San Fernando Public Works Water had an ordinance that required 50% of a yard has vegetation. It also used the water from purged fire hydrants to clean the streets, water the planted median strips in the city and other needs for water in the city. There were no city ordinances restricting daily watering. Pasadena Water and Power held workshops to provide tips for consumers on conservation. The city required consumers to water their properties only once per week for ten minutes per zone. The City of Santa Monica Water Department used processed runoff water from the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Facility for city sprinklers and also at the cemetery. There were no city ordinances restricting water use by homeowners and businesses for landscaping. The Long Beach Water Department required that residents only water their plants and lawns three days per week: Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays for ten minutes per zone. The CGJ had received a number of methods being utilized to promote water conservation. The following list is not in order of effectiveness or number of water districts that are using them: • Promote public participation in reporting excess water usage such as broken sprinklers, watering on unauthorized days and broken water lines • Increase public awareness programs for water conservative appliances • Educate consumers on water availability and supply • Promote water rate structures to encourage heavy users to reduce water usage • Utility employees provide water conservation analysis for commercial and high usage consumers • Water districts promote programs to provide smart meters so the consumer can understand the usage in their household • Water districts provide programs to redirect rain spout water for external usage, including the use of rain barrels 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 103 • Water districts provide increased usage of treated wastewater including educating the user of the safety of using treated wastewater • Use water tank trucks to capture the water from water main purging operations and using this water for various civic water needs • Convert lawns to water conserving plants and flora • Provide intermediate meters that measure inside versus outside consumption. This allows the consumer to determine where the water usage is going. It might be possible for the utility company to distinguish rates for life support versus outside water usage • Promote the use of purple pipes in homes to capture the water from dishwashers, showers and sinks for outside lawn use • Promote the use of rain barrels to capture water runoff • Establish an ordinance for limited watering days and duration of outside landscaping • Establish a comprehensive list of water sensitive plants and ground cover that can be purchased for outside landscaping • Hold quarterly meetings to discuss successful water conservation methods for implementation within each district SECTION II LADWP, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES GENERAL DISCUSSION Mayor’s Plan In May 2008, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa coordinated with the LADWP a report titled, Securing L.A.’s Water Supply. The plan was an attempt to respond to water shortages in 2007 and to initiate a proposal to rethink existing and future water supplies. The plan would respond to a demand for an additional 100 thousand AF of water per year by