Marin County Grand Jury

2013-2014

9 reports

From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
View the full annual report (PDF)
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (9)
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: The cost of health care in the Marin County Jail has increased and is likely to continue to increase if the services are continued at the current level and funded as currently provided.
F2: Providing involuntary psychiatric medication by the Marin County Psychiatric Emergency Service on a one-time emergency basis (rather than at the Santa Clara Jail after transport) is likely to reduce costs and to improve patient care in some instances.
F3: Enrolling eligible inmates in expanded Medi-Cal under the Affordable Care Act would save the County a modest amount of money while the inmates are incarcerated and would improve the transition to outside health care when the inmate is released.
Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Explore the option of contracting for medical, mental health and dental services at the Jail with a high quality correctional provider, rather than providing these services with County employees.
R2: Develop procedures for providing involuntary psychiatric medication on a one-time emergency basis in Marin County, rather than sending the inmate to the Santa Clara Jail for this service.
R3: Enroll, or continue to enroll, eligible inmates in expanded Medi-Cal under the Affordable Care Act. Provide assistance with the application process for those who are unable to accomplish it for themselves.
Findings & Recommendations 12 findings
F1: Bolinas Community Public Utility District, Mill Valley, Tamalpais Community Services District, and Tomales Village Community Services District do not have Capital Improvement Plans as required by SWRCB Order 2006-0003-DWQ, p.11 item iv – Operation and Maintenance Program.
F2: Bolinas Public Utility District, Mill Valley, Murray Park Sewer Maintenance District, San Quentin Sewer Maintenance District, Tamalpais Community Services District and Tomales Village Community Services District do not have financial reserve policies.
F3: It is difficult to compare reserves across agencies due to different financial reserve policies and reporting approaches.
F4: Alto and Homestead Valley did not report any financial reserves.
F5: Almonte, Homestead Valley, and Tomales Village Community Services District have not completed audits of their SSMPs in the last two years as required by SWRCB Order 2006-0003-DWQ, p.14, SSMP Program Audits. The Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) no longer allows for this requirement to be waived for agencies with a population of less than 10,000 as outlined in their letter dated October 3, 2012.4 4 Letter from San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board dated October 3, 2102, subject “Discontinuation of Requirements for Annual Reports of Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), and annual Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) Audits”
F6: Homestead Valley, Mill Valley, North Marin Water District, Richardson Bay, Sanitary District #5 (Tiburon), Tamalpais Community Services District, and Tomales Villages Community Services District have not posted their SSMPs on their websites.
F7: Alto and Homestead Valley reported that they do not have Overflow Emergency Response Plans (OER), as required by SWRCB Order 2006-0003-DWQ, p.12, Overflow Emergency Response Plan, item vi.
F8: Alto, Bolinas Community Public Utility District, Homestead Valley, Mill Valley and Tomales Village Community Services District do not have Overflow Emergency Response training manuals.
F9: Alto, San Rafael, Sanitary District #2 (Corte Madera) and SASM do not have websites to provide information to their customer bases.
F10: All board members at Sanitary District #2 and some board members at Almonte, San Rafael and Sausalito have not renewed their ethics training in the last two years as required by Government Code Article 2.4.
F11: The SSMPs for Alto and Homestead Valley are not maintained at an appropriate location as required by SWRCB Order 2006-0003-DWQ, p.17, WDRs and SSMP Availability.
F12: Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District and Mill Valley are not reporting their category 1 spills within the time frame required by State Water Resources Control Board Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC
Additional Recommendations 11

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Bolinas Community Public Utility District, Mill Valley, Tamalpais Community Services District and Tomales Village Community Services District develop capital improvement plans by the end of 2014.
R2: Bolinas Public Utility District, Mill Valley, Murray Park Sewer Maintenance District, San Quentin Sewer Maintenance District, Tamalpais Community Services District and Tomales Village Community Services District develop financial reserves policies.
R3: Alto and Homestead Valley establish designated annual financial reserve amounts.
R4: Almonte, Homestead Valley and Tomales Village Community Services District complete audits of their SSMPs by August 2, 2014, as required by RWQCB.
R5: Homestead Valley, Mill Valley, North Marin Water District, Richardson Bay, Sanitary District #5, Tamalpais Community Services District and Tomales Villages Community Services District post their SSMPs on their websites.
R6: Alto and Homestead Valley develop Overflow Emergency Response Manuals that describe the Overflow Emergency Response Plan per SWRCB Order 2006-0003- DWQ, p.12, Overflow Emergency Response Plan, item vi.
R7: Alto, Bolinas Public Utility District, Homestead Valley, Mill Valley and Tomales Village Community Services District develop Overflow Emergency Response Training Manuals.
R8: Alto, San Rafael, Sanitary District #2 and SASM develop and operate an internet website. The website should include, at a minimum, details of the agency and its leadership, board meeting agendas and minutes, an annual budget, audited financial statements, and the SSMP including the OER.
R9: The board members at Almonte, Sanitation District #2, San Rafael and Sausalito update their ethics training to be in compliance with state law.
R10: Alto and Homestead Valley make their SSMPs available at an accessible location within the communities in which they are located.
R11: Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District and Mill Valley report their Category 1 spills within two hours of becoming aware of the spill, as required by State Water Resources Control Board Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC.
Findings & Recommendations 12 findings
F1: A significant portion, representing 57 percent ($77M), of the total tax and fee revenue going to independent special districts in Marin County in fiscal year 2012- 2013 went to wastewater special districts.
F2: Despite the stated priority that agencies have towards minimizing sanitary sewer overflows, Marin County still experiences an unacceptable level of overflows. During the period 2011-2013 a volume reported as 688,548 gallons of wastewater spilled into neighborhoods, streams and the Bay.
F3: Taxpayers ultimately bear the burden of fines resulting from excessive sewer spill activity, which in the period 2011-2013 amounted to $1,839,100.
F4: The City of Sausalito’s rate study dated February 27, 2014, presents a combination of fixed and variable fees to meet capital improvement projects and create greater equity among ratepayers.
F5: The member agencies of Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin are addressing the critical problem of spills from private laterals by working on a model ordinance with triggers that will require private laterals to be inspected and repaired at the time of sale or remodels above a certain dollar amount.
F6: CMSA is in the process of obtaining a permit to allow the use of treated wastewater for off-site purposes, such as sewer pipe flushing and maintenance. The water could be available to its member agencies and potentially other agencies, offering an important water conservation opportunity during a drought time.
F7: The Final Report of the Ross Valley Sanitary District’s July 2012 consolidation study is not posted on RVSD’s website and therefore not easily accessible to the public.
F8: The Final Report of the Ross Valley Sanitary District’s July 2012 consolidation study states that for any consolidation to be equitable to the four central Marin agencies, additional cost efficiencies to the tune of $1,000,000 would be required. This could represent significant savings to the taxpayers of Marin.
F9: There are many costs that are duplicated among wastewater agencies, particularly with regards to management, administration, overhead and governance.
F10: Alto, Almonte and Homestead Valley are merging some personnel and administrative functions and considering merging additional activities, potentially resulting in a more effective management approach for these very small agencies.
F11: The City of Sausalito and Marin City-Sausalito Sanitation District are pursuing functional consolidation that could lead to improved practices, greater efficiencies and cost-savings.
F12: Districts are working together across the County, demonstrating an increasing level of commitment to cooperation and resource sharing. Most districts agree that there is potential for greater collaboration and cost reduction.
Additional Recommendations 8

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: All districts must work to eliminate spills, through in-depth analysis and investment in infrastructure.
R2: The City of Sausalito share its rate study dated February 27, 2014, with all the collection agencies in Marin.
R3: All agencies adopt an ordinance that will require private laterals to be inspected routinely and repaired as necessary.
R4: All agencies conduct an analysis to determine the feasibility of using treated waste water for flushing pipes in routine maintenance work.
R5: All agencies continue to cooperate with each other and find further ways to reduce costs.
R6: Alto, Almonte and Homestead Valley pursue further merging of operations and administration, including creating one website for the three districts.
R7: The Ross Valley Sanitary District place the July 2012 consolidation study final report on its website and have it be easily accessible to the public.
R8: The central Marin agencies continue to pursue consolidation efforts, both functional and structural.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: The Marin County Department of Health and Human Services annual budget for foster care recruitment is not adequate.
F2: Communication between social workers and foster parents needs improvement.
F3: Foster children are not receiving consistent therapy from licensed clinical psychologists or therapists.
Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Marin County Department of Health and Human Services allocate additional funds for the recruitment of foster parents.
R2: The Marin Child and Family Services staff improves its communication with foster parents by developing a protocol to return calls within 24 hours.
R3: Marin County Department of Health and Human Services budget sufficient funds to provide foster children with therapy by licensed clinical psychologists or therapists rather than relying predominantly on interns.
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F1: A complete list of all Special Districts in Marin County (both independent and dependent) did not exist when the Grand Jury began its investigation, therefore, the residents of Marin did not have easy access to data related to special districts in their location.
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The County of Marin add a page to its website listing all Special Districts in Marin County (both independent and dependent) with contact information and a link to the Marin LAFCO website for those Districts that fall within Marin LAFCO’s jurisdiction.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: Marin high school boards failed to communicate effectively to administration and staff changes to the Education Code (Section 48900.5) requiring schools to try other means before suspending for nonviolent offenses.
F2: There is a lack of written, specific, and emphatic direction (codification) coming from the three high school boards regarding suspension intervention goals and policies.
F3: Students are being subjected to inconsistent consequences for similar behavior.
F4: Maintaining the recent reductions in overall suspensions at Marin’s high schools will depend upon the support and direction from the district school boards.
F5: Parent-student handbooks are not current and do not provide users adequate insight into suspension alternatives (Terra Linda excepted) or the updated Education Code other means requirement.
F6: Marin high schools and school boards do not thoroughly analyze suspension statistics seeking verifiable cause-and-effect explanations for yearly variance.
F7: Communication among Marin’s school districts, regarding ongoing suspension intervention programs, would help to reduce unnecessary duplication of experience and training.
F8: The response to willful defiance, an ill-defined, nonviolent suspendible offense, is inconsistent across Marin’s high schools and districts.
Additional Recommendations 8

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Every Marin County school board review amended Education Code 48900.5 and develop a formal written directive, to communicate the other means provision while stating explicitly that suspension is to be used only as a last resort.
R2: Each school district create an advisory task force that includes participants from the school board, the superintendent’s office, and each school within the district to study successful suspension intervention programs.
R3: Once the task force completes its review (R2), each school board adopt appropriate, comprehensive suspension interventions, such as the restorative practices and alternatives presented in Appendix A.
R4: Each high school update Parent-Student Handbooks to include both the Education Code other means requirement and a detailed discussion of suspension alternatives.
R5: Administrators of each school review suspension data on a regular basis and provide results of that review, in writing, to the district superintendent and school board as a means to ensure compliance with policy.
R6: The County Superintendent of Schools schedule regular sessions with inter-district administrators and school personnel to broaden countywide insight into and implementation of suspension intervention programs.
R7: Each Marin County high school district adopt policies to substantially decrease or eliminate entirely suspensions for willful defiance (Section 48900(k) of the Education Code).
R15-20: percent of this individual’s time devoted to disciplinary issues, restorative programs are in the planning stages. Consistency of program implementation remains a potential issue. Does every student have equal opportunity to participate? A small number of administrators admitted they are currently constrained by lack of resources such as available and trained personnel. Others stated they choose to exclude students they deem “a waste of time” from alternative interventions. A restorative justice professional observed that, across Marin County schools, “Not every kid gets the opportunity for peer review. It’s still a judgment call.” This person went on to say, “I believe all kids in similar situations should be given access to restorative programs.” Most interviewees suggested that, given more time and resources and less cultural resistance, they would enhance programs, citing specifically restorative practices. In other words, there is a will in search of a more expansive way. Conclusions After an exhaustive study of these trends and issues, the Grand Jury concluded that Marin’s largest high schools have equity issues that mirror much of the state. For similar offenses one child might benefit from suspension-intervention programs while another child may be sent home where no adult is available to provide supervision. The disparity between intervention opportunities exists not only among the three Marin high school districts, Tamalpais, San Rafael, and Novato, but at times between schools in the same district. Some of these differences in disciplinary outcome relate to the serendipity of school boundaries, tougher disciplinarians, or simply wrong place wrong time. The Grand Jury believes that hands-on district-wide approaches would encourage appropriate resource allocation, cooperation between competing interests, and equitable implementation of suspension diversion programs. As a result of this investigation, the 34 “Terra Linda Student Conduct Code, Disciplinary Violations and Consequences,” Terra Linda Student & Parent Handbook, 2013-2014, pp. 22-23, http://tlhs.srcs.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1217027460424/1281197196381/1135646307358714573.pdf. The Grand Jury regards this type of intervention specificity as worthy of county-wide consideration. Grand Jury recommends educational administrators at all levels scrutinize data and policies on a school-by-school basis in an effort to improve disciplinary consistency, especially as it relates to suspension policies. Also recommended is a review of successful programs across the state. To these ends, each district and school should develop a flexible toolkit of alternatives to suspension (as in Appendix A) whenever practical. Implementation of alternatives should be a focus of elected board members, supervisors, principals, assistant principals, teachers, and parents. In recognition of these findings, all Marin school boards, not just the three high school districts in this study, would do well to study formally the pros and cons of available programs. Educators nationally view San Rafael’s Davidson Middle School as a restorative model. Within Davidson, widespread teacher training in Restorative Circles is woven with regular Peer Court sessions and No Bully Solution Teams (see Appendix A). When asked if Davidson-like programs could be duplicated at Marin high schools, one district official answered unequivocally, “Yes.” Another, when asked why programs were not being studied and implemented in a similarly systematic manner, answered, “That’s a good question.” Where programs like this already exist, investigation of their effectiveness would reap dividends. On a more macro-level, inter-district cooperation would contribute additional benefit. With empowerment and funding issues, it is unlikely Marin County will ever consolidate its twenty school districts. But that should not preclude inter-district cooperation in program evaluation and personnel training. Perhaps this is an area where the Office of the Marin County Superintendent of Schools might aid in facilitating or at least encouraging systematic approaches that speed adoption of better practices. With an investment in time, curiosity, focus, and additional hands-on directives, schools will move closer to establishing the same quality outcomes for all students while preserving impressive recent gains in suspension reduction. Another administrator said of the Grand Jury suspension review: “Sometimes we need a kick to our backsides.” If so, consider this report a firm pat on the back accompanied by a gentle boot. FINDINGS F1. Marin high school boards failed to communicate effectively to administration and staff changes to the Education Code (Section 48900.5) requiring schools to try other means before suspending for nonviolent offenses. F2. There is a lack of written, specific, and emphatic direction (codification) coming from the three high school boards regarding suspension intervention goals and policies. F3. Students are being subjected to inconsistent consequences for similar behavior. F4. Maintaining the recent reductions in overall suspensions at Marin’s high schools will depend upon the support and direction from the district school boards. F5. Parent-student handbooks are not current and do not provide users adequate insight into suspension alternatives (Terra Linda excepted) or the updated Education Code other means requirement. F6. Marin high schools and school boards do not thoroughly analyze suspension statistics seeking verifiable cause-and-effect explanations for yearly variance. F7. Communication among Marin’s school districts, regarding ongoing suspension intervention programs, would help to reduce unnecessary duplication of experience and training. F8. The response to willful defiance, an ill-defined, nonviolent suspendible offense, is inconsistent across Marin’s high schools and districts. RECOMMENDATIONS R1. Every Marin County school board review amended Education Code 48900.5 and develop a formal written directive, to communicate the other means provision while stating explicitly that suspension is to be used only as a last resort. R2. Each school district create an advisory task force that includes participants from the school board, the superintendent’s office, and each school within the district to study successful suspension intervention programs. R3. Once the task force completes its review (R2), each school board adopt appropriate, comprehensive suspension interventions, such as the restorative practices and alternatives presented in Appendix A. R4. Each high school update Parent-Student Handbooks to include both the Education Code other means requirement and a detailed discussion of suspension alternatives. R5. Administrators of each school review suspension data on a regular basis and provide results of that review, in writing, to the district superintendent and school board as a means to ensure compliance with policy. R6. The County Superintendent of Schools schedule regular sessions with inter-district administrators and school personnel to broaden countywide insight into and implementation of suspension intervention programs. R7. Each Marin County high school district adopt policies to substantially decrease or eliminate entirely suspensions for willful defiance (Section 48900(k) of the Education Code). REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal code section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows: From the following governing bodies: Novato Unified School District Board n Tamalpais Union High School District Board n San Rafael City School Board n The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted in accordance with Penal Code section 933 (c) and subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. From the following individual: Marin County Office of Education, Superintendent n The Grand Jury invites responses from the following: The Superintendent of Novato Unified School District n The Superintendent of the Tamalpais Union District n The Superintendent of the San Rafael City District n Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation.
Findings & Recommendations 21 findings
F1: The Marin County Government Board of Supervisors and Administration do not appear to have written plans or policies on recycling, composting and reuse in County owned and occupied facilities. This results in less than optimal behavior and performance with respect to these activities.
F2: A recycling, composting, and reuse plan with meaningful and measureable goals and the creation and dissemination of internal policies regarding recycling, composting, and reuse could improve the County government’s diversion rate.
F3: County employees do not perceive clear direction or an imperative from leadership on the importance of recycling, composting, and reuse.
F4: Recycling practices are inconsistent across County departments and facilities.
F5: Educating employees and visitors on how, why, and where to recycle, compost, and reuse, while making it easier for everyone to accomplish these activities, would improve the County government’s diversion rate. Marin County Civic Center and Grounds:
F6: The Grand Jury estimates that the actual diversion rate for the Civic Center building in 2012 was approximately 45 percent.
F7: The Marin County government could do a better job recycling the waste generated in the Marin County Civic Center and on its immediate grounds.
F8: The system for recycling paper in the Civic Center and County Jail is well established and, while there is room for improvement, it is a good example of successful recycling implementation.
F9: The County may have an opportunity to reduce waste by moving to business processes that use no paper or less paper than current processes.
F10: Prior to this investigation, the County Department of Public Works placed recyclable materials in closed plastic bags into the 25-yard debris box. These bags then went to the landfill and were not recycled. This includes materials placed in cafeteria bins labeled for recyclables. Recyclables were being sent to the landfill due to a misunderstanding of the policies of Marin Sanitary Service. The Department of Public Works made two attempts to remedy this during the Grand Jury’s investigation; but, due to further misunderstanding, there is still considerable room for improvement.
F11: It is not easy for employees of the Civic Center to recycle glass, aluminum, and plastic. Offices and departments generally do not have receptacles for these recyclables; and, if they do, it is an employee-driven initiative and not a service provided by the janitorial staff.
F12: It is not easy for visitors to the Civic Center to recycle as available recycling receptacles are sparsely placed, difficult to see from even a short distance, and not labeled clearly and effectively.
F13: The Civic Center could reduce food waste going to the landfill by providing pre- consumer food waste to the Marin Sanitary Service Food-to-Energy Program.
F14: Marin County Parks could do a better job ensuring that landscaping waste put in the 18-yard debris box gets composted and not taken to the landfill. They could dump the landscaping waste out of the bags and reuse the bags.
F15: The Civic Center cafeteria would be more effective in promoting reuse if they advertised in the cafeteria and elsewhere that there is a deep discount on coffee and tea with a reusable cup. Marin County Jail:
F16: The Grand Jury estimates the diversion rate for the County Jail was approximately 15 percent in 2012.
F17: The Marin County Jail could do a better job recycling waste generated in the County Jail facility.
F18: Improvements were made during the course of this investigation; for example, the Marin County Jail started recycling steel cans late in 2013.
F19: The system for recycling paper at the County Jail is well established and while there is room for improvement, it is a good example of successful recycling implementation.
F20: The Marin County Jail could eliminate a prevalent source of garbage by moving from a single serving milk carton system to a milk dispensing system.
F21: It may be feasible to compost food waste generated by inmates at the Marin County Jail.
Additional Recommendations 7

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Marin County Board of Supervisors develop, adopt, and publish a written plan for recycling, composting, and reuse in all County government offices and facilities, including the Marin County Jail, and on County property. The plan should include measurable performance metrics and goals for these metrics and be updated every two years.
R2: The Board of Supervisors create and publish an annual assessment of performance against goals as identified in R1 (above) to compare actual recycling, composting, and reuse performance with goal performance for each performance metric.
R3: The Board of Supervisors request an annual waste characterization study and annual diversion rate statistics based on the current waste characterization study for each facility owned or occupied by the County Government with over 50 employees on site.
R4: The Marin County Government increase recycling and reuse at the Civic Center by adopting the following: a. Install glass/plastic/aluminum recycling bins in offices to be emptied by the janitorial staff into Marin Sanitary Service recycling carts. b. Dispose of cafeteria recyclables in the Marin Sanitary Service recycling carts at the custodial loading dock; do not put them in bags in the 25-yard debris box. c. Add recycling carts at custodial loading dock or have them picked up more often as needed to handle additional volume. d. Work with the Frank Lloyd Wright Civic Center Conservancy to install additional recycling bins and improved signage in public areas. Discontinue separation of glass, plastic and aluminum, and provide paper recycling in the hallways for visitors. e. Better educate employees and visitors as to how, what, and where to recycle. f. Encourage county employees to recycle more effectively through improved communication. g. Encourage county employees to use reusable coffee and tea cups; advertise discount offered by the cafeteria. h. Participate in Marin Sanitary Service’s Food-to-Energy program. i. Ensure that all cardboard and paper is recycled. j. Dump landscape waste out of the plastic bags when it is put in to the 18-yard debris box. Reuse plastic bags.
R5: The Marin County Jail continue to recycle steel cans and improve paper and cardboard recycling.
R6: The Marin County Jail work to implement a milk dispensing system to reduce or eliminate the use of single serving milk cartons.
R7: The Marin County Jail work with Marin Sanitary Service to develop a system to compost post-consumer food waste from the Jail.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: On-officer cameras have been found to reduce citizen complaints and increase officer safety, but only three law enforcement agencies in the county are using these cameras.
F2: Financial constraints are the reasons most cited by the law enforcement agencies that have not purchased modern audiovisual equipment.
F3: As of this report, the Sheriff’s Department has not expressed an interest in purchasing body cameras.
Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Department and all police departments in the County use on-officer cameras.
R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the police departments of San Rafael, Sausalito, Ross, Fairfax, Central Marin and Mill Valley request that their respective city councils provide funds to obtain on-officer cameras and pursue other funding sources as well.
R3: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Department request funds from the Board of Supervisors for on-officer cameras and pursue grants and other funding sources.