Marin County Grand Jury
2014-2015
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (7)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Marin County government’s MFR program is not an integral part of the strategic planning process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors strengthens the Managing for Results Program with meaningful goals and measurements that emphasize major outcomes or eliminates the MFR Program.
F2:
The current quantitative measurements of the MFR program are not aligned with the important goals of the Communities described in the strategic plan.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors strengthens the Managing for Results Program with meaningful goals and measurements that emphasize major outcomes or eliminates the MFR Program.
R2:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors designates a County executive to be responsible for the MFR Program including the following: • Build new goals and outcomes. • Develop a dashboard to publicly display Community group and department level metrics. • Develop an MFR training program ranging from basic orientation to advanced certifications. • Develop cross-department teams to define community goals and implement improvement initiatives using established problem solving techniques. • Conduct resident and business surveys to provide insight into how County services are viewed by the consumers of those services.
F3:
The Board of Supervisors has not utilized the MFR program to improve Marin County services. Walters, Abrahams, and Fountain, Managing for Results, 13.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors strengthens the Managing for Results Program with meaningful goals and measurements that emphasize major outcomes or eliminates the MFR Program.
F4:
Department managers are not using MFR metrics as an integral part of a continuous improvement activity; a majority of department metrics show little or no history of improvement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors designates a County executive to be responsible for the MFR Program including the following: • Build new goals and outcomes. • Develop a dashboard to publicly display Community group and department level metrics. • Develop an MFR training program ranging from basic orientation to advanced certifications. • Develop cross-department teams to define community goals and implement improvement initiatives using established problem solving techniques. • Conduct resident and business surveys to provide insight into how County services are viewed by the consumers of those services.
F5:
The County fails to portray its data in a modern multimedia form to transmit information to its employees and the public, e.g., it does not use a dashboard or similar displays of data.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors designates a County executive to be responsible for the MFR Program including the following: • Build new goals and outcomes. • Develop a dashboard to publicly display Community group and department level metrics. • Develop an MFR training program ranging from basic orientation to advanced certifications. • Develop cross-department teams to define community goals and implement improvement initiatives using established problem solving techniques. • Conduct resident and business surveys to provide insight into how County services are viewed by the consumers of those services.
F6:
MFR reports do not compare benchmark results of other similar government entities as a tool for evaluation.
F7:
The Marin County government has not conducted a resident survey in six years, and the Grand Jury found no evidence of business surveys being conducted, thereby missing the opportunity to gather critical feedback to guide County efforts.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The use of risk assessment tools and detention alternatives, and decriminalization of marijuana possession have collectively reduced the number of Marin's juvenile offenders detained in JH.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By the end of FY 2016-2017, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the Marin County Probation Department, in collaboration and consultation with the Marin County Superior Court and other stakeholders, negotiate a contract at the lowest rate possible for all of Marin County's juvenile detention needs with neighboring county juvenile facilities to reduce Marin’s costs and reallocate the savings toward expansion of Alternatives to Detention in the best interests of Marin youth.
F2:
Despite its high Average Daily Cost in 2014 of $901.64 per youth per day and high average daily expenditures in 2014 of $1,128 per youth per day, Marin County's local Juvenile Hall is still used as a secure location for a limited number of Marin youth for short-term detention or awaiting long-term out-of- county placement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Once favorable contracting arrangements with neighboring county juvenile facilities are secured, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the Marin County Probation Department, in collaboration with all other stakeholders, study and determine the cost effectiveness of alternative uses for the current Marin County Juvenile Hall and repurpose all of the facility to other public programs and services. The study should be completed by the end of FY 2016-2017.
F3:
Contracting for Marin County's juvenile detention needs with a neighboring county juvenile facility is potentially less expensive than maintaining a full service juvenile hall in Marin, given the high costs of Title 15 mandated staffing, and could create savings that would be used to further the best interests of Marin’s youth by expanding community-based Alternatives to Detention in Marin.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The residents of Marin County pay taxes to support decisions made by the Board of Directors of Special Districts; however these residents have minimal opportunity to provide input into labor negotiations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Special Districts listed as Respondents adopt and implement a COIN ordinance prior to June 1, 2016, or prior to the next round of negotiations, whichever comes earlier.
F2:
The COIN process can be implemented without affecting the manner in which tentative agreements are negotiated but which nevertheless will ensure public awareness of the terms and cost of those agreements in advance of their being adopted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Special Districts listed as Respondents adopt and implement a COIN ordinance which includes, but is not limited to the following: 1. Hire an independent, experienced Lead Negotiator to negotiate all labor agreements. 2. Hire an independent auditor to determine the fiscal impact of each provision in the current contact, and make this analysis available for public review. 3. Make public each proposal, after it is accepted or rejected by either Party, and publicly verify the costs of that accepted or rejected proposal by an independent auditor. 4. Make public seven days prior to a Board or Council meeting the negotiated tentative agreement and the fiscal analysis thereof, which are to be independently verified. 5. After seven days, place the final tentative agreement on the following two consecutive Employer’s public meeting agendas: the first meeting is for discussion of the tentative agreement; the second meeting is for a vote by the Employer to approve or disapprove the tentative agreement.
F3:
The COIN process mandates transparency in government decision-making, allowing residents to be informed and to participate in public discussion of how their tax dollars are spent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Make public each proposal, after it is accepted or rejected by either Party, and publicly verify the costs of that accepted or rejected proposal by an independent auditor.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
Make public seven days prior to a Board or Council meeting the negotiated tentative agreement and the fiscal analysis thereof, which are to be independently verified.
R5:
After seven days, place the final tentative agreement on the following two consecutive Employer’s public meeting agendas: the first meeting is for
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
San Rafael High School and Novato High School English Learner students graduate from high school at a lower rate than their peers, potentially creating a substantial disadvantage for the student and a significant burden on society.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
San Rafael City Schools’ and Novato Unified School District’s governing boards and Superintendents assume leadership to ensure that English Learners graduate from high school at the same high rate as their peers by adopting this goal as a district priority and assuming responsibility for achievement of that goal.
F2:
When the Grand Jury investigation began, there was no urgent, focused approach taken by school district leadership to address this graduation gap and the graduation gap was either invisible or unknown to many educators.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
San Rafael City Schools’ and Novato Unified School District’s governing boards and Superintendents develop, implement, monitor and modify as needed a systemic multi- year plan with reasonable annual goals culminating in the elimination of the graduation gap between English Learners and their peers.
F3:
The San Rafael City Schools and the Novato Unified School District English Learner Master Plans are out of date, do not specifically address how to increase English Learner graduation rates, and several of the educators interviewed seemed to be barely aware of their existence.
F4:
In the fall of 2014, San Rafael City Schools hired an experienced Director of English Learner Programs, and Novato Unified School District hired a District Administrative Coordinator, English Learner Program, who will begin in the 2014-2015 school year, indicating that both school districts are placing a new emphasis on English Learner education.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The residents of Marin County pay taxes to support decisions made by the Board of Supervisors and City and Town Councils; however these residents have minimal opportunity to provide input into labor negotiations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Marin County Board of Supervisors and each City Council and Town Council in Marin County adopt and implement a COIN ordinance prior to June 1, 2016, or prior to the next round of negotiations, whichever comes earlier.
F2:
The COIN process can be implemented without affecting the manner in which tentative agreements are negotiated but which nevertheless will ensure public awareness of the terms and cost of those agreements in advance of their being adopted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Marin County Board of Supervisors and each City Council and Town Council in Marin County adopt and implement a COIN ordinance which includes, but is not limited to the following: 1. Hire an independent, experienced Lead Negotiator to negotiate all labor agreements. 2. Hire an independent auditor to determine the fiscal impact of each provision in the current contact, and make this analysis available for public review. 3. Make public each proposal, after it is accepted or rejected by either Party, and publicly verify the costs of that accepted or rejected proposal by an independent auditor. 4. Make public seven days prior to a Board or Council meeting the negotiated tentative agreement and the fiscal analysis thereof, which are to be independently verified. 5. After seven days, place the final tentative agreement on the following two consecutive Employer’s public meeting agendas: the first meeting is for discussion of the tentative agreement; the second meeting is for a vote by the Employer to approve or disapprove the tentative agreement.
F3:
The COIN process mandates transparency in government decision-making, allowing residents to be informed and to participate in public discussion of how their tax dollars are spent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Make public each proposal, after it is accepted or rejected by either Party, and publicly verify the costs of that accepted or rejected proposal by an independent auditor.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
Make public seven days prior to a Board or Council meeting the negotiated tentative agreement and the fiscal analysis thereof, which are to be independently verified.
R5:
After seven days, place the final tentative agreement on the following two consecutive Employer’s public meeting agendas: the first meeting is for
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
There is no coordinated, focused, systemic plan with a comprehensive budget to eliminate homelessness in Marin County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors assumes the leadership role and accountability for development and execution of a systemic plan to end homelessness in the County that includes all relevant stakeholders.
F2:
Marin County has hired a Homeless Policy Analyst who coordinates activities but has no authority as the lead position on homelessness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors directs the Chief Administrative Officer to recruit a high-ranking official with the authority to implement the systemic plan to end homelessness. This official should report directly to the Chief Administrative Officer and should be held accountable for the results of the plan.
F3:
The funds Marin County reports spending on homelessness are not in a comprehensive budget, making it impossible for the public to know how and what funds are being spent to address homelessness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors requires a comprehensive County budget for homelessness that is clear to the public and includes revenues and expenditures from all departments and sources.
F4:
Decisions about expenditures for the homeless are often reactive to government mandates or political pressure.
F5:
The majority of the homeless in Marin County are centered in San Rafael, which negatively impacts business activity and the overall quality of life in that community.
F6:
The majority of the homeless services in Marin County are located in San Rafael, prompting other towns to direct the homeless to those services.
F7:
The total economic impact of homelessness in Marin County is not known, including the impact on business activity and the costs of public safety services (e.g. police, fire, public works, district attorney, public defender, jail and hospitals), making it impossible for the public to know that the full economic impact is significantly greater than perceived.
F8:
Multiple public agencies in Marin County (e.g. police, fire, public works, district attorney, public defender, jail and hospitals) interact with the homeless regularly, but do not participate in the collaboration on homelessness, so their valuable experience is not part of the planning.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Employers appear to have repeatedly violated Cal. Gov't Code § 7507 by using the same actuarial evaluation report for many different pension increases and by failing to publicly disclose those increased costs before adopting them. The evaluations did not review the proposed increases for each individual bargaining unit; the Employers continued using the evaluation after years had passed. These factors appear to have contributed to the current unfunded liabilities of MCERA.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Employers develop, adopt and implement a policy and procedures (including staff training) to prevent future violations of the California Government Code when increases in pension benefits are proposed. The Employers should consider making their legal counsel responsible for ensuring compliance with the Government Code.
F2:
The County appears to have violated Cal. Gov't Code § 23026 by (a) failing to make the pension increases public through a "regularly scheduled meeting" of the Board, including through the use of consent agendas; (b) failing to provide public notice of that increase on a board agenda; (c) failing to provide a public notice of the "financial impact" that the increase would have on MCERA. These violations excluded the public from examining the fiscal impact of the pension increases and from participating in the board's decision process.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Employers develop, adopt and implement a policy and procedures (including staff training) to prevent future violations of the California Government Code when increases in pension benefits are proposed. The Employers should consider making their legal counsel responsible for ensuring compliance with the Government Code.
R2:
The Employers develop, adopt and implement a policy for "reporting out" to the public regarding the employment and pension costs in terms of the amount and the Employer's ability to pay on a current cash flow basis.
R3:
Each Employer establish a Citizens' Pension Oversight Committee comprised of resident tax payers who would: 1.) review pension funding levels in light of the Employer's ability to pay; 2.) review proposed pension changes before final Employer approval of any collective bargaining agreement; 3.) review the Employer's compliance with Government Codes related to pensions; 4.) develop written quarterly reports for the public as to the financial security of the pension fund.
F3:
The County appears to have violated Cal. Gov't Code § 31515.5 by (a) failing to make the pension increases public through a "regularly scheduled meeting" of the board, including through the use of consent agendas, (b) failing to provide prior public notice of that increase on board agendas, and (c) failing to provide a public notice of the "financial impact" that the increase would have on MCERA. The public appears to have been excluded from examining the fiscal impact of the pension increases and from participating in the approval process. It also appears that the public was unaware of potential future financial obligations.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Employers develop, adopt and implement a policy and procedures (including staff training) to prevent future violations of the California Government Code when increases in pension benefits are proposed. The Employers should consider making their legal counsel responsible for ensuring compliance with the Government Code.
R2:
The Employers develop, adopt and implement a policy for "reporting out" to the public regarding the employment and pension costs in terms of the amount and the Employer's ability to pay on a current cash flow basis.
R3:
Each Employer establish a Citizens' Pension Oversight Committee comprised of resident tax payers who would: 1.) review pension funding levels in light of the Employer's ability to pay; 2.) review proposed pension changes before final Employer approval of any collective bargaining agreement; 3.) review the Employer's compliance with Government Codes related to pensions; 4.) develop written quarterly reports for the public as to the financial security of the pension fund.
F4:
The County appears to have violated Cal. Gov't Code § 31516 by (a) failing to secure an actuarial statement that explains the financial impact of the specific pension increase on MCERA and by (b) failing to make that actuarial report public at least two weeks prior to the adoption of the increase of benefits. This appears to have excluded the public from examining the fiscal impact of the pension increases, from participating in the board's decision-making process, and from understanding their potential future financial obligations. If the pension increases were not made in accordance with the California
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Employers develop, adopt and implement a policy and procedures (including staff training) to prevent future violations of the California Government Code when increases in pension benefits are proposed. The Employers should consider making their legal counsel responsible for ensuring compliance with the Government Code.
R2:
The Employers develop, adopt and implement a policy for "reporting out" to the public regarding the employment and pension costs in terms of the amount and the Employer's ability to pay on a current cash flow basis.
R3:
Each Employer establish a Citizens' Pension Oversight Committee comprised of resident tax payers who would: 1.) review pension funding levels in light of the Employer's ability to pay; 2.) review proposed pension changes before final Employer approval of any collective bargaining agreement; 3.) review the Employer's compliance with Government Codes related to pensions; 4.) develop written quarterly reports for the public as to the financial security of the pension fund.
F5:
Government Code, the citizens of Marin County were never given proper notice about pension increases that are now costing them millions of dollars. These increases and associated liabilities are a contributing factor to why MCERA has a collective unfunded pension liability of approximately $536.8 million. February 12, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Pension Enhancements: A Case of Government Code Violations and A Lack of Transparency
F6:
Because there appear to have been statutory violations, the future pension benefits provided for by the enhancements may or may not have vested as rights of the public employees under California law.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.