Mendocino County Grand Jury
2015-2016
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Policy 22 is obsolete and requires updating and formal adoption by the BOS.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Policy 22 be updated by the IT department in cooperation with County Administration and adopted by the BOS as soon as possible. This policy update should define the circumstances by which email access is requested and granted, and must require maintenance of a log of all such transactions. (F1 –
R2:
The County acquire email software that adequately allows for super-user segregation of certain sensitive email accounts and provides management access to employee email only under circumstances as defined by County policy. (F1- F3).
R3:
The County adopt in its revised Policy 22, a best business practice to restrict the Mail Auditor function to one vetted employee. (F1-F3).
F2:
The current Unlimited Mailbox software does not adequately allow for super-user segregation of certain sensitive email accounts, e.g. Sheriff, DA, County Counsel, Board of Supervisors, Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The County acquire email software that adequately allows for super-user segregation of certain sensitive email accounts and provides management access to employee email only under circumstances as defined by County policy. (F1- F3).
R3:
The County adopt in its revised Policy 22, a best business practice to restrict the Mail Auditor function to one vetted employee. (F1-F3).
F3:
The limitations of the County email software that allows unrestricted super-user access to employee email by County management puts the County at risk for violating the protected nature of some communications, lends itself to abuse by County management, and exposes the County to unnecessary liability.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The County acquire email software that adequately allows for super-user segregation of certain sensitive email accounts and provides management access to employee email only under circumstances as defined by County policy. (F1- F3).
R3:
The County adopt in its revised Policy 22, a best business practice to restrict the Mail Auditor function to one vetted employee. (F1-F3).
F4:
The current bargaining ground rule that allows employee access to the County’s email system for the purposes of bargaining is in direct conflict with provisions of Policy 22, which does not permit email use for non-county business.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County’s bargaining agent and the union consider modifying the mutually agreed-upon ground rules to prevent unlimited employee use of the County’s email system for the purpose of bargaining, at the earliest opportunity. (F4). Required responses: Pursuant to Penal Codes §933 and §933.05, responses are required from the following: Board of Supervisors – (All Findings and Recommendations) Chief Executive Officer – (All Findings and Recommendations) Requested responses: Pursuant to Penal Codes §933 and §933.05, responses are requested from the following: County Counsel – (All Findings and Recommendations) IT Manager –Findings (1-3) and Recommendations (1-3) Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code §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.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The marijuana restitution program has proven effective in meeting its intended goals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The DA continue the marijuana restitution program as long as it is pertinent to State statute and County ordinance. (F1, F3)
F2:
Because the DA did not provide evidence to the Grand Jury of the existence of a program to assist indigent offenders, the Grand Jury was unable to reach a finding regarding such a program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The DA institute and demonstrate a publicly visible program to assist those who truly cannot afford to pay restitution. (F2) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933.05, responses are required from the following individuals: • The District Attorney (All Findings and Recommendations) • The Sheriff (F3) • The Chief Executive Officer (F3) Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code §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. It may be noted that the District Attorney’s report of August 22, 2011, entitled Marijuana/Cannabis & H&S 11470.2 Dispositions, may be found as a link on the Grand Jury’s 2015-16 Report Webpage.
F3:
The program does not provide additional funds for law enforcement but instead reimburses law enforcement for costs associated with apprehension of offenders or abatement of illegal grows. However, County government as a whole benefits from an additional source of revenue.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The DA continue the marijuana restitution program as long as it is pertinent to State statute and County ordinance. (F1, F3)
R2:
The DA institute and demonstrate a publicly visible program to assist those who truly cannot afford to pay restitution. (F2) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933.05, responses are required from the following individuals: • The District Attorney (All Findings and Recommendations) • The Sheriff (F3) • The Chief Executive Officer (F3) Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code §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. It may be noted that the District Attorney’s report of August 22, 2011, entitled Marijuana/Cannabis & H&S 11470.2 Dispositions, may be found as a link on the Grand Jury’s 2015-16 Report Webpage.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Most of the County front desk staff of the departments and offices from which records were requested are knowledgeable about the requirements of the CPRA and County policy for 6 responding to in-person public records requests, and uniformly comply with those requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County continues in its current commendable actions to improve compliance with the CPRA. (F1, F3)
F2:
County officials did not comply with requirements by the CPRA to notify the requestors (the Jury) of the need for additional time to respond, even though they could have done so by citing “unusual circumstances.”9
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County review and update its records retention policy and procedures to include requirements that: • All departments have up-to-date record retention schedules. • Regular and systematic use of the schedules to destroy obsolete records. • All destruction of records be documented and contain instructions on how that is to be accomplished. • Each department appoint a records retention coordinator having the responsibility for maintenance and use of records retention schedules, and department records storage. • The CEO appoint staff having County-wide centralized responsibility for ensuring compliance with this policy. (F2, F4, F5, F6, F7)
F3:
In general, the County is taking an effective approach in its ongoing efforts to improve compliance with the CPRA.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County continues in its current commendable actions to improve compliance with the CPRA. (F1, F3)
F4:
The County is not in complete compliance with GC 26200 et seq. in that only five departments or offices have in place authorized records retention schedules. However, it is taking steps to become compliant.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The County review and update its records retention policy and procedures to include requirements that: • All departments have up-to-date record retention schedules. • Regular and systematic use of the schedules to destroy obsolete records. • All destruction of records be documented and contain instructions on how that is to be accomplished. • Each department appoint a records retention coordinator having the responsibility for maintenance and use of records retention schedules, and department records storage. • The CEO appoint staff having County-wide centralized responsibility for ensuring compliance with this policy. (F2, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R3:
That the CEO promulgates a general records retention schedule that covers records common to multiple departments and offices. (F4, F5)
F5:
The County is placing itself at potential risk in litigation and audits by not systematically destroying obsolete records according to authorized records retention schedules.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The County review and update its records retention policy and procedures to include requirements that: • All departments have up-to-date record retention schedules. • Regular and systematic use of the schedules to destroy obsolete records. • All destruction of records be documented and contain instructions on how that is to be accomplished. • Each department appoint a records retention coordinator having the responsibility for maintenance and use of records retention schedules, and department records storage. • The CEO appoint staff having County-wide centralized responsibility for ensuring compliance with this policy. (F2, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R3:
That the CEO promulgates a general records retention schedule that covers records common to multiple departments and offices. (F4, F5)
R5:
The scope of the request must be reasonably clear. “[.:-e()1o.a30AC '-3014 $e4o$/( *-() 3e /e(4$13e/ 40ea$0A e.o-g% )o 'e$*1) )%e age.4A )o /e)e$*1.e >%e)%e$ >$1)1.g( of )%e )A'e /e(4$13e/ 1. )%e $e:-e() a$e -./e$ 1)( 4o.)$o09 7S%e 2P568 4o*'e0( a. age.4A )o '$o;1/e a 4o'A of .o.eHe*') $e4o$/( -'o. a $e:-e() \>%14% $ea(o.a30A /e(4$13e( a. 1/e.)1f1a30e $e4o$/C o$ 1.fo$*a)1o. '$o/-4e/ )%e$ef$o* 9 9 9 \ ]o>e;e$C )%e $e:-1$e*e.) of 40a$1)A *-() 3e )e*'e$e/ 3A )%e $ea01)A )%a) a $e:-e()e$C %a;1.g .o a44e(( )o age.4A f10e(C *aA 3e -.a30e )o '$e41(e0A 1/e.)1fA )%e /o4-*e.)( (o-g%)9 S%-(C >$1)1.g( *aA 3e /e(4$13e/ 3A )%e1$ 4o.)e.)9 S%e age.4A *-() )%e. /e)e$*1.e >%e)%e$ 1) %a( (-4% >$1)1.g( -./e$ 1)( 4o.)$o0 a./ )%e a''014a3101)A of a.A eHe*')1o.9 6. age.4A 1( )%-( o301ge/ )o (ea$4% fo$ $e4o$/( 3a(e/ o. 4$1)e$1a (e) fo$)% 1. )%e (ea$4% $e:-e()9? 2alifornia ;irst 4mendment 2oalition v. -uperior 2ourtC YL 2a096''9J)% MIN 7MNNT8
F6:
The County does not have a storage facility for its inactive records (records not needed for everyday use but which must be retained for legal or other reasons) consistent with industry standards, although it does make use of off-site storage to reduce pressure on office space.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The County review and update its records retention policy and procedures to include requirements that: • All departments have up-to-date record retention schedules. • Regular and systematic use of the schedules to destroy obsolete records. • All destruction of records be documented and contain instructions on how that is to be accomplished. • Each department appoint a records retention coordinator having the responsibility for maintenance and use of records retention schedules, and department records storage. • The CEO appoint staff having County-wide centralized responsibility for ensuring compliance with this policy. (F2, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R4:
That the County explore the feasibility of establishing and operating a County Records Center that follows records management industry standards. (F6, F7) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933.05, responses are required from the following individuals: County Executive Officer, Mendocino County (All Findings and All Recommendations) Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code §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.
R6:
The agency need not compile lists or write reports. S%e $1g%)( '$o;1/e/ 1. )%e 0a> a$e )o <1.('e4)? 70oo= a) >o$/(C (A*3o0( o$ 1*age(^ 01()e. )o (o-./(8 '-3014 $e4o$/( a./_o$ )o <o3)a1. a 4o'A? of )%o(e $e4o$/(C .o) )o 4o*'e0 )%e age.4A )o 4$ea)e 01()( o$ $e'o$)( 1. $e('o.(e )o :-e()1o.(9 F. o.0A o.e 1.()a.4e 1( )%e age.4A $e:-1$e/ )o ge.e$a)e a $e4o$/ )%a) /oe( .o) a0$ea/A eH1()C a./ )%a) 1( 1f )%e 1.fo$*a)1o. (o-g%) 1( /1()$13-)e/ 1. 4o*'-)e$1`e/ fo$* 1. a /a)a3a(e o$ o)%e$>1(e a./ *-() 3e a((e*30e/ 1. a (1.g0e $e4o$/9 6( '$o;1/e/ 1. Wo;e$.*e.) 2o/e XY2I39NC 1f )%e age.4A 4a..o) <'$o/-4e? o$ <4o.()$-4)? )%e $e4o$/ (o-g%) >1)%o-) ('e41a0 '$og$a**1.gC )%e $e:-e()e$ *-() 'aA fo$ )%a) >o$=9 22"# %o'ewoo* +ay . Car'i2hael, CA 7890# . phone 7"9=4#?=?000 . faA 7"9=4#?=?777 wwwB2alawareBorg ". The agency must do its 3est to help the re7uester succeed. Government Code Section 6253.1 states: (a) When a member of the public requests to inspect a public record or obtain a copy of a public record, the public agency, in order to assist the member of the public make a focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances: “(1) Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated. “(2) Jescribe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist. “(3) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought. “(b) The requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the public agency is unable to identify the requested information after making a reasonable effort to elicit additional clarifying information from the requester that will help identify the record or records.” These assistance requirements do not apply, obviously, if the agency fully grants the request, or denies access based on one of the exemptions in Government Code §6254. Also, if the agency has an index to its records and makes it available, no further help in refining the request is required.
F7:
A centralized County records storage facility—a records center—based upon records management industry standards would improve access to inactive records and help ensure their appropriate retention and destruction. GC 6253. 7
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The County review and update its records retention policy and procedures to include requirements that: • All departments have up-to-date record retention schedules. • Regular and systematic use of the schedules to destroy obsolete records. • All destruction of records be documented and contain instructions on how that is to be accomplished. • Each department appoint a records retention coordinator having the responsibility for maintenance and use of records retention schedules, and department records storage. • The CEO appoint staff having County-wide centralized responsibility for ensuring compliance with this policy. (F2, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R4:
That the County explore the feasibility of establishing and operating a County Records Center that follows records management industry standards. (F6, F7) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933.05, responses are required from the following individuals: County Executive Officer, Mendocino County (All Findings and All Recommendations) Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code §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.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
Fees are for the costs of copying, not for those of inspection. As noted by the Attorney General in an opinion concluding that counties may charge a fee “reasonably necessary” to recover wider costs for copying public records—costs beyond the strict “direct cost of duplication”— inspection is free: “In any event, a Rreasonably necessary’ fee for a copy of a public record would have no effect upon the publicTs right of access to and inspection of public records free of charge.” (Opinion Vo 01-605, Vovember 1, 2002). Moreover, the “direct cost of duplication” that, pursuant to Government Code §6253, subd. (b), may be charged to the requester by agencies other than counties may not include overhead. “The direct cost of duplication is the cost of running the copy machine, and conceivably also the expense of the person operating it. RJirect cost’ does not include the ancillary tasks necessarily associated with the retrieval, inspection and handling of the file from which the copy is extracted.” !o#$% 'o()$* Pa#e)$. /#ga)12a$1o) 34 5e6a#$7e)$ of 9:(;a$1o), 23 Cal.App.4th 146 (4th Jist. 1994) <. Prompt access is re7uired for clearly pu3lic records. Jelay is allowed only to resolve good faith doubts as to whether all or part of a record is accessible by the public. So, for example, if the requester asks to see the minutes of public meetings, there is no need to make the “determination” as to whether or not they are public, since minutes of public meetings are, without question, public records. That being the case, access is to be provided “promptly,” not put off for 10 days (Government Code §6253, subd. (b))[ to underscore this point, subd. (d) states that “Vothing in (the CPRA) shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.” And while the 10-day period is not a legal deadline for producing the records, the date of production should not lag the 10-day (or, if extended with notice to the requester, up to 14 days more) “determination” point by much, because in most if not all cases, $%e 6e#.o) 7a<1)g $%e :e$e#71)a$1o) =1>> %a3e a>#ea:* %a: $o a..e7?>e a): #e31e= $%e #e;o#:. 1) o#:e# $o :o .o. Once the determination has been made, in other words, actual release of the records in question should not take much time to accomplish. >?. @ournalists and other people have the same rights of access. ]ournalists’ rights to inspect and copy public records are the same under the CPRA as those of any other person—no worse and, despite the free press guarantees of the state and federal constitutions, no better. “Vo California or federal judicial decision has ever attributed accessibility to public records upon First Amendment freedoms of speech or press.” @eg1.$e# 5131.1o) of A#ee:o7 !e=.6a6e#. 34 'o()$* of /#a)ge, 158 Cal.App.3d 893 (1984) And while we often speak of “citiaens” having the access rights, one need not be a California resident or even a b.S. citiaen to inspect or copy state or local public records. “(W)hen section 6253 declares every person has a right to inspect any public record, when section 6257 commands state and local agencies to make records promptly available to any person on request, and when section 6258 expressly states any person may institute proceedings to enforce the right of inspection, they mean what they say.” 'o))e>> 34 B(6e#1o# 'o(#$, 56 Cal.App.4th 601 (1997)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The current method of budgeting the distribution of Proposition 172 funds to County government public safety is not transparent, either to the public or to the County agencies eligible to receive these funds.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The CEO and the Auditor-Controller adopt a method of budgeting Proposition 172 funds to County government public safety in a manner that is transparent to the public and to affected agencies, and employ this method for FY2016-2017 and subsequent budget cycles. (F1-F3)
R2:
The new budgeting method clearly demonstrates the full distribution of Proposition 172 funds to County public safety agencies. (F1-F3)
F2:
This lack of transparency violates the spirit of the original proposition and could be easily rectified by a simple alteration to the format of the County budget.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The CEO and the Auditor-Controller adopt a method of budgeting Proposition 172 funds to County government public safety in a manner that is transparent to the public and to affected agencies, and employ this method for FY2016-2017 and subsequent budget cycles. (F1-F3)
R2:
The new budgeting method clearly demonstrates the full distribution of Proposition 172 funds to County public safety agencies. (F1-F3)
F3:
The Auditor-Controller has been able to demonstrate the appropriate distribution of Proposition 172 Funds to municipalities within the County. However, the Auditor- Controller has been unable to demonstrate that the remaining Proposition 172 revenues have been entirely distributed to County public safety agencies as required.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The CEO and the Auditor-Controller adopt a method of budgeting Proposition 172 funds to County government public safety in a manner that is transparent to the public and to affected agencies, and employ this method for FY2016-2017 and subsequent budget cycles. (F1-F3)
R2:
The new budgeting method clearly demonstrates the full distribution of Proposition 172 funds to County public safety agencies. (F1-F3)
F4:
The failure to update the MOE calculation annually as required, has placed the County in a position of non-compliance with State requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Auditor-Controller resume performing the MOE calculation annually and report on its completion to the Board of Supervisors annually as well. (F4) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933.05, responses are required from the following individuals: Board of Supervisors (All Findings and Recommendations) County Executive Officer, Mendocino County (All Findings and All Recommendations) Auditor-Controller, Mendocino County (All Findings and Recommendations) Sheriff, Mendocino County (All Findings and Recommendations) District Attorney, Mendocino County (All Findings and Recommendations)