Monterey County Grand Jury
2018-2019
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 (13)
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Active Shooter (e.g., ALICE ®),
F3:
Anti-Bullying (including tolerance, harassment, and conflict resolution),
F4:
When, how, why, and to whom stakeholders should report issues of violence concern, and
F5:
How to assess and mitigate potential threats of violence when they occur are applicable to the following school stakeholders: • Principals • School resource officers (when used) • On campus probation officers (when used) • Security officers (including campus monitors) • Substitute teachers • Special needs teachers • General education teachers 146 IMPROVING SCHOOL SHOOTING PREVENTION AND RESPONSE TRAINING IN MONTEREY COUNTY • Paid teacher aids (including instructional assistants, behavior techs, academic coaches) • Athletic coaches • Special needs students • General education students • Guidance counselors • School psychologists • School bus drivers • Cafeteria workers • School nurses • Custodial personnel • Maintenance personnel • Clerical personnel • Parents • Fire, police, and emergency medical first responders and their command personnel F7) Most high school stakeholders in Monterey County have not received adequate training in the five types of school violence prevention and response. F8) Students, the largest high school stakeholder group, are the most vulnerable, the most likely to perpetrate or be victims of a school shooting, and to know when a peer may be at risk but have one of the lowest training rates. F9) Many students, faculty, and staff joining school mid-year may miss receiving critical school shooting-related material until the next time that training is offered.
F18:
Recommendations: R1, R2, R4, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20,
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
l d r a d d R e r e g n t U n a e t s c r S y d e e R B g s e C B R 1 r L L l R 0 v M T k n l d n d e 1 v d o o e i d n d & o w R t s e H f t t S f r d i e e t S A C u b U A t r t a t b e t z v t y i C b r o H e t B r S o S o n a R rs b t t r e t t d d B C i O S a n a U n l l d t y v R o S n d S d t n a R W g d e R 1 i d A ll 0 ia 1 r m A G o l e u i l s d s R a d l a R R H d d ar s tnell Rd Eck Fu h ji a Ln rt R Z d aba S la p R e d nce F o 2 R US 101 o d P t o h tt i e ll r D R r d Encinal Rd San Juan Ca Q ny u o a n i l R C d H r w ee y S k a 1 n 5 Ju 6 a n Canyon R 5 d 202 MONTEREY COUNTY’S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE B. Maps of Districts prone to illegal rooster keeping and illegal crimes associated with rooster keeping Monterey County Supervisorial District 3 US 101 T re h f e le c 2 t 0 t 1 h 0 e S a u d p o e p r t v io is n o o ri f a M l D o i n s t t e ri r c e t y B C o o u u n n d t a y r ies Jense H n wy 1 R d Str P L aw a a b j s a e r r L r o y o R m d as Aromas 101 SU Hwy H 1 w 5 y 6 2 5 Hwy 156 H L C o i i g t c ie h a s w l R a & y o U s a r d & b s a M n a A jo re r a R s oads 201
R3:
The unwillingness of multiple agencies to enforce it. Monterey County needs to enforce its rooster keeping operations ordinance. All agencies involved must coordinate their efforts to end illegal rooster keeping and the associated crime and disease. Monterey County has a legal ordinance. Monterey County should enforce it with equanimity and impartiality. The MCCGJ agrees with this quotation from the summary of Perez V. County of Monterey.4 “The County has an interest in establishing humane and sanitary standards for the keeping of roosters." It is the recommendation of the MCCGJ that The Ordinance should be immediately implemented and enforced in Monterey County.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Active Shooter (e.g., ALICE ®),
F3:
Anti-Bullying (including tolerance, harassment, and conflict resolution),
F4:
When, how, why, and to whom stakeholders should report issues of violence concern, and
F5:
How to assess and mitigate potential threats of violence when they occur are applicable to the following school stakeholders: • Principals • School resource officers (when used) • On campus probation officers (when used) • Security officers (including campus monitors) • Substitute teachers • Special needs teachers • General education teachers 146 IMPROVING SCHOOL SHOOTING PREVENTION AND RESPONSE TRAINING IN MONTEREY COUNTY • Paid teacher aids (including instructional assistants, behavior techs, academic coaches) • Athletic coaches • Special needs students • General education students • Guidance counselors • School psychologists • School bus drivers • Cafeteria workers • School nurses • Custodial personnel • Maintenance personnel • Clerical personnel • Parents • Fire, police, and emergency medical first responders and their command personnel F7) Most high school stakeholders in Monterey County have not received adequate training in the five types of school violence prevention and response. F8) Students, the largest high school stakeholder group, are the most vulnerable, the most likely to perpetrate or be victims of a school shooting, and to know when a peer may be at risk but have one of the lowest training rates. F9) Many students, faculty, and staff joining school mid-year may miss receiving critical school shooting-related material until the next time that training is offered.
F18:
Recommendations: R1, R2, R4, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20,
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
l d r a d d R e r e g n t U n a e t s c r S y d e e R B g s e C B R 1 r L L l R 0 v M T k n l d n d e 1 v d o o e i d n d & o w R t s e H f t t S f r d i e e t S A C u b U A t r t a t b e t z v t y i C b r o H e t B r S o S o n a R rs b t t r e t t d d B C i O S a n a U n l l d t y v R o S n d S d t n a R W g d e R 1 i d A ll 0 ia 1 r m A G o l e u i l s d s R a d l a R R H d d ar s tnell Rd Eck Fu h ji a Ln rt R Z d aba S la p R e d nce F o 2 R US 101 o d P t o h tt i e ll r D R r d Encinal Rd San Juan Ca Q ny u o a n i l R C d H r w ee y S k a 1 n 5 Ju 6 a n Canyon R 5 d 202 MONTEREY COUNTY’S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE B. Maps of Districts prone to illegal rooster keeping and illegal crimes associated with rooster keeping Monterey County Supervisorial District 3 US 101 T re h f e le c 2 t 0 t 1 h 0 e S a u d p o e p r t v io is n o o ri f a M l D o i n s t t e ri r c e t y B C o o u u n n d t a y r ies Jense H n wy 1 R d Str P L aw a a b j s a e r r L r o y o R m d as Aromas 101 SU Hwy H 1 w 5 y 6 2 5 Hwy 156 H L C o i i g t c ie h a s w l R a & y o U s a r d & b s a M n a A jo re r a R s oads 201
R3:
The unwillingness of multiple agencies to enforce it. Monterey County needs to enforce its rooster keeping operations ordinance. All agencies involved must coordinate their efforts to end illegal rooster keeping and the associated crime and disease. Monterey County has a legal ordinance. Monterey County should enforce it with equanimity and impartiality. The MCCGJ agrees with this quotation from the summary of Perez V. County of Monterey.4 “The County has an interest in establishing humane and sanitary standards for the keeping of roosters." It is the recommendation of the MCCGJ that The Ordinance should be immediately implemented and enforced in Monterey County.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Active Shooter (e.g., ALICE ®),
F3:
Anti-Bullying (including tolerance, harassment, and conflict resolution),
F4:
When, how, why, and to whom stakeholders should report issues of violence concern, and
F5:
How to assess and mitigate potential threats of violence when they occur are applicable to the following school stakeholders: • Principals • School resource officers (when used) • On campus probation officers (when used) • Security officers (including campus monitors) • Substitute teachers • Special needs teachers • General education teachers 146
F18:
Recommendations: R1, R2, R4, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20,
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Lack of leadership and oversight from the BoS and the Health Department, 1 Link to: Rooster Keeping Ordinance 5249 2 https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=16498 3 https://caselaw.lexroll.com/2019/02/21/perez-v-county-of-monterey-no-h044364-cal-app-2-14-2019/ 176
R2:
The hindrance to implementation and enforcement created by a process developed by Environmental Health Bureau, and
R3:
The unwillingness of multiple agencies to enforce it. Monterey County needs to enforce its rooster keeping operations ordinance. All agencies involved must coordinate their efforts to end illegal rooster keeping and the associated crime and disease. Monterey County has a legal ordinance. Monterey County should enforce it with equanimity and impartiality. The MCCGJ agrees with this quotation from the summary of Perez V. County of Monterey.4 “The County has an interest in establishing humane and sanitary standards for the keeping of roosters." It is the recommendation of the MCCGJ that The Ordinance should be immediately implemented and enforced in Monterey County.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Active Shooter (e.g., ALICE ®),
F3:
Anti-Bullying (including tolerance, harassment, and conflict resolution),
F4:
When, how, why, and to whom stakeholders should report issues of violence concern, and
F5:
How to assess and mitigate potential threats of violence when they occur are applicable to the following school stakeholders: • Principals • School resource officers (when used) • On campus probation officers (when used) • Security officers (including campus monitors) • Substitute teachers • Special needs teachers • General education teachers 146
F18:
Recommendations: R1, R2, R4, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20,
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Lack of leadership and oversight from the BoS and the Health Department, 1 Link to: Rooster Keeping Ordinance 5249 2 https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=16498 3 https://caselaw.lexroll.com/2019/02/21/perez-v-county-of-monterey-no-h044364-cal-app-2-14-2019/ 176
R2:
The hindrance to implementation and enforcement created by a process developed by Environmental Health Bureau, and
R3:
The unwillingness of multiple agencies to enforce it. Monterey County needs to enforce its rooster keeping operations ordinance. All agencies involved must coordinate their efforts to end illegal rooster keeping and the associated crime and disease. Monterey County has a legal ordinance. Monterey County should enforce it with equanimity and impartiality. The MCCGJ agrees with this quotation from the summary of Perez V. County of Monterey.4 “The County has an interest in establishing humane and sanitary standards for the keeping of roosters." It is the recommendation of the MCCGJ that The Ordinance should be immediately implemented and enforced in Monterey County.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The City of Soledad prepared a timely response but failed to follow-through to obtain a signature on the duly-approved response letter and to mail the letter in a timely matter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City of Soledad should develop and implement new procedures (if none currently exist), and review existing procedures for responding to the Civil Grand Jury's findings and recommendations to ensure that the city's response is delivered to the presiding judge on or before the due date. These procedures should be developed and implemented within 90 days of the publication of this report.
F2:
The City of Seaside failed to comply with the requirements set forth in California Penal Code §933.05, but quickly corrected the omission once notified.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City of Seaside should develop and implement new procedures (if none currently exist) and review existing procedures for responding to the Civil Grand Jury's findings and recommendations to ensure that the city's response is delivered to the presiding judge on or before the due date. These procedures should be developed and implemented within 90 days of the publication of this report.
F3:
The City of Del Rey Oaks prepared a timely response but failed to follow-through by mailing out the duly approved response and letter in a timely matter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City of Del Rey Oaks should develop and implement new procedures (if none currently exist), and review existing procedures for responding to the Civil Grand Jury's findings and recommendations to ensure that the city's response is delivered to the presiding judge on or before the due date. These procedures should be developed and implemented within 90 days of the publication of this report.
F4:
- There is advanced training available for sexual assault investigators, but LEAs are instead relying upon senior investigators to provide "on the job training to other investigators within their respective departments." The SSPD sends all detectives to a Sexual Assault Investigator Course when assigned to the SSPD Investigations Division. The three detectives assigned to the SSPD Investigations Division have all completed the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Police, Institute of Criminal Investigation (ICI) Sexual Assault Investigator Course.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
– By July 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, every Monterey County LEA should report to their governing body and the public the required data outlined in PC 680.4. The SSPD will work with the Seaside City Attorney to determine what can publicly be reported and will annually report items related to PC 680.4 on the SSPD webpage.
F5:
– Training for advanced skills in the forensics of sexual assault investigations is not prioritized in the budgeting process. The City of Seaside and SSPD place a significant emphasis on professional development and specialized training, as reflected in our budget ($117,950). We ensure our detectives have the most relevant training available and our budget supports it.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
– By July 15, 2020, every Monterey County LEA should develop a funding source, such as grants, for additional expertise training and recertification within the Sexual Assault and Forensic Division. The SSPD consistently searches for grant opportunities and leverages any successful grant awards with the SSPD operating budget.
F6:
– Some LEAs rely on cross-training less experienced patrol officers to supplement understaffed investigative teams rather than prioritizing the strategic increase of well-trained investigators. The SSPD prioritizes sexual assault investigation training for our detectives. Moreover, the SSPD has officers that were previously assigned as detectives and attended the sexual assault investigation training who are currently assigned to patrol.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
– By fiscal year 2020-2021, every Monterey County LEA should add or dedicate certified staff for Sexual Assault Investigations and include that increased cost in their budgets. As was previously described, all SSPD detectives are California POST trained in sexual assault investigations. All of the SSPD detectives are assigned sexual assault investigations. We hope that this information addresses the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations. Please contact SSPD Chief Abdul D. Pridgen if you have any questions or require additional information. Respectfully, Ian Oglesby Mayor
F7:
– All jurisdictions can expedite the investigations of rape crimes through access to the RADS processing to facilitate timely resolution of rape cases. The SSPD has access to and utilizes the RADS processing system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
A. POLICE DEPARTMENT 2019 ANNUAL PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT B. 2019 BUSINESS OF THE FOURTH QUARTER C. MONTEREY PENINSULA HOUSING COALITION
F8:
– Most LEAs in Monterey County have implemented DNA testing protocols established by the CDOJ which have reduced the likelihood of unprocessed DNA evidence. The SSPD has implemented DNA testing protocols that are in compliance with CDOJ.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 6, 2020 RECOMMENDATION: That the minutes be reviewed and approved. B. APPROVE AND FILE CITY CHECKS RECOMMENDATION: Approve and file the accounts payable and wired payments made during the period of January 25, 2020 through February 7, 2020 including the payroll and benefits checks, direct deposits and wired payments related to the pay period ending January 30, 2020. Total Accounts Payable and Payroll for the above referenced period is $1,513,766.89. C. PROCLAMATION DECLARING FEBRUARY 2020 AS BLACK HISTORY MONTH IN THE CITY OF SEASIDE D. APPROVE CO-SPONSORSHIP AND WAIVE ALL FEES RELATED TO THE 2020 SUSTAINABLE SEASIDE 9TH ANNUAL SEASIDE EARTH DAY CELEBRATION AT SEASIDE CITY HALL LAWN ON APRIL, 26 2020 RECOMMENDATION: Approve a request from Sustainable Seaside's request for co-sponsorship to waive all fees in the approximate amount of Two Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy-Six Dollars ($2,876.00) related to the Seaside Sustainable 9th Annual Seaside Earth Day Celebration at City Hall Lawn on April 26, 2020. E. APPROVE CITY RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT ON RAPE KIT PROCESSING RECOMMENDATION: Authorize submittal of letter.
F9:
– There is no centralized authority coordinating all LEAs in Monterey County regarding collection, processing and reporting of sexual assaults. The SSPD complies with all state mandates and employs contemporary best practices to investigate sexual assaults. The SSPD attends monthly meetings with other Monterey County Sexual Assault Investigators, including the District Attorney, to share information and coordinate any investigations which might involve other jurisdictions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
PUBLIC HEARING A. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SEASIDE MUNICIPAL CODE 6.04.170 POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND VICIOUS DOGS (SECOND READING - ROLL CALL VOTE) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the second reading of the draft ordinance. City Council REGULAR Meeting February 20, 2020 200 PM Agenda B. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING ELECTION SIGN CODE REGULATIONS AND MODIFYING THE FEE SCHEDULE AS APPROPRIATE (SECOND READING - ROLL CALL VOTE) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the second reading of the draft ordinance modifying election sign code regulations and modifying the fee schedule as appropriate.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R10:
BUSINESS ITEMS A. RECEIVE THE 2019-2020 MID-YEAR BUDGET REPORT, ACCEPT AND FILE THE REPORT, PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDATION: Receive the FY 2019-2020 Mid-Year Budget Report, accept and file the report, provide direction to staff, and consider adoption of a Resolution approving the proposed budget adjustments. B. REVIEW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMUNITY POLICING ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Discuss options relative to the establishment of a Community Policing Advisory Committee. C. REVIEW ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION REGARDING PLACEMENT OF ITEMS ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA RECOMMENDATION: Provide clear direction on agenda setting procedures.
R11:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS AND REPORTS ON COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS This is a time specifically set aside for members of the City Council, the City Manager and City Attorney to make brief comments of general interest to the community, make requests that items be added to future City Council meeting agendas as necessary and report on committee assignments.
R12:
COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS City Council REGULAR Meeting February 20, 2020 250 PM Agenda A. REQUEST TO AGENDIZE A DISCUSSION OF THE MUNICIPALITIES, COLLEGES, SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP (MCSIG) PROVISION OF HEALTH BENEFITS TO ENSURE EQUITABLE, INCLUSIVE AND NON- DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION OF HEALTH BENEFITS (WIZARD)
R13:
ADJOURNMENT Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting: March 5, 2020 7:00 PM The City of Seaside is committed to providing accessible facilities and accommodating people with disabilities in all of its services programs and activities. If special considerations are needed by any person to fully participate in this meeting, contact the City Clerk at 899-6707 no fewer than two business days prior to the meeting to allow reasonable arrangements. The City Council chamber is equipped with a portable microphone and assisted listening devices are available at all meetings. City Council Meetings that are held in the City Council Chambers are broadcast live to all Seaside residents on Comcast Channel 25 and U-verse Channel 99. Live streamed meeting videos as well as videos of past meetings are available on the City's website at: http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/129/City-Council-Committee-Agendas Agenda-related writings or documents provided during public meetings are available for public inspection during the meeting or from the office of the City Clerk. This agenda is posted in compliance with California Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956. City Council REGULAR Meeting February 20, 2020 260 PM Agenda
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Active Shooter (e.g., ALICE ®),
F3:
Anti-Bullying (including tolerance, harassment, and conflict resolution),
F4:
When, how, why, and to whom stakeholders should report issues of violence concern, and
F5:
How to assess and mitigate potential threats of violence when they occur are applicable to the following school stakeholders: • Principals • School resource officers (when used) • On campus probation officers (when used) • Security officers (including campus monitors) • Substitute teachers • Special needs teachers • General education teachers 146 IMPROVING SCHOOL SHOOTING PREVENTION AND RESPONSE TRAINING IN MONTEREY COUNTY • Paid teacher aids (including instructional assistants, behavior techs, academic coaches) • Athletic coaches • Special needs students • General education students • Guidance counselors • School psychologists • School bus drivers • Cafeteria workers • School nurses • Custodial personnel • Maintenance personnel • Clerical personnel • Parents • Fire, police, and emergency medical first responders and their command personnel F7) Most high school stakeholders in Monterey County have not received adequate training in the five types of school violence prevention and response. F8) Students, the largest high school stakeholder group, are the most vulnerable, the most likely to perpetrate or be victims of a school shooting, and to know when a peer may be at risk but have one of the lowest training rates. F9) Many students, faculty, and staff joining school mid-year may miss receiving critical school shooting-related material until the next time that training is offered.
F18:
Recommendations: R1, R2, R4, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20,
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
l d r a d d R e r e g n t U n a e t s c r S y d e e R B g s e C B R 1 r L L l R 0 v M T k n l d n d e 1 v d o o e i d n d & o w R t s e H f t t S f r d i e e t S A C u b U A t r t a t b e t z v t y i C b r o H e t B r S o S o n a R rs b t t r e t t d d B C i O S a n a U n l l d t y v R o S n d S d t n a R W g d e R 1 i d A ll 0 ia 1 r m A G o l e u i l s d s R a d l a R R H d d ar s tnell Rd Eck Fu h ji a Ln rt R Z d aba S la p R e d nce F o 2 R US 101 o d P t o h tt i e ll r D R r d Encinal Rd San Juan Ca Q ny u o a n i l R C d H r w ee y S k a 1 n 5 Ju 6 a n Canyon R 5 d 202 MONTEREY COUNTY’S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE B. Maps of Districts prone to illegal rooster keeping and illegal crimes associated with rooster keeping Monterey County Supervisorial District 3 US 101 T re h f e le c 2 t 0 t 1 h 0 e S a u d p o e p r t v io is n o o ri f a M l D o i n s t t e ri r c e t y B C o o u u n n d t a y r ies Jense H n wy 1 R d Str P L aw a a b j s a e r r L r o y o R m d as Aromas 101 SU Hwy H 1 w 5 y 6 2 5 Hwy 156 H L C o i i g t c ie h a s w l R a & y o U s a r d & b s a M n a A jo re r a R s oads 201
R3:
The unwillingness of multiple agencies to enforce it. Monterey County needs to enforce its rooster keeping operations ordinance. All agencies involved must coordinate their efforts to end illegal rooster keeping and the associated crime and disease. Monterey County has a legal ordinance. Monterey County should enforce it with equanimity and impartiality. The MCCGJ agrees with this quotation from the summary of Perez V. County of Monterey.4 “The County has an interest in establishing humane and sanitary standards for the keeping of roosters." It is the recommendation of the MCCGJ that The Ordinance should be immediately implemented and enforced in Monterey County.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F2:
The hindrance to implementation and enforcement created by a process developed by Environmental Health Bureau, and 3. The unwillingness of multiple agencies to enforce it. Monterey County needs to enforce its rooster keeping operations ordinance. All agencies involved must coordinate their efforts to end illegal rooster keeping and the associated crime and disease. Monterey County has a legal ordinance. Monterey County should enforce it with equanimity and impartiality. The MCCGJ agrees with this quotation from the summary of Perez V. County of Monterey.4 "The County has an interest in establishing humane and sanitary standards for the keeping of roosters." It is the recommendation of the MCCGJ that The Ordinance should be immediately implemented and enforced in Monterey County. GLOSSARY ACS – Animal Control Services ACO - Animal Control Officer Agricultural Commissioner – Office of the Agricultural Commissioner BoS – Board of Supervisors CDFA – California Department of Food and Agriculture County Code -The law in Monterey County which contains ordinances passed by the BoS Environmental Health Bureau - The Environmental Health Bureau is a division within the Monterey County Health Department. HSUS – Humane Society of the United States- A private non-profit, national agency, headquartered in Sacramento, California The Ordinance - Ordinance No. 5249, which amended Chapter 8.04 of Title 8 and added Chapter 8.50 to Title 8 of the Monterey County Code Process - A series of steps, operations, created by Environmental Health to implement and enforce The Ordinance SPCA of Monterey County - Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals- a private non-profit, agency in Monterey County 4 https://www.law.com/therecorder/static/daily-opinion- services/?download=021919CDS.pdf&slreturn=20190418133513 2019 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury MONTEREY COUNTY'S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE RMA - Resource Management Agency, also known as Code Enforcement, which includes Code Compliance, Building Services, and Planning SHARK – Showing Animals Respect and Kindness – An animal rights advocate group Title 8 – Animal Control Code of Monterey County Title 21- Zoning Ordinance of Monterey County applicable only to the unincorporated areas outside of the Coastal Zone in Monterey County Virulent Newcastle Disease - formerly known as Exotic Newcastle Disease, is a contagious and fatal viral disease affecting the respiratory, nervous, and digestive systems of roosters and poultry. The disease is so virulent that many roosters and poultry die without showing any clinical signs.5 Zoonotic Disease – A disease spread between animals and people. Zoonotic diseases can be caused by viruses, bacteria, parasites, and fungi.6 BACKGROUND Why we Investigated The role of the MCCGJ is to shine light on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of publicly funded agencies and to examine policies and procedures in order to ensure wise use of taxpayer funds. (CA Penal Code section 925).7 The MCCGJ received a complaint from a resident who discovered a well-established, alleged illegal rooster keeping operation in Monterey County during June of 2018. Unsure of where to turn, the complainant contacted four different County agencies and reported alleged animal abuse and animal cruelty including cockfighting. The complainant's concerns were not given sufficient consideration. The MCCGJ investigated: 1. The restrictions and provisions set forth in The Ordinance 2. The duties and responsibilities of each of the agencies the complainant contacted for remedy 3. The reasons for the failure of The Ordinance to eliminate illegal rooster-keeping operations in Monterey County 5 https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/avian/virulent- newcastle/vnd 6 https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/animals.html 7 https://california.public.law/codes/ca penal code section 925 2019 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury MONTEREY COUNTY'S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE 4. What other counties are doing about the issue of illegal rooster keeping operations 5. What recommendations can be made by the MCCGJ to resolve this issue The MCCGJ initially chose to review this complaint because of the alleged non- response of County agencies to address the concerns of the complainant. Our focus turned to the responses of the agencies named in The Ordinance as well as the agencies contacted by the complainant. The fundamental issue was the non- responsiveness on the part of multiple agencies with whom the issue was raised. What we Investigated Keeping five or more roosters without a permit in Monterey County is against the law. Obtaining a permit for the keeping of five or more roosters in Monterey County is part of The Ordinance. The MCCGJ found that The Ordinance is not being implemented or enforced. We learned that, with the exception of Animal Control Services (ACS), agencies required to understand this ordinance reported never having completely read it. We wanted to understand what made the ordinance so difficult to implement and enforce. SUMMARY INTRODUCTION TO THE ORDINANCE STATES: "This ordinance adds Chapter 8.50 to the Monterey County Code to regulate rooster keeping operations. The ordinance also adds new defined terms to Chapter 8.04. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish a comprehensive approach to the keeping of five or more roosters that balances promotion of agriculture and agricultural education with prevention of rooster keeping operations that are unsanitary, inhumane, environmentally damaging, or conducive of illegal cockfighting. The ordinance requires a permit, issued by the Monterey County Animal Control Officer, to keep five or more roosters per single property within unincorporated Monterey County. The ordinance sets standards for the feeding and housing of roosters and for waste disposal and other matters to address the health and environmental impacts of raising five or more roosters. The ordinance allows students participating in FFA, 4-H, and other school sponsored educational projects to raise five or more roosters if they obtain an exemption from the Animal Control Officer through a streamlined exemption process. Commercial poultry operations and poultry hobbyist activities may obtain an exemption if approved by the Agricultural Commissioner. Permits will not be issued to persons convicted of illegal cockfighting or animal cruelty crimes, and persons keeping roosters are required to attest that they will not be made available for illegal cockfighting. Compliance with these standards is enforced through inspection by the Monterey County Animal Control Officer and the enforcement provisions of the Monterey County Code." 2019 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury MONTEREY COUNTY'S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE Agencies Involved in Enforcement of The Ordinance The relationship between the agencies involved in the enforcement of The Ordinance is problematic as outlined in this report. The BoS passed The Ordinance and designated the Agricultural Commissioner to accept, review, approve, or deny Poultry Operations and Poultry Hobbyist exemption permit applications. ACS is designated in The Ordinance to accept permit applications for rooster keeping operations with five or more roosters as well as exemptions for 4H and FFA. ACS is the enforcement agency. The Monterey County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) is called in to accompany and or assist when needed. The MCCGJ heard testimony from staff within multiple agencies and learned there was insufficient training to implement The Ordinance. Staff within the Environmental Health Bureau instructed ACS Officers to not enforce The Ordinance. Although rooster keeping permits must be renewed annually, no permit is current in Monterey County as of the writing of this report. The only citation issued was forwarded to the District Attorney's Office for prosecution but subsequently returned by the DA's Office to an unknown recipient. (See Appendix D.) Additionally, an employment settlement for a lawsuit against the Environmental Health Bureau was taken from the ACS Salaries and Wages budget which left Monterey County ACS severely understaffed and weakened staff morale. What Led Up to This Investigation The complainant, who had become aware of an illegal rooster keeping operation and possible dog fighting ring in North Monterey County, tried to no avail to bring this issue to the attention of four different Monterey County agencies. Between June 21, 2018 and August 10, 2018, the complainant contacted, by phone and email, the following County agencies multiple times: District 2 Supervisor; ACS; RMA Code Enforcement; MCSO; and two non-County agencies: the SPCA and the HSUS. The complainant voiced concerns of animal abuse, cruelty, and illegal cockfighting. The complainant then called The Monterey County Weekly who published an article on August 30, 2018.8 The publication of the article became the catalyst that brought the problem of illegal rooster keeping to the attention of the agencies who are tasked to understand or enforce this law. http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/blogs/animal_blog/animal-rights-group-posts-video-of-supposed- cockfighting-operation-in/article_ae0add72-acb0-11e8-81f1-97fc21e5c826.html 2019 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury MONTEREY COUNTY'S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE The MCCGJ learned that the owner of a known illegal rooster keeping operation in District 2 was used as a primary resource to write The Ordinance. After the passage of The Ordinance, Environmental Health created a multi-step process for implementation and enforcement that does not align with the ordinance that was passed by the BoS on December 16, 2014. The resulting confusion caused by this process added to an already difficult work environment between ACS staff and the Environmental Health Bureau. The Ordinance names the ACO 53 times with specific authority, duties, and responsibilities. It names the Agricultural Commissioner 17 times with duties and authority. While the ACO was well versed with the requirements of The Ordinance, the Agricultural Commissioner had not once read The Ordinance in its entirety. Although the text of The Ordinance names the ACO as the enforcement agency, the MCCGJ discovered that ACS's authority to enforce the provisions of The Ordinance were prohibited by the Environmental Health Bureau. Therefore, it became impossible to implement or enforce The Ordinance. It must be noted that in November of 2018, while the MCCGJ was conducting this investigation, the leadership and oversight of ACS was transferred out of Environmental Health and made its own division within the Monterey County Health Department. The MCCGJ investigated the alleged non-response by County agencies and a County ordinance that was not being enforced. We evaluated the conditions relating to the complaint site and the lack of communication and coordination between agencies to learn what might be done to resolve the problem. We looked at the purposes of rooster keeping operations, animal welfare as related to the complaint, and the copious amount of debris left in the wake of such vast operations. An Illegal rooster keeping operation will often include hundreds of roosters kept in makeshift enclosures. Property owners frequently sublet their private property to multiple rooster owners, where they have easy access to their roosters. It is common for each rooster owner to have 50 or more roosters. The result is excessive noise, environmental pollution, health and safety issues, unsightly debris, building code violations, and the possibility of the spread of Viral Newcastle Disease, as well as other avian Zoonotic Diseases.9 Illegal rooster-keeping operations commonly involve illegal cockfighting or the sale of roosters for illegal cockfighting. Neighborhoods with abandoned illegal rooster keeping operations suffer depreciation of property values. 9 https://ucanr.edu/sites/poultry/Resources/dz/ 2019 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury MONTEREY COUNTY'S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE While not the focus of our investigation, cockfighting is a magnet for prostitution, gambling, illegal drugs, firearms activity, and organized crime. Cockfighting in Monterey County is one of the primary reasons for the passage of The Ordinance. Cockfighting is considered a blood sport. It is an organized fight between two roosters, often to the death. These roosters are called gamecocks. They are bred and conditioned for increased strength and stamina. They are often injected with steroids and other drugs to increase their metabolism making them stronger and harder to kill. Small knives are attached to their legs so that when they attack another rooster in a cock pit, blood will be quickly drawn. Wagers are often placed on the roosters and a winning purse can easily reach $50,000. Purses of $100,000 are not unusual.11 From 2010 to November 2018, ACS was managed and directed by the Environmental Health Bureau. The Environmental Health Bureau is under the administration and leadership of the Monterey County Health Department. Since 2010, ineffective leadership and direction, as well as poor communication has resulted in a drastic reduction in personnel and morale at ACS. In 2010 there were six full time ACOs and a dedicated dispatcher on staff. By the Fall of 2018 there were only two remaining ACOs and no dispatcher. Open staff positions have not been filled and this has left ACS without the necessary human resources needed to effectively do their jobs. ACS is now its own division within the Health Department. New leadership at ACS, coupled with better communication between ACS and the Health Department has been positive. Better policies are beginning to be implemented. This change in leadership has brought back a higher level of morale and confidence among staff. 10 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blood%20sport 11 https://suffolkspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/cock-fighting/ 2019 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury MONTEREY COUNTY'S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE A Monterey County illegal rooster keeping operation showing roosters tethered to makeshift housing APPROACH After first interviewing the complainant and making the determination that the complaint was within our jurisdiction, the inquiry became an investigation. The MCCGJ soon began to understand the importance of the issue. The MCCGJ studied The Ordinance. From the text of The Ordinance, we determined which agency had responsibility for implementation and enforcement. The MCCGJ conducted multiple interviews with individuals from all agencies identified in the complaint and in The Ordinance. Emails 2019 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury MONTEREY COUNTY'S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE between principals were obtained, as well as statistics pertaining to permits issued. Drone footage, ordinance text, expert testimony from animal welfare organizations and comparable California county ordinances were studied. Members of the MCCGJ visited the original site of the complaint three times to observe progress on cleanup and to obtain photographs for evidence. Over a period of nine months, the Civil Grand Jury: 1. Interviewed 20 witnesses, (some of them twice), 2. Interviewed prior employees from agencies who had moved away from Monterey County, 3. Interviewed individuals from each of the agencies identified in the formal complaint, Studied the Monterey County Rooster Keeping operation requirements, verified 4. that it was written to mirror the Monterey County Kennel Keeping permit application, 5. Obtained copies of all rooster keeping permits issued, 6. Inspected the site of the original complaint on three different occasions (See Appendix C for site report.), Drafted a supplemental investigative report on our observations, 7.
F3:
Mail out "notice of violation" letter with 15-day response time.
F4:
Advise EH Director of failure to comply. After review, Director will approve issuance of compliance notice.
F5:
Mail out "compliance notice" per Title 21, if no response by date indicated on "notice of violation" work with Code Enforcement to ensure we follow process as required.
F6:
County Counsel to be advised and consulted prior to sending out notice.
F7:
No staff will issue any infraction notice to any rooster operation. We will utilize Title 21. (Code Enforcement) What to do if owner/operator threatens to release or abandon roosters? 8.
F8:
Documented the site with photographs and measurements, 9. Viewed drone footage of the site, 10. Viewed drone footage of several other illegal rooster keeping operations in Monterey County, 11. Viewed the PowerPoint presentation created by The Ordinance author, which was used to train personnel during the initial roll-out, 12. Reviewed emails sent between multiple agencies about the complainant site, Reviewed the unpublished and unofficial memo describing how to implement and enforce The Ordinance sent outlining the procedure that effectively modified The Ordinance passed by the BoS, 14. Examined the way in which the Environmental Health Bureau instructed staff to implement The Ordinance and compared it to the way staff perceived how they were trained.
F9:
Inform them we will refer them to SPCA humane officers for animal abandonment or cruelty citations. Manager will inform SPCA of identified rooster operation not in compliance with ordinance to prevent release or abandonment of animals. We will need to meet with SPCA.15 Agencies Involved in The Multi-Step Process The process created by the Environmental Health Bureau that was used for implementation and enforcement created a dysfunctional structure. No agency was identified as the coordinating agency. Multiple agencies were not informed about their role in the process. For example, RMA was not referred to in The Ordinance, but was given a role in the process. RMA Code Enforcement can issue citations for non- compliant animal enclosures. They can ask owners to move their roosters, but they do not issue citations for illegal rooster keeping. They can give multiple extensions to remove roosters and debris from property. They do not contact ACS when animals are involved. Although the complaint occurred within the Coastal zone, RMA Code Enforcement did not contact the Coastal Commission. Another example: the MCSO will make arrests for illegal activity if cockfighting is in progress, but cannot issue a citation or make an arrest for illegal rooster keeping operations in general. According to the process, County Counsel must be consulted and 15 Unpublished interagency memo 2019 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury MONTEREY COUNTY'S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE advised prior to any notice of violation. As a result there is no coordinated effort between agencies, no shared database for information about permit applications, illegal rooster keeping operations or other illegal rooster keeping activities. Ordinance Circumvented The Environmental Health Bureau created a multi-step process that modified the provisions originally outlined. The author of that process injected three additional agencies into the ordinance process that were not named in the original text. The oversight of County Counsel is required to enforce the policy. These layers were outside the parameters of The Ordinance passed on December 16, 2014. The new agencies added by Environmental Health are: RMA (Code Enforcement), SPCA County Counsel The Ordinance reads: "Persons or entities keeping five or more roosters on a single property shall become subject to the requirements of this chapter one hundred eighty days (six months) after the effective date of Ordinance 5249 enacting this chapter." Section 4 of the Ordinance stipulates that it (the Ordinance) "shall" become effective on the thirty-first day following its adoption (emphasis added). However, in a PowerPoint presentation created by the Environmental Health Bureau, the process's "soft roll-out" was defined as a one-year period and left enforcement entirely out of the picture. The first permit was issued on 09/28/15, more than nine months after the ordinance was passed. Four permits for rooster keeping were issued during 2015. Ten permits were issued during 2016. No permits were issued after July 13, 2016. To date, no permits for rooster keeping are in effect. After the soft rollout, the Environmental Health Bureau still would not allow ACOs to enforce the law by issuing citations for violations of illegal rooster keeping. The only citation issued for illegal rooster keeping is dated March 31, 2016. Permitting Process The permit application process can be completed in person or online. A required fee of $270.00, renewable annually, must be submitted. Zoning allowance verification for applicant's property must be obtained from RMA to ensure no outstanding code violations exist or bans on poultry keeping are in place. (An example of the latter would be property located in the Coastal Commission jurisdiction.) ACS must also verify that the applicant does not have convictions for cockfighting. It was learned that it frequently 2019 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury MONTEREY COUNTY'S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE took days to weeks to get the necessary information from other county agencies, in part because there wasn't a designated contact person assigned in other agencies to respond to ACS requests for information. In the event of violations, the permit process stops until violations are resolved. The applicant may correct violations and request to be re-inspected. A fee of $135.00 an hour is charged for re-inspection. The Ordinance permit process is lengthy and unnecessarily onerous. An Increased Risk of Contracting Diseases Specific to Avian Species Viral Newcastle disease is common worldwide, and currently California is experiencing a severe outbreak which is rapidly spreading to Northern California counties. As of the end of 2018, there were six million documented cases in Los Angeles County alone. During the week of March 25th, 2019, the Salinas Valley Fair, the Monterey County Fair, and the California Mid State Fair canceled all poultry exhibitions due to this disease.17 Highly contagious, it is an acute respiratory disease that is spread easily among avian populations both wild and domestic. This disease kills poultry and the primary way this disease spreads is by moving roosters that have the disease.18 Particularly devastating to domestic poultry, it has been known to wipe out whole commercial poultry operations. This disease is also transmittable to humans via clothing and avian contact resulting in conjunctivitis and influenza-like symptoms. Known as the poultry "Grim Reaper", California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) recommends not moving roosters or other roosters to different locations. Viral Newcastle disease can be present in roosters before symptoms are present. An Issued Citation Not Processed The MCCGJ discovered what appeared to be a missing and unaccounted for citation. This is the only known citation issued for illegal rooster keeping. The citation was scanned into the District Attorney's computer system and a request was made by the reviewing attorney for additional information to proceed with the prosecution. This request for information was never received by the ACS Officer involved with issuing the citation. The citation was issued but was subsequently never processed nor were fines levied. (See Appendix D.) 16 https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/poultry-virulent-newcastle-disease-quarantine-bird- 13715501.php 17 https://www.ksbw.com/article/outbreak-of-poultry-disease-cancels-chicken-exhibit-at-the-salinas-valley- fair/26901028 18 http://wp.sbcounty.gov/cao/countywire/?p=4207 2019 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury MONTEREY COUNTY'S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE The Role and Duty of The Animal Control Officer The role of the Animal Control Officer (ACO) is crucial to the success of this policy implementation and enforcement. Named 53 times in The Ordinance, The ACO is authorized by the BoS to fulfill the following responsibilities and functions for implementing and enforcing The Ordinance:19 Accepts applications with the required fee for Rooster Keeping Operations. · Accepts information from the applicant which is deemed necessary to decide on the issuance of the permit. Reviews the application and associated documents and require additional information to complete the application. · Specifies conditions and restrictions in the Rooster Keeping Operations permit process.
F15:
Studied and evaluated Supervisorial District boundaries to learn where the problem of illegal rooster keeping is most prevalent in Monterey County, 16. Studied Google Earth imagery in target areas of Monterey County and found dozens of rooster keeping operations, 17. Surveyed rooster keeping ordinances from other counties in California and compared elements of each ordinance to the ordinance in Monterey 2019 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury MONTEREY COUNTY'S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE County, 12 13 18. Examined complaint logs from several agencies to understand policies and procedures for addressing complaints made by the public about rooster noise, operation debris, and cruelty to roosters, 19. Learned the difference between reactive and proactive agency response, 20. Reviewed California Penal Code Section 597, which applies to animal abuse and cruelty, 21. Sought out and interviewed subject matter expert testimony from private agencies and a federal agency, and 22. Researched the serious and very real possibility of the spread of Viral Newcastle disease as well as other Zoonotic Diseases in Monterey County. DISCUSSION The facts in this report are the result of multiple interviews conducted by the MCCGJ during the investigation process or in documentation footnoted separately. The Ordinance was originally created to address the issue of environmental damage caused by roosters and the illegal activity that typically accompanies rooster keeping. This includes animal cruelty, gang activities, organized crime, prostitution, illegal drug activity, and excessive traffic. The debris and waste left when a rooster-keeping operation is shut down can result in property devaluations and blight across rural unincorporated areas in the County. Not all counties in California have specific policies or ordinances regulating the keeping of roosters. Of the 58 California counties, the counties of Los Angeles, Solano, Napa, Monterey, San Diego, Merced, Santa Clara, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Benito, and San Joaquin have rooster keeping ordinances that restrict rooster keeping by number, by parcel size, or by permit requirements. California law strictly forbids cockfighting in all counties. Prior to 2014, Monterey County did not have a rooster keeping ordinance. Numerous expert witnesses testified that today, in Monterey County, there are an estimated one thousand known illegal rooster keeping operations housing thousands of roosters. 12 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SolanoCounty/ 13 http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Press-Release-09-25-18-Final-Rooster- Ordinance.pdf 14 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=597 2019 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury MONTEREY COUNTY'S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE New Rooster Keeping Standards Based upon numerous complaints received, the BoS knew a change needed to be made specific to the rooster keeping operations. Illegal rooster keeping operations are more common in certain Supervisorial Districts of Monterey County. These operations are more common in District 2 (North County), District 3 (South County), and District 5 (Carmel Valley). (See Appendix B for district maps.) The Monterey County BoS passed The Ordinance on December 16, 2014, with a vote of 3 Ayes and 2 Noes. The Ordinance amended Chapter 8.04 of Title 8 and added Chapter 8.50 to Title 8 of the Monterey County Code. Title 8 contains standards related to Animal Control. The amended chapter added definitions and the new added chapter created a regulatory permit, inspection, exemption, and appeal process for keeping five or more roosters within unincorporated Monterey County. The ACO is primarily responsible for the implementation and enforcement of Chapter 8.50. Training to make counties aware of cockfighting is available from the HSUS at little or no charge but has not been utilized by the Health Department. How The Ordinance Was Written At the time of the writing of this ordinance, ACS was under the management of the Environmental Health Bureau. Environmental Health was tasked with writing the ordinance without having the necessary qualifications and expertise in animal welfare, domestic or livestock. The author's background is in hazardous waste management. The author used an individual from a known local illegal rooster keeping operation as the resource for writing The Ordinance. ACS was never consulted or included during The Ordinance writing process. The kennel keeping permit application was used as a framework for this ordinance. The requirements and needs of poultry compared to domestic animals are vastly different. An example would be the requirement to hose down and use sanitizer on the floors of all kennel enclosures daily. Roosters are not kept on solid flooring but are kept on dirt floors, so this required sanitation process is not possible. How Is It Working? The Ordinance hasn't solved the problem of noise, environmental waste, disease, or cockfighting because it is not enforced. It neither guarantees the humane treatment of roosters nor are there follow-up review processes to address the effectiveness of the permitting process. 2019 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury MONTEREY COUNTY'S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE Each agency knew little about which had jurisdiction or how to enforce The Ordinance. The MCSO could not make an arrest unless a cockfight was in progress. ACS reported that they were prohibited from issuing citations by the Director of the Environmental Health Bureau. RMA could not issue citations for illegal rooster keeping but could issue citations for code violations for inadequately constructed animal enclosures. The SPCA could not issue citations for illegal rooster keeping but could issue citations for cruelty and neglect of roosters, which could lead to possible prosecution by the District Attorney. Although some of the agencies contacted by the complainant already knew of this illegal operation as well as other illegal operations in the County, they said they could do nothing about it. Thwarted Authority The Ordinance is not complicated. It has just not been properly implemented or enforced. The authority to enforce The Ordinance lies with the Monterey County ACO. ACS is now under the Administrative arm of the Monterey County Health Department; however, until very recently ACS was overseen by the Environmental Health Bureau. The creation, implementation, and direction of The Ordinance resided with the Environmental Health Bureau. Upon passage, the Health Department/Environmental Health issued 14 permits between September 28, 2015 and July 20, 2016. Nine applicants were charged a permit fee. Five applicants had their permit fee waived at the discretion of the Director of Environmental Health. Roadblocks to Leadership and Oversight Although the text of The Ordinance passed by the BoS on December 16, 2014, names ACO as the implementation and enforcement agency, the MCCGJ discovered that ACO's authority to enforce the provisions of The Ordinance was prohibited by an onerous process created after The Ordinance was passed and made law. ACO's, who are highly skilled animal care professionals, were neither consulted nor advised during the creation of the process. The Ordinance gave a definitive timeline of 31 days from its adoption to become effective and 180 days to be fully implemented. The Environmental Health Department created a one-year "soft rollout" before fully implementing or enforcing it. At the end of the soft roll out year it was still not fully implemented or enforced and four years later, The Ordinance is still not being implemented or enforced. 2019 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury MONTEREY COUNTY'S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE Two other factors were involved in The Ordinance not being fully implemented. First, Staff were inadequately trained to implement The Ordinance. Second, the Environmental Health Bureau issued the following multi-step process for implementation which conflicted with The Ordinance: 1. Mail out initial "informational letter" with 30-day response time.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
At least 16% of the annual TOT revenue is to be budgeted for capital projects to improve the residential neighborhoods or projects of community-wide benefit; and 2. The Monterey City Council may, by a four-fifths vote, reduce said budget below 16%. A copy of Section 6.6 of the Monterey City Charter is attached as Appendix B The Neighborhood Improvement Program To provide guidance to the NIP Committee on how to conduct its business, the NIP Manual was developed.5 The Council Approved Edition of the NIP Manual, currently in use by the NIP, is dated December 4, 2012. The NIP includes 16 neighborhoods. The Monterey City Charter defines the appropriate use of NIP funds as targeted for neighborhoods and community-wide capital projects. For clarification purposes of the NIP Manual and this report, the Merriam- Webster Dictionary defines “neighborhood” as “the people living near one another” or “a section lived in by neighbors and usually having distinguishing characteristics.” 6 “Community”7 is defined as “people with common interests living in a particular area” and Citywide as “including all parts of the city.” The MCCGJ believes community-wide projects benefit the residents within the neighborhoods and Citywide projects benefit the residents of the entire city. A map of the 16 neighborhoods is attached as Appendix C. Each neighborhood chooses one representative and an alternate to serve on the NIP Committee. Each representative is then approved and appointed by the Monterey City Council. The NIP Committee chooses a Spokesperson and an Alternate Spokesperson to represent the NIP Committee in meetings with the Monterey City Council and other committees. There are no representatives for Citywide. A neighborhood, as defined in the City Charter, has an identified and distinct boundary. Each neighborhood has a base allocation for funding projects. The base allocation8 5 https://monterey.org/Portals/0/Reports/NIP/NIP-Policies-and-Procedures-Manual.pdf 6 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neighborhood 7 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/community 8 https://monterey.org/Portals/0/Reports/NIP/NIP-Policies-and-Procedures-Manual.pdf 2019 A REVIEW OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY’S NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (funding allocation) is set by the per capita formula per year and is based on the population of each neighborhood. Citywide has no base allocation. There is a designated City of Monterey NIP Coordinator who is appointed by the City Manager9 and is responsible for coordinating development and execution of the NIP. The NIP Coordinator’s immediate supervisor is the Director of the Public Works Department. Each NIP representative is responsible for submitting resident suggested projects to the NIP Coordinator for review. City staff frequently submit city projects for consideration by the NIP committee at the request of the City Manager, the majority of which are Citywide. These projects are then reviewed by the NIP Coordinator, evaluated as to completion cost, and presented for review by the NIP Committee during Voting Night (as described below). Each year within the first quarter, NIP representatives meet to vote on projects within their own neighborhoods. During the NIP prioritization meeting, NIP members can support other projects outside of their neighborhoods by lending their allocation of monies to other projects. Approved projects are reviewed by the Monterey City Council for approval or rejection. Once the Monterey City Council approves projects, they return the list of approved projects to the NIP Coordinator for scheduling with the City Engineer, Parks and Recreation Department, and the Public Works Department. APPROACH The MCCGJ interviewed several NIP Spokespersons, NIP representatives, and residents of several neighborhoods. The cross section of interviewees included more recently appointed representatives and representatives who have over 15 years of experience on their respective NIP Committees. The MCCGJ also interviewed senior officials within the City of Monterey who had knowledge of the NIP functions and procedures. The interviews included staff members and senior and middle management officials, including elected officials. These interviews provided information that prompted the MCCGJ to research City documents, public meeting minutes, and the finances of the City of Monterey Budget. 9 https://monterey.org/Residents/Neighborhoods/Neighborhood-Improvement-Program 2019 A REVIEW OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY’S NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Relevant documents, City Minutes, City Agendas, and financial data were collected from the City of Monterey staff and the on-line search engine, I-SEARCH. The I- SEARCH tool allows the user to access on-line activities to review City Public Meetings, including videos and minutes. The search engine allows the user to search by date, month, and year. The MCCGJ also reviewed: • NIP Budgets • City of Monterey Budgets • NIP website information10, and • NIP Projects submitted to the NIP from the Public DISCUSSION NIP Representatives and Term in Office The MCCGJ, in its efforts to address the complainant’s concerns regarding term limits, interviewed a NIP Spokesperson elected from the representatives, several representatives and residents as well as City Staff and senior officials and found: • The position of NIP representative is time-consuming and requires a great deal of work and dedication. • The long serving members reported that they were in their positions due to lack of interest from other neighborhood residents to serve in the position. • Certain NIP representatives had no alternate to assist them with their NIP tasks. • Each year, the NIP representatives are voted in by their respective districts. • Although previous knowledge is valuable, it is not necessary in the position. 10 https://monterey.org/Residents/Neighborhoods/Neighborhood-Improvement-Program 2019 A REVIEW OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY’S NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM • NIP representatives cooperated with each other and voted for, as well as, used funds from their neighborhoods to assist other neighborhood projects. The NIP Neighborhoods and Budget The NIP Manual11 addresses the neighborhoods within the City of Monterey and those neighborhoods are identified by a district name. A map showing the boundaries of each neighborhood is included in Appendix C. There are 16 separate and distinct neighborhoods. The funding allocation of each designated neighborhood is determined by a per capita formula each year and is based upon the population of each neighborhood. The term used by the City of Monterey is “base allocation”. Base allocation is calculated by the number of residents in each neighborhood multiplied by $7.50 per resident. The population numbers are based upon the 2010 United States Census. The number of residents in their respective neighborhoods is included in Appendix D. Each neighborhood can use its base allocation solely at its discretion and does not need NIP Committee approval for projects covered by this allocation. The funds from the TOT not used for base allocations are used for projects in the prioritization process explained above. The MCCGJ found, upon reviewing the City Budget 2017-2019,12 that an entity called Citywide was listed under the heading of Neighborhoods. There is no reference within the City Charter for Citywide. The NIP Manual mentions Citywide projects but does not define them. The MCCGJ reviewed the NIP budgets from 2008-2018 and found that overall, Citywide received substantially more funding from the NIP Budget than any of the 16 neighborhoods. A copy of the 10-Year Budget numbers by neighborhood is attached as Appendix E. Over the 10 years ending in 2018, Citywide received 30.8% of the NIP budget. During the same years, the next highest was New Monterey with 15.7%, then Monterey Vista with 11%. The rest of the neighborhoods were all under 7% of the 11 https://monterey.org/Portals/0/Reports/NIP/NIP-Policies-and-Procedures-Manual.pdf 12 https://monterey.org/Portals/0/Reports/Finance/Budget/Adopted-Budget-2017-2019- Biennium_FINAL.pdf 2019 A REVIEW OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY’S NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM budget. In 8 of the 10 years, Citywide received more than any of the 16 approved neighborhoods. While it is true that Citywide projects were voted on and approved by the NIP Committee, by using NIP funds for Citywide projects, less was left for individual neighborhood projects. It is clear that some of these Citywide projects should have been in the General Fund. City departments are asked to provide project ideas to submit to the NIP Committee. These projects probably have merit but may actually be more appropriately covered by the General Fund. Citywide also appears in the General Fund budget. For example, in Budget year 2014 supplemental Budget requests, there is a line request for Citywide listed under General Fund. Additionally, there is a line item entry during the years 2014- 2015 for Capital Improvement Projects in which “Citywide Street Repair” is listed under the heading General Fund. The NIP budget can be used to fund projects other than improvements in the neighborhoods. The City Charter also allows funds for community-wide capital projects. The City Charter indicates that the Monterey City Council “may, by a four-fifths vote reduce the NIP budget” and further states that this can be done if the “Monterey City Council determines that there are insufficient funds for the ordinary and necessary services in any budget year….”. There are no guidelines for what is meant by “ordinary and necessary services”. Protocols, policies, and procedures to identify instances in which there is an urgent need to use NIP funds outside of what they were intended for do not exist. The MCCGJ wondered how the Monterey residents can be assured that the Monterey City Council is being transparent when they adopt a budget utilizing NIP funds for Citywide projects instead of neighborhood projects. Document review and interviews with City Staff, Senior City Management, and NIP representatives could not provide a reasonable explanation for the Citywide entity. Some NIP representatives and members were not even aware of the existence of Citywide. In the Monterey City Council minutes dated February 6, 2018, Mayor Clyde Roberson stated, “Going forward, the City needs to find another revenue source to continue to fund Citywide projects outside the NIP”.13 Mayor Roberson also stated he is “not comfortable blessing individual projects, and ideas should be coming from the NIP 13 http://isearchmonterey.org/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=3887&doctype=MINUTES 2019 A REVIEW OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY’S NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Committee and residents.”14 The MCCGJ agrees with this statement. We believe the funding of some projects outside of the pre-described 16 neighborhoods is not abiding by the intent of the City Charter. It appears that funds extracted from the NIP budget for Citywide projects are to enhance the General Fund of the City of Monterey to complete General Fund Projects. Confusion Regarding the NIP Manual The purpose of the NIP Manual is to provide guidance to the NIP representatives on how to conduct its business and provide information to the public. The NIP Committee is currently using a Council Approved Edition dated December 4, 2012. The NIP Committee made numerous attempts to update the NIP Manual as documented below. There are three members from the 16 NIP neighborhoods who sit on the Policy Manual Subcommittee. This Subcommittee is responsible for drafting revisions and additions to the NIP Manual as directed by the NIP Committee. The Mayor represents the Monterey City Council on this Subcommittee. Over a two-year period (2014-2015), several meetings were held regarding changes, revisions, and deletions to the NIP Manual.15 These meetings were attended by the NIP Coordinator and NIP Committee. These meetings yielded no progress. The NIP Manual clearly states, “All revisions and additions are discussed and voted on (and)…. are taken to the NIP Committee for review and approval prior to being taken to the City Manager to be placed on the agenda for Monterey City Council”16. The most currently used edition of the NIP Manual is dated December 4, 2012 and is available for the public on the NIP website17. Between July 2013 and December 2015, issues continued to be raised at NIP meetings regarding changes, deletions, and additions without any actionable outcomes. Discussion related to the revision of the NIP Manual was usually moved to the next meeting. No consensus was reached for any action. 14 http://isearchmonterey.org/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=3887&doctype=MINUTES 15 http://isearchmonterey.org/meetings.html 16 https://monterey.org/Portals/0/Reports/NIP/NIP-Policies-and-Procedures-Manual.pdf 17 https://monterey.org/Residents/Neighborhoods/Neighborhood-Improvement-Program 2019 A REVIEW OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY’S NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The MCCGJ found that in December 2015 the matter of “Changes to the NIP Policies and Procedures Manual” was placed on the Monterey City Council agenda. The documents to support the agendized item included a strike through version of the NIP Manual. The motion to “approve Policies and Procedures Manual revisions for the Neighborhood Improvement Program for calendar year 2016 (Plans & Public Works 808-01)” was continued on a 5-0 vote to the next Monterey City Council Meeting in January 2016. The issue never appeared on succeeding agendas. As of the writing of this report, the 2012 approved edition of the NIP Manual remains in use. The NIP held 11 public meetings in 2016, 8 public meetings in 2017, and 9 public meeting in 201818. Revisions to the NIP Manual were never brought forward for a vote by the NIP Committee. In spite of frequent comments about the importance of making changes to reflect the current status of NIP Committee functioning, the issue was never resolved. All the proposed changes, additions, and deletions to the NIP Manual can be found within the City of Monterey’s I-Search website19. All public meetings, minutes, and videos can be accessed on this website. Over a period of four years, no formal action was taken to change, update, or revise the NIP Manual for Monterey City Council approval. A request by the Mayor dated October 16, 2018,20 to the NIP Manual Subcommittee and City personnel to review and make changes to the current processes for efficiencies was never completed. Public Meetings Notices One of the many important functions of city government is to inform its residents of public meetings. Residents have the absolute right to attend meetings and voice their concerns, approval, or displeasures of action taken or not taken by the city government officials. 18 http://isearchmonterey.org/meetings.html 19 http://isearchmonterey.org/home.html 20 http://isearchmonterey.org/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=3904&doctype=MINUTES 2019 A REVIEW OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY’S NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The California Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et. Sec) requires notice of public meetings and agendas to be posted 72 hours prior to the meeting.21 The NIP Manual 22 states that NIP public meetings will be advertised in “local newspapers”. Notices of NIP public meetings are posted only on the City of Monterey website and the bulletin board outside of City Hall. This meets the letter of the law in the Brown Act but not the spirit of public notice. The MCCGJ requested copies of newspaper postings from the City of Monterey for NIP meetings. None were provided. The City of Monterey is not following the guidelines in the NIP Manual for meeting notice publication. The City of Monterey does not make use of instant technology and messaging platforms for meeting notices. By using the bulletin board at City Hall to post upcoming meetings, citizens must travel to City Hall to see what is posted, rather than using the latest technology. FINDINGS NIP Committee Members F1) NIP Representatives are a reliable and hardworking group of volunteers elected annually by their neighborhoods without term restrictions. F2) NIP Representatives work cooperatively with each other to prioritize and fund projects. There is no evidence of “cronyism” or vote trading. F3) Term limits would likely lead to numerous vacancies on the NIP Committee. NIP Manual F4) The December 4, 2012 Edition of the NIP Manual does not reflect the current processes and practices of the NIP. F5) From 2012 to the present, the NIP Committee has continued to discuss changes to the 2012 NIP Manual without subsequent city council approval, thereby not having up to date practices documented. F6) The NIP Coordinator and the City Manager failed to advance the revision of the NIP Manual over a period of six years. 21 https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ab-2257-new-brown-act-requirements-for-35346/ 22 https://monterey.org/Portals/0/Reports/NIP/NIP-Policies-and-Procedures-Manual.pdf 2019 A REVIEW OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY’S NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM NIP Projects F7) NIP has a well worked out method of prioritizing neighborhood projects. F8) The City of Monterey gives appropriate procedural support to the NIP projects. F9) The funding of some projects outside of the pre-described 16 neighborhoods is not abiding by the intent of the City Charter. F10) There is confusion about Citywide projects that can be found in both NIP and General Fund budgets. The citizens of Monterey don’t have but need transparency when it comes to the NIP funding of Citywide projects. F11) The practice of City Officials submitting Citywide projects from their respective departments and presenting them to the NIP for approval gives the appearance that Citywide projects belong in the NIP budget but may actually belong in the General Fund budget. F12) Funds used from the NIP budget for Citywide projects are to enhance the General Fund of the City of Monterey to complete General Fund Projects. F13) Citywide has been erroneously identified as a neighborhood and is included in project assignments but has no base allocated budget. F14) Over a ten-year period, the NIP budget shows that Citywide received substantially more funding than any of the true 16 neighborhoods. Public Meeting Notices F15) NIP public meetings are not communicated effectively to the residents of Monterey or to the general public. F16) The City of Monterey is not following the NIP Manual’s guidelines by failing to post public meeting announcements in local newspapers.
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F18:
Recommendations: R1, R2, R4, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20,
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Monterey County Registrar of Voters: F1-F18 and R1-R7
R2:
Chief Administrative Officer: F1-F18 and R1-R7
R3:
Director of the Information Technology Department: F13-F18; R3, R4, R6, R7 Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Civil 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
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F2017:
The article also stated that in 2015 and 2016, the county submitted reports that were “non-compliant”, meaning they were either incomplete, filed in a different format than required by the state, or were submitted after the reporting deadline. The Monterey County Civil Grand Jury decided to investigate to determine if the County Office of Auditor-Controller did, in fact, miss the deadlines, the reason(s) for missing the deadlines, and if the county incurred a penalty for late filing during the three years in question. The Civil Grand Jury found that the Office of Auditor-Controller indeed failed to meet deadlines for the years 2015, 2016, and 2017. They were late, they were non-compliant, and they have no policy in place to avoid future late filings. A penalty was not assessed by the SCO. Public employee salary compensation is, by far, the single largest expense of the county budget; and taxpayers deserve to have an accurate and transparent accounting of the data. Since the inception of the reporting mandate in 2010 and state law in 2015, the Monterey County Office of Auditor-Controller has not had written policies and 1 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=12463 2 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=53892 2019 DISCLOSING SALARY COMPENSATION DATA IN MONTEREY COUNTY procedures for submitting the data on time to the SCO. The Civil Grand Jury believes future late filings can be avoided by creating and instituting written policies and procedures that include calendar driven protocols for timely filing. BACKGROUND In July 2018, the Carmel Pine Cone newspaper published an article stating that the Office of Auditor-Controller neglected to file the public employee salary compensation and pension data as prescribed by law for 2015, 2016, and 2017.3 Failure to disclose public employee salary compensation information by the deadline prescribed by law undermines the processes that have been put in place by the SCO for accountability and transparency. Public employee compensation is the largest expense in the budget of Monterey County,4 according to the “Budget End of Year Report” for 2017-2018.5 Taxpayers have the right and a responsibility to know how and what is spent in this budgetary category. The Monterey County Civil Grand Jury investigated to determine if the Monterey County Office of Auditor-Controller was remiss in filing, and if it was, the reason(s) for late filing, and if the county incurred fines for late filing during the three years in question. The law supporting public employee compensation disclosure went into effect as a result of the revelation of the misappropriation of public funds and high salaries for several City of Bell employees. In the aftermath of this financial scandal exposing payroll malfeasance, California State Controller John Chiang began requiring all cities, counties, and special districts to submit public employee salary information to the SCO. When the law first went into effect in 2010, cities, counties, and special districts were required to submit only summary information to the SCO including revenues and expenditures. Payroll information was part of that data, but it was hidden in the summary. The 2015 law requires all cities, counties, and special districts to supply all compensation data including compensation for elected officials such as mayors and 3 http://pineconearchive.fileburstcdn.com/180713PCA.pdf 4 http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=71673, 5 Monterey County Annual Report/Expenses 2019 DISCLOSING SALARY COMPENSATION DATA IN MONTEREY COUNTY other officials, including city managers and county administrators. The compensation data is now completely visible to all taxpayers in a separate category. The goal of the new law is to provide complete transparency of public employee salary, pension, and other compensation data. After conducting an audit of the City of Bell, Chiang explained, “The absence of transparency is a breeding ground for waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars. A single website with accessible information will make sure that excessive pay is no longer able to escape public scrutiny and accountability.”6 The revelation of the corruption and ultimately, the conviction of some City of Bell public employees led to the passage of the salary disclosure laws we have today. While providing the taxpayer with public employee salary compensation information is the law in California, delivering it on time, as prescribed, creates an additional layer of transparency and trust among those who serve the interests of the public. The timely publication of the information is the responsibility of the Office of Auditor-Controller. The information is necessary and foundational to an informed electorate. APPROACH The Civil Grand Jury researched the reasons why these laws were enacted. We interviewed staff from the Monterey County Office of Auditor-Controller to understand the processes and procedures involved with submitting the required data to the SCO. Additionally, the Civil Grand Jury spoke to and corresponded with staff from the State Controller’s office on multiple occasions. We reviewed the salary data for 5,875 Monterey County public employees. We reviewed pension and health care costs for retired public employees, all of which must be reported to the public through the SCO. The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed and analyzed budgets for Monterey County between the fiscal years 2014 and 2019 to determine the percentage of the budget that is allocated to employee wages, salaries, and compensation.7 In addition to using these primary sources, the Civil Grand Jury reviewed the State Controller’s Government Compensation in California website, the Monterey County Annual Report website, and several non-governmental websites, including news outlet organizations for whom the Office of Auditor-Controller annually provides salary data information. These news 6 https://www.sco.ca.gov/eo_pressrel_controller_requires_salary_reporting.html 7 http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-a-h/administrative-office/budget-analysis 2019 DISCLOSING SALARY COMPENSATION DATA IN MONTEREY COUNTY organizations included Transparent California the Salinas Californian Bay Area News Group, the Monterey Herald, and the Monterey County Weekly. DISCUSSION The facts in this report are the result of multiple interviews conducted by the Civil Grand Jury during the investigation process or in documentation footnoted separately. • In 2010, under the authority of GC sections 12463 and 53892 the SCO required the compensation data from cities, counties, and special districts as a component of their financial transaction reports. The compensation data was published as “The Government Compensation in California Report.”8 • The current law requires counties, cities, and special districts to submit salary compensation data to the SCO by April 30 each year for the previous calendar year.9 The SCO is specific as to the date, format, and method, the salary data must be submitted. • Penalties for late filing, or if the data are deemed false, incomplete or incorrect, range from $1,000-$5,000.10 • Monterey County did not incur penalties for late filing during the years in question. • The newly elected Auditor-Controller has weekly meetings to discuss upcoming calendar deadlines. • Of the 58 California counties, Monterey County was not the only county that missed the salary compensation data filing deadline for the years 2015, 2016, and 2017. In 2015, 13 counties missed the deadline; in 2016, 7 counties missed the deadline; and in 2017, 11 counties missed the deadline. • Monterey County salary compensation data was submitted late in years 2015, 2016, and 2017. 8 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=12463 9 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=53895.&lawCode=GOV 10 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=53895.&lawCode=GOV 2019 DISCLOSING SALARY COMPENSATION DATA IN MONTEREY COUNTY • The Monterey County Office of Auditor-Controller was required to clarify certain salary compensation anomalies to the SCO for 2015 and 2016 before data could be posted online. These anomalies related to special compensation practices. Salary compensation for Monterey County for the years 2015 and 2016 were not posted to the State website until July 2018 pending clarification of the salary compensation anomalies. Monterey County was late in filing salary compensation data as follows: Government Compensation in California Submittal Date Reporting Year 2015 08/22/2016 2016 06/28/2017 2017 07/13/2018 • Public employee compensation is the single largest expense of the Monterey County budget. • Nine years after the law was enacted, Monterey County Office of Auditor- Controller still does not have written policies and procedures for filing salary compensation data to the SCO. • The salaries for Monterey County public employees can be viewed on the SCO website.11 • The Monterey County Office of Auditor-Controller must provide all public employee pension information annually to the SCO. 11 https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/Counties/County.aspx?entityid=27&year=2017 2019 DISCLOSING SALARY COMPENSATION DATA IN MONTEREY COUNTY FINDINGS F1) Monterey County taxpayers should have an accurate accounting of public employee salary and pension compensation. F2) Monterey County Office of Auditor-Controller did not submit salary information to the State Controller’s Office as required by law thereby depriving the public of timely information. F3) Monterey County did not proactively address salary anomalies as identified by the SCO. F4) Monterey County could have been penalized up to $5,000 for missing the filing deadline.
* 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.
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.