Napa County Grand Jury
2012-2013
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 (3)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
The ex-officio Napa County ROV also serves as the elected Assessor/Recorder/Clerk. This places unique demands upon an official managing several consolidated divisions.
F2:
The Grand Jury finds it concerning that the elected ROV is directly involved in supervising elections and validating ballots for which he is a candidate on the ballot.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors change the elected status of ex-officio Registrar of Voters to an appointed office.
F3:
The ROV could be an appointed stand-alone manager separated from the elected Assessor/Recorder/Clerk position and could be appointed by the BOS, as is the case in several other California counties.
F4:
Currently there can be no significant oversight by an independently appointed Napa County Board of Elections because the ROV is an elected county official. 16
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors change the elected status of ex-officio Registrar of Voters to an appointed office.
F5:
If the ROV were appointed rather than elected, there could be an independent County Board of Elections appointed to oversee that proper procedures are being followed for every election and that voters in Napa County are receiving timely and accurate election results.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Upon the establishment of an appointed Registrar of Voters, the Napa County Board of Supervisors should establish an oversight committee of Napa County voters that would be charged with monitoring the performance and procedures of the Registrar of Voters.
F6:
There is public interest in reporting interim election results. The ROV can release interim elections results, as is done in other counties, providing for a more transparent election process.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Napa County Election Division publishes periodic interim election results in addition to the initial voting results on Election Day.
R7:
The Registrar of Voters publish the voter information pamphlet on the Election Division website.
F7:
In the last several years, Napa County has experienced closure of the vast majority of polling places and a switch to VBM for 85 percent of county registered voters.
F8:
Some voters and some elected officials in Napa County expressed dissatisfaction with the closure of a majority of local precincts and miss the participatory civic experience offered by local polling places.
F9:
A number of voters in Napa County are disgruntled at the lack of opportunity to provide input or feedback in regard to closing the majority of polling places.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Registrar of Voters solicits voter input regarding the reduction of polling precincts in favor of vote by mail.
R5:
The Registrar of Voters solicit input from voters through a vigorous media campaign, flyers to registered voters, as well as an online survey to determine how and where Napa citizens choose to vote.
F10:
There was a delay in receiving the ballot information pamphlets which may have led to some voters to mail in their ballots without sufficient information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Registrar of Voters ensure that voter pamphlets and ballots are received at the same time.
F11:
Logic and Accuracy testing of polling machines was carried out by Election Staff and election partners prior to the 2012 General Election. It was observed by the Grand Jury that proper procedures were followed.
F12:
The Grand Jury found that the transfer of ballots from county polling places to the Election Office and the handling and counting of polling place ballots on Election Day followed proper procedures.
F13:
Security measures for handling, maintaining chain of custody, storing and counting ballots appear to be adequate.
F14:
The Grand Jury observed inconvenient access for the public to the election office facilities during the hectic general election periods. There is a need for more office storage space during the busy general election periods.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Napa County Board of Supervisors establishes an election office facility with more space for storing and processing ballots and easier access for the public.
F15:
The Grand Jury found that the Election Division has no formal archive of complaints from the public. 17
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Election Division create an archive of public concerns and/or complaints and its responses thereto.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R18:
Request for Responses 18 2 NAPA COUNTY GRAND JURY P.O. BOX 5397 NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94581 June 24, 2013 The Honorable Mark S. Boessenecker Supervising Judge Superior Court of the State of California County of Napa 825 Brown Street Napa, California 94559 Re: 2012-2013 Grand Jury Final Report: Napa County Sheriff/Coroner Dear Judge Boessenecker, Pursuant of Section 933 (a) of the California Penal Code, the 2012-2013 Napa County Grand Jury submits its report on the Napa County Election Division. Our investigation of this subject was conducted in a manner consistent with the California Penal Code, this Court's Charge, and the historic role of the Grand Jury, to pursue the interests of the residents of Napa County. This is a sixth in a series of final reports we will be issuing during our term. I would like to acknowledge the good work and dedication of the Napa County Grand Jurors as demonstrated in this report. Respectfully submitted, Victor J. Connell Foreperson NAPA COUNTY GRAND JURY P.O. BOX 5397 NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94581 June 24, 2013 To the Residents of Napa County: Our sixth 2012-2013 Grand Jury Final Report is on the Napa County Election Division. The Napa County Office of County Counsel has reviewed this final report. The Napa County Superior Court Presiding Judge, pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933(a), has found that this report complies with California Penal code Part 2 Title 4. Copies of this report are available for review in the Napa City-County Library and online at www.napa.courts.ca.gov (follow the link to the Grand Jury). We hope you find this report informative. It is an honor and privilege to serve you during our 2012-2013 Grand Jury term. Respectfully submitted, The NAPA COUNTY ELECTION DIVISION
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Sheriff’s Office has a flexible policy of rotating sworn officers through various duty positions to provide cross-training and enrich the experiences of deputies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Coroner’s Division immediately begin a program of entering data from the old system of typewritten index cards into the current computerized system.
F2:
The Coroner’s office performs autopsies for surrounding counties on an as-needed basis and bills those counties for services. 15
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The NSO seek assistance, as appropriate, from the BOS, the Napa County Executive Office, and/or County Counsel to secure an agreement with a third party credit/debit card merchant service to allow the NSO to accept credit and debit cards for payment of fees and services and pass related costs to the customer.
F3:
The Coroner’s office and autopsy facilities, eight years after being built, are still considered state-of-the-art.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The NSO, County IT and the NSO budget analyst work together to develop a cost- benefit analysis for a secure server with state-of-the-art software to store, index, manage and retrieve crime-scene photographs that are now routinely stored on CDs.
F4:
The Coroner’s office staff uses a typewritten index card for each Coroner’s case which is redundant with the computerized system currently in use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The NSO develop full documentation of policy and procedures for the collection and preservation of DNA evidence. This documentation should include the currently used standard operation procedures for handling DNA evidence.
F5:
The Records section is unable to accept credit/debit card payment for fees associated with LiveScan services, copies of reports, or other services to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That no later than December 31, 2013, the NSO and District Attorney’s office develop a joint policy and procedure which effectively obtains and enforces proper court orders for appropriate destruction of evidence in NSO custody in cases either fully adjudicated, dismissed or beyond the statute of limitations.
F6:
The Evidence Laboratory currently stores all crime scene photographs taken by deputies on CDs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That within the 2013-2014 fiscal year the NSO hire a part-time or extra-help person to fully staff the Property (Evidence) Room.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that the NSO has no written standard operating procedure that appropriately describes the proper manner of collection and preservation of DNA.
F8:
The Property (Evidence) Room becomes overloaded periodically and court orders for destruction of evidence related to closed or dismissed cases have been impeded due to a lack of coordinated inter-departmental procedure.
F9:
The Property (Evidence) Room is understaffed and is currently utilizing a person from the Evidence Laboratory to fill the gap in staffing.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R16:
Commendation 17 Request for Responses 17 Appendices Attached 2 NAPA COUNTY GRAND JURY P.O. BOX 5397 NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94581 May 20, 2013 The Honorable Mark S. Boessenecker Supervising Judge Superior Court of the State of California County of Napa 825 Brown Street Napa, California 94559 Re: 2012-2013 Grand Jury Final Report: Napa County Sheriff/Coroner Dear Judge Boessenecker, Pursuant of Section 933 (a) of the California Penal Code, the 2012-2013 Napa County Grand Jury submits its report on the Napa County Sheriff/Coroner Services Division. Our investigation of this subject was conducted in a manner consistent with the California Penal Code, this Court's Charge, and the historic role of the Grand Jury, to pursue the interests of the residents of Napa County. This is a fifth in a series of final reports we will be issuing during our term. I would like to acknowledge the good work and dedication of the Napa County Grand Jurors as demonstrated in this report. Respectfully submitted, Victor J. Connell Foreperson NAPA COUNTY GRAND JURY P.O. BOX 5397 NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94581 May 20, 2013 To the Residents of Napa County: Our fifth Grand Jury Final Report is on the Napa County Sheriff/Coroner. The Napa County Office of County Counsel has reviewed this final report. The Napa County Superior Court Presiding Judge, pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933(a), has found that this report complies with California Penal code Part 2 Title 4. Copies of this report are available for review in the Napa City-County Library and online at www.napa.courts.ca.gov (follow the link to the Grand Jury). We hope you find this report informative. It is an honor and privilege to serve you during our 2012-2013 Grand Jury term. Respectfully submitted, The NAPA COUNTY SHERIFF/CORONER SERVICES OPERATIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Certain witnesses interviewed by the Grand Jury, knowingly, repeatedly and willfully, violated their lawful secrecy admonition.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the County Board of Supervisors, the City Council of each incorporated jurisdiction, the County Counsel and every publicly elected official not under the authority of the foregoing provide instruction to all county employees within their jurisdiction regarding their duties and responsibilities towards the grand jury process and that said instruction be completed prior to the end to this calendar year. 7
F2:
The conduct of the witnesses in repeatedly violating the Grand Jury’s lawful secrecy admonition created an atmosphere of apprehension and intimidation which impeded the proper investigation of the Grand Jury.
F3:
The conduct of the witnesses who violate the secrecy admonition is punishable as contempt of the Superior Court.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
Request for Responses 8 2 NAPA COUNTY GRAND JURY P.O. BOX 5397 NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94581 A Tradition of Stewardship A Commitment to Service April 25, 2013 The Honorable Mark S. Boessenecker Supervising Judge Superior Court of the State of California County of Napa 825 Brown Street Napa, California 94559 Re: 2012-2013 Grand Jury Final Report: On the Integrity of Grand Jury Investigations Dear Judge Boessenecker, Pursuant of Section 933 (a) of the California Penal Code, the 2012-2013 Napa County Grand Jury submits its final report: On the Integrity of Grand Jury Investigations. Our investigation of this subject was conducted in a manner consistent with the California Penal Code, this Court's Charge, and the historic role of the Grand Jury, to pursue the interests of the residents of Napa County. This is first in a series of final reports we will be issuing during our term. I would like to acknowledge the dedication of the Grand Jurors, which our report reflects. Respectfully submitted, Victor J. Connell Foreperson NAPA COUNTY GRAND JURY P.O. BOX 5397 NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94581 April 25, 2013 To the Residents of Napa County: Our first Grand Jury Final Report deals with the integrity of the Napa County Grand Jury process. During the course of executing our statutory responsibilities, the 2012-2013 Napa County Grand Jury conducted extensive inquiries and investigations into the operations of certain agencies and departments within the Cities and County of Napa. By law, these investigations are confidential and will remain so either until the Grand Jury issues a Final Report or the Superior Court releases those concerned from the bounds of confidentiality. While performing its responsibilities the Grand Jury became aware that certain witnesses appearing before it had violated the secrecy admonition applicable to its proceedings. This conduct created an atmosphere within the concerned departments which caused other witnesses to feel pressure, apprehension and intimidation, resulting in their being less than forthcoming in subsequent testimony. The witnesses’ violation of the admonition of confidentiality created an atmosphere which impeded the work of the Grand Jury. The Napa County Office of County Counsel has reviewed this final report. The Napa County Superior Court Presiding Judge, pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933(a), has found that this report complies with California Penal code Part 2 Title 4. This report has been accepted and filed as a public document by the County Clerk. Copies of this report are available for review in the Napa City-County Library and online at www.napa.courts.ca.gov (follow the link to the Grand Jury). We hope you find this report informative. It is an honor and privilege to serve you during our 2012-2013 Grand Jury term. Respectfully submitted, The ON THE INTEGRITY OF GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIONS