Orange County Grand Jury

2001-2002

5 reports

Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F2: The Sanitation District did not provide documentary evidence that the operative code requirements were met by the Sanitation District Board of Directors when they approved 2.5% at 55 pension formula for sanitation workers in 2004. Penal Code §933 and §933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested, from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections §933 and §933.05, the 2016-2017 OCGJ requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Pension Enhancements: A Question of Government Code Compliance,” the 2016-2017 the OCGJ has the following recommendations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Sanitation District should implement procedures that ensure compliance with all transparency requirements including those relating to the approval of pension enhancements. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding; (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action; (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation; (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report; (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required or requested from: Responses are required from the governing body of each of the following entities within 90 days of the date of publication of this report: Orange County Fire Authority (F. 1 and R.1) Orange County Sanitation District (F. 2 and R.2) Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads: None requested. REFERENCES 2002-2003 Orange County Grand Jury. (2003). Who Represents Orange County Taxpayers? Retrieved 2016, from Orange County Grand Jury Reports: http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/gjrepresent.pdf 2004-2005 Orange County Grand Jury. (2005). Another County Crisis: Pensions, Health Care, and Other Benefits. Retrieved 2016, from Orange County Grand Jury Reports: http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/pension.pdf 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury. (2012). Transparency Breaking UP Compensation Fog-- But Why Hide Pension Costs? Retrieved 2016, from Orange County Grand Jury Reports: http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/transparencybreakingupcompensationfog.pdf 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury. (2014). OC grand Jury Reports. Retrieved 2016, from Orange County Pension Liabilities: Budget Transparency Critically Needed: http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2013_2014_GJreport/PensionReport.pdf 2014/2015 Marin County Grand Jury. (2015). Pension Enhancements: A Case of Government Code Violations and A Lack of Transparency. Retrieved April 25, 2017, from County of Marin: https://www.marincounty.org/depts/gj/reports-and-responses/reports- responses/2014-15/pension-enhancements 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury. (2016). Orange County's $4.5 Billion Unfunded Pension Liability & Retirement Plans. Santa Ana: Orange County Superior Court. 2015-2016 Sutter County Grand Jury. (2016). Pension Enhancements: A Case of Government Code Violations and a Lack of Transparency. Yuba City, California: Sutter County Superior Court. California Policy Center. (2017). What is the Average Pension for a Retired Government Worker in California? California, USA. Citizens for Sustainable Pension Plans. (2016). Chronology of David Brown's Challenge to Address the Illegally Granted Pension Increases for Marin County Employees. Retrieved April 25, 2017, from Marin County Pensions: http://marincountypensions.com/news- archives.html County of Orange. (2009). Section 1: Article III, Section 301, Charter of Orange County. Retrieved February 11 13, 2017, from https://web.archive.org/web/20120202190321/http://ocvote.com/election/gen2008/OC_F T.pdf Delaney, S. (2015, December 31). The Evolution of OCERS Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability. Retrieved from Orange County Employees Retirement System: www.ocers.org/pdf/finance/actuarial/evolution_of_uaal.pdf State of California. (1937). The County Employment Retirement Law of 1937. CERL. Sacramento, California, USA: State of California. State of California. (2012, September 12). Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013. Retrieved 2016, from California Legislative Information: http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11- 12/bill/asm/ab_0301-0350/ab_340_bill_20120912_chaptered.html APPENDICES
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The OCFA should implement procedures that ensure compliance with all transparency requirements including those relating to the approval of pension enhancements.
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: The timetable for implementing the various outreach strategies might achieve greater success with an earlier start date and coordination with the targeted audiences; and
F2: Evaluations of applicants, based on the interview, can be standardized across interviewing judges if adherence to a uniform checklist of qualifications can be established. A quote from Aristotle aptly concludes this report of the 2001–2002 Orange County Grand Jury. “If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost” Final Report AH – 17 APPENDIX A GRAND JURY HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Table 1: Orange County Grand Juror “Age” Demographic Data for Prior Five Years, as Compared to Orange County Profile Table 2: Orange County Grand Juror “Gender” Demographic Data for Prior Five Years, as Compared to Orange County Profile AH – 18 2001–2002 Orange County Grand Jury Table 1 Orange County Grand Juror “Age” Demographic Data for Prior Five Years, as Compared to Orange County Profile Orange 1996 – 1997 1997 – 1998 1998 – 1999 1999 – 2000 2000 – 2001 Average Age Representation28 Age County Grand Jury Grand Jury Grand Jury Grand Jury Grand Jury (% difference between Orange Group Profile (Grand jury % County profile % and 5-year across 5 years) (%) # % # % # % # % # % average grand jury %) 18 – 19 No data 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 (–) 100 20 – 24 9.53 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 (–) 100 25 – 34 23.33 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 (–) 100 35 – 44 23.90 0 0.0 1 5.3 2 10.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 3.2 (–) 87 45 – 54 18.06 2 10.5 3 15.8 1 5.3 1 5.3 2 10.5 9.5 (–) 47 55 – 59 6.40 5 26.3 3 15.8 2 10.5 5 26.3 5 26.3 21.0 (+) 228 60 – 64 4.84 4 21.1 7 36.8 3 15.8 6 31.6 4 21.1 25.3 (+) 423 65 – 74 7.40 7 36.8 4 21.0 10 52.6 5 26.3 5 26.3 32.6 (+) 340 75 + 6.54 1 5.3 1 5.3 1 5.3 2 10.5 3 15.8 8.4 (+) 28 Total 100.00 19 100.0 19 100.0 19 100.0 19 100.0 19 100.0 28 Computed as [(average % of actual grand juries – Orange County profile percent) ÷ Orange County profile percent]. Final Report AH – 19 Table 2 Orange County Grand Juror “Gender” Demographic Data for Prior Five Years, as Compared to Orange County Profile Orange Gender County 1996 – 1997 1997 – 1998 1998 – 1999 1999 – 2000 2000 – 2001 Average Representation29 Gender Grand Jury Grand Jury Grand Jury Grand Jury Grand Jury Profile (Grand jury % (% difference between Orange across 5 years) County profile % and 5-year (%) # % # % # % # % # % average grand jury %) Male 49.9 12 63 11 58 12 63 15 79 14 74 67 (+) 34 Female 50.1 7 37 8 42 7 37 4 21 5 26 33 (–) 34 Total 100.0 19 100 19 100 19 100 19 100 19 100 100 29 Computed as [(average % of actual juries – Orange County profile percent) ÷ Orange County profile percent]. AH – 20 2001–2002 Orange County Grand Jury BIBLIOGRAPHY Community Awareness of Grand Jury Selection. (1991) Orange County Grand Jury Final Report 1990–1991, pp. SI-7–9. Fidelman, Carolyn G. (1996). A Language Professional’s Guide to the World Wide Web. Retrieved 4/4/2002, from CALICO Journal. . Good, Phillip. (1997). Memorandum of Law: A Jury of One’s Peers. Retrieved 4/6/2002, from . Grand Jury Awareness. (1994) Orange County Grand Jury Final Report 1993–1994, pp. SI-3–12. “How to Plan an Electronic Viewgraph Presentation.” Updated 10/20/2001, by Los Alamos National Laboratory. . “Impartial Jury.” Retrieved 4/7/2002, from FindLaw. . “Microsoft Excel Primer.” Retrieved 4/4/2002, from Clark University Official Student Workshop. . Recruitment of Grand Jury Members. (1995) Orange County Grand Jury Final Report 1994–1995, pp. 117–120. Review of Orange County Grand Jury Selection. (1988) Orange County Grand Jury Final Report 1987–1988, pp. SR-1–SR-9. Superior Court Judges Committee. (1982) Orange County Grand Jury Final Report 1982–1983, p. SR-19. “The American Presidency.” Retrieved 4/7/2002, from Grolier Online. . “The Bill of Rights.” Retrieved 4/7/2002, from ACLU American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. . Wilson, Tracy. (2/5/2002). Judge Tosses Out Indictment by Male-Dominated Grand Jury. Los Angeles Times. Wilson, Tracy. (2/10/2002). The Jury Is Out on Selecting Grand Jurors. Los Angeles Times. Final Report AH - 21
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: The existing configuration of the telephone equipment at the CAR hot-line abuse call in facility cannot accommodate certain upgrades necessary for improving efficiency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Acquire new telephone equipment or upgrade and program existing telephone equipment to improve the efficiency of the CAR abuse call in system.
F2: The CAR Automated Call Distribution System places unanswered incoming calls in a chronological queue. The calls are answered in order by the next available Social Worker. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Retain feature that directs unanswered calls in chronological order to the next available Social Worker.
F3: The CAR Automated Call Distribution System cannot accommodate an Automated Attendant Feature in its present configuration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Install Automated Attendant Feature – with options to include a language selection, non-abuse calls, social worker direct calls and child abuse calls.
F4: Present CAR Automated Call Distribution System does not have the capability to accept voice mail messages. The caller either must wait for a Social Worker to answer or must abandon the call.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Install Voice Mail Feature – to leave abuse messages as an option to remaining on hold to speak with a Social Worker.
F5: No CAR phones have real time capability to indicate that there has been a call abandoned or that there is a voice mail that needs a response.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Install on each telephone instrument a device to indicate there is a child abuse voice mail message that needs a response.
F6: Presently there are no clerical or administrative personnel whose responsibility is solely to respond to non-abuse calls. Responses to Findings 1-6 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Provide clerical or administrative personnel to respond to non-abuse calls. Responses are required to Recommendations 1-6 from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency.
F2001: Of these calls, 2,072 resulted in child abuse investigations. Other calls are for information and referral. The average wait time before a caller hangs up (abandons) without speaking with a Social Worker during the same period is two minutes, six 1 seconds. The average speed of answer is 1 minute 9 seconds. Between March through November 2001, 15% of incoming calls were abandoned (See Table 1). Each call that is answered, regardless of its nature, is answered by a CAR Social Worker. Each caller receives a human response to their concern whatever it may be, child abuse or not. Once an abuse call has been received and evaluated, a determination is made whether an immediate or deferred response is required. In the event that an immediate response is required, an emergency response Social Worker, often accompanied by a sworn law enforcement officer is immediately dispatched to investigate and assess the risk to the child from a potential or real abusive environment and remove the child if the circumstances warrant. On routine abuse reports, assessments are made and an appropriate response is initiated within mandated time frames. The time of a CAR Social Worker is also allocated to other responsibilities. In some instances, information provided by the reporting party can be incomplete or inaccurate. The information must be verified, such as correct location and address of the minor, and name of the minor’s school, when applicable. The same would apply to hospitals, medical information and criminal checks of reported perpetrators. This advance verification serves to maximize the field Social Worker’s time as well as the worker’s safety. A duplication of effort that included child abuse entry reports that were processed by both paper forms and electronic data entry has been largely eliminated with the advent of electronic entry of abuse reports. However, the percentage of abandoned calls has not significantly decreased. TABLE 1 Data Provided by Social Services Agency of Orange County for 2001 Total Average Longest Wait Average Wait Calls Speed Time Before Time Before Total Calls Month Answered of Answer Being Answered Abandonment Calls Lost March 3,103 2.52 min/sec 47.10 min/sec 2.59 min/sec 4,278 1,175 April 2,821 1.26 min/sec 30.56 min/sec 2.11 min/sec 3,464 643 May 3,460 1.11 min/sec 24.56 min/sec 2.02 min/sec 4,052 592 June 3,014 0.47 min/sec 36.44 min/sec 2.10 min/sec 3,416 402 July 2,756 0.39 min/sec 44.30 min/sec 1.46 min/sec 3,090 334 Aug. 2,877 0.35 min/sec 22.58 min/sec 1.39 min/sec 3,281 404 Sept. 2,758 0.48 min/sec 20.08 min/sec 2.00 min/sec 3,130 372 Oct. 3,389 0.55 min/sec 21.08 min/sec 2.02 min/sec 3,958 569 Nov. 2,928 1.06 min/sec 28.38 min/sec 2.04 min/sec 3,426 498 Total 27,106 32,095 4,989 METHOD OF STUDY The Grand Jury conducted interviews with staff and supervisors in Orange County and San Diego County Social Services Agencies, Child Abuse Registry and Emergency Response Services to obtain comparative analyses of incoming call operations and procedures. The Grand Jury has reviewed data provided by the OCSSA regarding abandoned calls, time on hold and volume and nature of in-coming calls. FINDINGS Under California Penal Code Section 933 and Section 933.05, responses are required to all findings. The Orange County 2001-2002 Grand Jury arrived at six findings.
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: The IWF Committee is composed of four voting members and two non-voting members who act in an advisory role.
F2: Proper accounting practices are being followed by members of the IWF Committee in the operation of the fund. A response to Findings 1 & 2 is requested from the Chief of Police of the City of Santa Ana.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: Goals in the business plans were lacking in measurable content.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Goals in the business plans should include a quantifiable statement as to how attainment of the various goals will be measured. (Finding 1)
F2: Strategic Operational Plans for each goal were lacking in specificity as to the outcomes desired to assure the attainment of the individual goals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Strategic Operational Plans for each goal should be specific as to the actions to be taken to accomplish the goal. (Finding 2)
F3: The Outcome Measures or result measurements lacked an expression of the baseline against which the new goal was to be measured. Response to findings 1, 2, and 3 is requested from the Orange County CEO.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Outcome Measures should state the quantifiable baseline against which the results are to be measured and restate the quantifiable goal. (Finding 3) Response to the recommendations 1, 2, and 3 is requested from the Orange County CEO.