Orange County Grand Jury
2007-2008
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 (14)
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
inspections that provides accurate and easily understood on-site health information for all restaurant and food vending locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The Orange County Health Care Agency will provide the Board of Supervisors with a report for the Board's consideration on the available public notification options for food facility inspection results by November 1, 2008. Current Status: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The Orange County Health Care Agency submitted to the Board of Supervisors a report outlining the available options for revisions to the county's Restaurant Inspection Public Notification System, including options for letter grading, a color coded notification system, and revisions to the current system of restaurant inspection seals. The matter was heard by the Board of Supervisors during their meetings on December 9 and 16, 2008. Following consideration of the options available, the Board, by majority decision, chose to modify the current restaurant inspection seals, with changes in the system to take effect October 1, 2009. The revised Public Notification System will have three seals that may be posted at a food facility following an inspection: Pass, Reinspection Due-Pass, and Closed.
R2:
Audit Oversight Committee: Add additional members to the Audit Oversight Committee such as one appointed by the Orange County Board of Education to represent school districts and one appointed by the Orange County League of Cities to represent cities. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The nature and scope of the Audit Oversight Committee extends far beyond the investment pool. Audits of the pool account for less than 5% of the total audit activity within the county. The Orange County Board of Education actively participates on both the Treasury Oversight Committee and the Treasury Advisory Committee. Cities have minimal funds in the investment pool. A proposal to add four public members in addition to the one public member representing the five supervisors' districts was approved by the Audit Oversight Committee and is currently awaiting submittal for approval by the Board of Supervisors. Any change to the current and proposed membership would require further analysis. Current Status: The recommendation requires further analysis. The proposal to add four public members in addition to the one public member representing the five supervisors' districts was revisited at the December 11, 2008 meeting of the Audit Oversight Committee. The Committee did not reach an agreement at that time and asked that the item be continued to the next scheduled meeting on March 25, 2009 when it is anticipated that the issue of a change to the current membership will be resolved. MAN DOWN!! WILL HE GET UP? Nursing Care at Orange Report: County's Jail Facilities Released: May 01, 2008
R3:
Background Screening: Redefine background screening procedures to verify job applicant qualifications, experience and credentials. Original Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The County will develop a Guide by May 2009 to obtain more consistency between departments. Guide development will take into consideration business needs of County Agencies and Departments and include guidelines for verification of application materials. Current Status: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Research continues regarding best practices, and the overall approach to accomplish the objective is being refined. It is anticipated that the guide will be completed in May 2009 as originally reported.
R4:
Ridge EOC and others, to replace water-based fire suppression systems with those using inert gas, based upon the Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2004 Edition published by the National Fire Protection Association. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. OC Public Works: We currently use inert gas in the Osborne Building primary data centers (basement and 3rd floor). OC Facilities and Operation and Maintenance are planning a project to replace the water-based fire suppression system with one using inert gas, based upon the Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2004 Edition published by the National Fire Protection Association. OCPW is planning to complete this project within 24 months. The Geomatics data center can be moved into the main Data Center at the Osborne Building. Current Status: The recommendation requires further analysis. OC Public Works has two server rooms that will require attention to comply with the Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems Edition, published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). OC Facilities – Card Access and Environmental Control Servers – These servers are located in a communications closet without fire suppression systems (adequate backups are maintained) at the Fruit Street Facility. The plan is to move these servers into either the County Data Center or the OCPW Data Center within 12 to 18 months based on available funding sources. Work on the details of the plan is anticipated to begin in May 2009 when a suitable schedule will be developed. Geomatics – Landbase Information System Servers are currently located on the 2nd floor of the Osborne building in a room without fire suppression systems (adequate backups are maintained). The plan is to move these servers into the OCPW basement server room within 8 to 12 months based on available funding sources. Work on the details of the plan is anticipated to begin in May 2009 when a suitable schedule will be developed. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. Treasurer-Tax Collector: The Treasurer/ Tax Collector has already opened a work request with OC Public Works for an estimate for smoke detectors, heat detectors, water detectors, and a fire suppression system with inert gas. Current Status: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Due to the County's current financial situation, installation of an inert gas system will not be implemented at this time. The Treasurer-Tax Collector will have no fire suppression systems in the computer rooms, but will have smoke detectors installed and tied into the building alarm system. This modification to the work request will provide more protection than currently exists. Original Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. OC Waste and Recycling: The OCWR Data Center will be relocating within the next 12 months to a new county facility that will utilize an inert gas fire suppression system. Current Status: The recommendation has been implemented. OC Waste and Recycling (OCWR) relocated in December 2008 to the third floor data center that is shared with OC Public Works. This facility has an inert gas system as well as fluid and particle detection, temperature and humidity sensors, and video monitoring. Original Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. John Wayne Airport: John Wayne Airport (JWA) is planning a project to replace the water-based fire suppression system with one using inert gas, based upon the Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2004 Edition published by the National Fire Protection Association. JWA plans to complete this project within 24 months. Design and installation will require coordination with both the Orange County Fire Authority and the Costa Mesa Fire Department for approvals. Current Status: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. John Wayne Airport (JWA) is still in the planning stages of a project to replace the water-based fire suppression system with one using inert gas, based upon the Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2004 Edition published by the National Fire Protection Association. The target project completion date remains within 24 months. It should be noted that the local building codes and Orange County Fire Authority require water-based fire suppression systems at this facility even when an inert, gas-based system is used. Orange County Human Resources Out of Date, Out of Time Report: Released: May 20, 2008
R6:
provided to allow better patient charting and communication between nurses and supervisors. Original Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Health Care Agency agrees with the need to acquire an integrated system to replace the existing "CHART" system. This will be a multi-year project. The first step will be to secure a consultant to determine information technology needs within Correctional Medical Services - this step will be completed within the current fiscal year. The next step will be a Request for Proposals to acquire and install the information technology system. Necessary additional funding for the replacement system will be requested in future budgets. . . Current Status: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. HCA is working to replace the CHART (Correctional Health Assessment, Recording and Tracking) system. The first step is to bring in a consultant to evaluate the needs of Correctional Medical Services (CMS) regarding creation of an electronic health records system. This consultant will be selected in the 2008-09 fiscal year. It is estimated that the process of evaluating Correctional Medical Services' information technology needs, developing and releasing a request for proposal, budgeting for and acquiring a new system, and full implementation of that system will take three to five years. In the interim, CMS will expand use of the existing CHART system to the extent that it is cost- effective.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Housing Elements for the cities and County of Orange do not reflect that the number of affordable senior housing units in Orange County will not accommodate the projected population.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Include the current and projected affordable senior housing inventory by type, location and cost in the 2008 and future years’ development of the Housing Element.
F2:
The Housing Elements for the County of Orange and the cities do not focus sufficiently on or analyze the population growth and housing needs of the aging baby boomer generation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Include sufficient data in the Housing Element to acknowledge the imminent growth in the county’s aging population. This data is to include the current population and the growth trend of the aging baby boomer generation as well as the current median income and the income trend of the senior population.
F3:
Not all Housing Elements are available online for easy access by the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Put all Housing Elements online on each city’s website.
F4:
Municipalities are not proactive enough in encouraging the development of affordable senior housing. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-4 are required from the mayors of all 34 Orange County cities and requested from the CEO and the County of Orange Resource and Development Management Department. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Confer with developers to establish the needs for affordable senior housing and to encourage investment in future projects. Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-4 are required from the mayors of all 34 Orange County cities and requested from the CEO and the County of Orange Resource and Development Management Department. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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. 9
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
Local school districts provide adequate oversight of charter schools even though State law does not allow for full reimbursement for such oversight.
R93-94:
94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Academic Year 4 As listed in the report “California’s Charter Schools: Measuring Their Performance, May, 2006.” To be counted as open in a certain year, a school must operate at least from November 1 through the end of February. Within Orange County, the six charter schools that replied to the survey question have substantially increased enrollment. The following table shows the information that the Grand Jury received: 5 Initial Charter School Name Started 2006 Enrollment Enrollment Capistrano Connections Academy Charter 2004 100 700 Cole (Edward B.) Academy 2003 89 306 Gates (Ralph A.) Academy 2003 806 855 Opportunities for Learning School 2002 0 94* El Rancho Charter Middle School 2001 1,012 1,164 El Sol Santa Ana Science and Arts Charter 2001 120 386 * Has been as high as 200 students. The enrollment fluctuates through a “drop out recovery program” for enrollment. Since more parents are sending their children to charter schools, this may be an indicator that charter school programs are benefiting students, although it may also be a factor of convenience of location. The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of California’s Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA). The purpose of the API is to measure the academic performance and growth of schools and is the composite of student test scores and graduation rates (for high school). It is a numeric index (or scale) that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1,000 and includes a statewide performance target of 800 for all schools. A school’s growth is measured by its progress towards this target goal – schools with an API below 800 are expected to improve by 5% of the distance between its current API and 800.6 API scores used in this study are from 2006-2007. The following table shows the scores for the 11 charter schools and the four school districts in which they are located. Generated from Charter School responses to the Grand Jury questionnaire 6 13th Annual Report on the Conditions of Children in O.C., 2007 5 OC Schools 2007 Academic Performance Index (API) Report, State Department of Education 7 School District Charter Schools 2006 2007 Same School Vs. District Base Score 2007 vs. 2006 2007 Average Capistrano Unified Elementary Schools 836 835 Capistrano Connections Academy Charter 722 725 Higher Lower Capistrano Unified Small Schools 660 714 Journey Elementary 774 786 Higher Higher Opportunities for Learning 660 628 Lower Lower School Orange Unified Middle Schools 721 732 El Rancho Charter 863 862 Lower Higher Middle School Santiago Middle School 776 769 Lower Higher Saddleback Valley Unified Elementary Schools 856 860 Gates (Ralph A.) Academy 751 773 Higher Lower Santa Ana Unified Elementary Schools 673 697 Cole (Edward B.) Academy 644 674 Higher Lower El Sol Santa Ana Science and Arts Charter 684 756 Higher Higher Orange County Educational Arts Academy 693 648 Lower Lower Santa Ana Unified High 673 671 Schools Orange County High School of the Arts 868 856 Lower Higher Santa Ana Unified Small ** 539 Schools Nova Academy ** 539 * *No data from partial year. From 2006 to 2007, five charter schools had improved API scores while five declined – although El Rancho Middle School score fell by one point. Over that time, the average API score for all charter schools has remained virtually unchanged, while their school district’s average API score increased slightly (approx 1.13%). Though charter schools represent less than 10% of their districts’ enrollment (and approximately 1.2% of the county’s enrollment), their average API score is nearly 4.5% higher than their districts’ average, indicating that some charter schools are doing a good job in meeting their academic goals. State Dept. of Education Policy & Evaluation Division, 2006-2007Academic Performance Index Report, October 2007. Charter School Costs Under Title 5, California Code of Regulations, charter school petitioners are eligible for grants to assist them in preparing the charter school application and also for establishing the new school. The 2007-2008 Grand Jury wanted to learn how charter schools are funded after they have been approved. Charter schools, like all schools and school districts, are constrained by the costs of educating students. The day-to-day education expenses for charter and traditional schools are funded by the State on a per pupil fund (PPF) basis. The current Orange County PPF is an average of $5,787 per year. The amount varies depending on grade level and other factors. If a charter school is established, the PPF payment moves from the pupil’s former school to the charter school. So, as charter school enrollment climbs, traditional school income from PPF is reduced. School districts are mandated to monitor charter schools within their jurisdictions. Some districts assert that the costs for monitoring duties exceed the 1% reimbursement8 amount they receive from the State.9 The districts state that it is costly to hire oversight personnel. However, the charter schools should not be faulted because State law does not allow full reimbursement. Even if charter schools are a drain on finances, legally the school districts are still required to provide adequate oversight. Some charter school budget shortfalls can be offset by other means such as grants. As with traditional schools, charter schools can use donations, fundraisers and grants to supplement their budgets. Flexibility Due to the unique rules governing charter schools, they have an advantage over traditional schools. Charter schools may draw students from any district in the county. Another advantage that charter schools have is their freedom to develop a distinctive syllabus above and beyond the state- mandated courses. Some Orange County charter schools have a curriculum emphasizing the arts, sciences and languages, dance, music and theatre. The schools emphasizing the arts often attract more students than they can accommodate and hold “auditions” in order for students to qualify in their special field of study. Popular charter schools may hold a lottery for admission when applications exceed capacity. The flexibility offered by charter schools makes them more attractive to some students and parents. For instance, charter schools can provide a special format for at-risk students so that they can pursue their education at their own pace. Rather than dropping out of school, at-risk low achievers and dual language students may have a better opportunity to graduate. One unique charter school utilizes a virtual classroom that allows students to work at home 60% of the time, an important convenience for working students. Despite the uniqueness of charter schools, all of their teachers are required to be credentialed by the State, just as teachers are for traditional schools. As in traditional schools, teachers may have a provisional credential but must acquire a full credential within a specified timeframe. Teacher salary structures in charter schools allow flexibility in such areas as merit-based increases and performance bonuses. This reimbursement is 3% for charter schools using existing facilities 9 State Government Code 47613 7 Attaining Charter School Status The small number of charter schools in Orange County, and the fact that no new schools have been opened in the last three years, may be reflective of the difficulty in the application process. The application is complex and the school districts can deny an application if any one of the required elements is not met. To establish a new charter school, the applicants must submit a detailed petition to the authorizing district. The petition requires the applicant obtain parent signatures equal to at least half of the estimated enrollment, or the signatures of at least half of the teachers whom the applicant estimates will be employed during its first year. According to Education Code 47605.6, the petition requesting a charter school must contain: A description of the educational program of the school designed, among other things to identify those pupils whom the school is attempting to educate; what it means to be an “educated person” in the 21st century; and how learning best occurs. The goals identified in that program shall include the objective of enabling pupils to become self-motivated, competent, and lifelong learners. The petition must also contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of all the following:10 • Measurable pupil outcomes identified for use by the charter school; pupil outcomes means the extent to which all pupils of the school demonstrate that they have attained the skills, knowledge and attitude specified as goals in the school’s educational program • Method by which pupil progress in meeting those pupil outcomes is to be measured • Governance structure of the school, including the process to be followed by the school to ensure parental involvement • Qualifications to be met by individuals to be employed by the school • Procedures that the school will follow to ensure the health and safety of pupils and staff, which shall include the requirement that each employee of the school furnish the school with a criminal record summary as described in Section 44237 • Means by which the school will achieve a racial and ethnic balance among its pupils that is reflective of the general population residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the school district to which the charter petition is submitted • Manner in which annual, independent, financial audits shall be conducted, in accordance with regulations established by the State Board of Education and the manner in which audit exceptions and deficiencies shall be resolved • Procedures by which pupils can be suspended or expelled 10 Education Code 47605.6 8 • Manner in which staff members of the charter schools will be covered by the State Teachers’ Retirement System and the Public Employees’ Retirement System or Federal Social Security • Procedures to be followed by the charter school and the county board of education to resolve disputes relating to provisions of the charter • Declaration whether or not the charter school shall be deemed the exclusive public school employer of the charter school employees for the purposes of the Educational Employment Relations Act. • Admission requirements of the charter school, if applicable • Public school attendance alternatives for pupils residing within the county who choose not to attend the charter school • Description of the rights of an employee of the county office of education, upon leaving the employment of the county office of education, to be employed by the charter school • Procedures to be used if the charter school closes, ensuring conduct of a final audit of the school to determine the disposition of all assets and liabilities of the charter school Within 30 days of receiving the petition, the chartering authority must hold a public hearing on the request. Within 60 days of receiving the petition, the chartering authority must grant or deny it. The school district must grant the petition if it is satisfied that the charter is “consistent with sound educational practice.” If the petition is accepted, the sponsors and authorizing school district then formulate the steps to open the charter school. This usually occurs in the next school year, unless a vacant facility is currently available. If the district denies the request, it must prepare a detailed rejection letter indicating the requirement(s) that the charter petition did not address. The charter applicant may appeal the decision to the Orange County Superintendent of Schools who must provide a completely new assessment in writing. It may not reference the local school district’s reason for denial and it must hold a public hearing. If denied by the Orange County Superintendent of Schools, the applicant may appeal to the State Department of Education. School districts should be aware of the state-mandated requirement to encourage the establishment of charter schools, as stated in the Educational Code: “The chartering authority shall be guided by the intent of the legislature that charter schools are and should become an integral part of the California educational system and that establishment of charter schools should be encouraged.”11 11 Education Code 47605 9 CONCLUSION Charter schools give Orange County parents more educational choices by offering alternatives as to which school their children may attend. In fact, providing educational choices is one of the goals of California’s 1992 enabling legislation that created charter schools. Charter schools have a positive impact on education by providing other choices in the curriculum, such as a focus on the arts or other specialties. Charter schools also provide academic choices for low-achieving and at-risk students. It is clear that Orange County charter schools are fulfilling the legislative intent to increase learning opportunities. Charter schools encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods and provide expanded choices in the educational curriculum. As indicated earlier, charter schools place a financial burden upon school districts. District reimbursement moves with the student attending a charter school and the school oversight costs in some districts exceed the 1% reimbursement. Nevertheless, charter schools play an important role in alternative education and the demand for charter schools continues to grow. The Grand Jury concluded that charter schools receive a passing grade because of the benefits they offer in expanded educational choices. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, each finding will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings: F - 1 Orange County charter schools meet the intent of the Education Code 47600-47664 by providing parents and pupils a choice in educational opportunities, emphasizing specific learning experiences, and aiding at-risk or academically low-achieving students. F - 2 The number of charter schools in Orange County is not growing commensurate with the overall growth of charter schools in California. F - 3 The Orange County school districts’ oversight costs, in some districts, exceed the authorized 1% reimbursement. REQUIRED RESPONSES Responses to findings F-1, F-2, and F-3 are required from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools and the Superintendents of the local Orange County school districts. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations that: R - 1 Orange County school districts and Orange County Superintendent of Schools continue to offer expanded choices for educational opportunities, as required in the State Education Code, by utilizing charter schools as an option to provide additional choices, especially for at-risk and academically low-achieving students. R - 2 The chartering authorities should follow the intent of the legislature by encouraging the establishment of charter schools by granting more charter school petitions provided they meet the State requirements. R – 3 Local school districts provide adequate oversight of charter schools even though State law does not allow for full reimbursement for such oversight. REQUIRED RESPONSES Responses to recommendations R-1, R-2, and R-3 are required from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools and the Superintendents of the local Orange County school districts. The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05(a) for purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Opportunities for further water conservation exist especially with regard to landscape watering.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Continue to emphasize methods and availability of tools that assist the customers in understanding weather-based irrigation practices by: 10 • Providing a hotline for assisting the public with landscape irrigation information • Providing a countywide soil texture map on the MWDOC website • Developing an Orange County specific water calculator on the MWDOC website
F2:
Conservation pricing, or tiered pricing, with a fair and reasonable base allotment, followed by tiers of higher rates, can be an effective tool to motivate further conservation. Response to finding F-1 is required from MWDOC Responses to findings F-1 and F-2 are required from the following Water Districts and City Water Departments: East Orange County Water District City of Buena Park El Toro Water District City of Fountain Valley Emerald Bay Service District City of Fullerton Irvine Ranch Water District City of Garden Grove Laguna Beach County Water District City of Huntington Beach Mesa Consolidated Water District City of La Habra Moulton Niguel Water District City of La Palma Santa Margarita Water District City of Newport Beach Serrano Water District City of Orange South Coast Water District City of San Clemente Trabuco Canyon Water District City of San Juan Capistrano Yorba Linda Water District City of Santa Ana City of Anaheim City of Seal Beach City of Brea City of Tustin City of Westminster RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The present procedure of posting eight inch square cards at local restaurants, stating that they are in substantial compliance with California food safety and sanitation standards, is inadequate to inform the general public of the true sanitary condition of a restaurant.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Adopt a new grading procedure for restaurant inspections that provides accurate and easily understood on-site health information for all restaurant and food vending locations.
F2:
Neighboring counties in Southern California and elsewhere have adopted a grading system that is superior in informing the public about the safety of their local restaurants. Responses to Findings F-1 and F-2 are requested from the Health Care Agency. Responses to Findings F-1 and F-2 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Preamble to the United States Constitution 34 Orange County Register, February 24, 2008. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Implement an ABC grading system similar to the one presently in use in Los Angeles and neighboring counties. Responses to recommendations R-1 and R-2 are requested from the Health Care Agency. Responses to recommendations R-1 and R-2 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
Not all cities that allow the sale of legal fireworks require applicants to show proof of a valid Seller’s Permit issued by the State of California Board of Equalization.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Require all fireworks applicants, as part of the permit application process, to show proof of a valid Seller’s Permit issued by the California Board of Equalization.
F2:
Cities have varying requirements for legal fireworks applicant’s liability insurance amounts that need to be re-examined for appropriate coverage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Require all fireworks applicants, as part of the permit application process, to show proof of current liability insurance in amounts not less than $1,000,000.
F3:
Cities do not require legal fireworks sellers to file a post-sales report to the city documenting gross and net sales of fireworks detailing the manner and in what amounts the net profits are spent to benefit the community and ensuring that the cities receive their one percent share of the sales tax.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Require all fireworks applicants to file an accurate after-sales financial report with the city documenting gross sales and net profits of fireworks detailing the manner and amount in which the net profit is spent to benefit the community
F4:
Cities do not provide sufficient information and encouragement to fireworks sellers to seek other methods of fundraising.
F5:
Some cities are reluctant to put the issue of legal fireworks sales to the voters in their cities. 11
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Let the issue of legal fireworks sales be decided by the voters in each city.
F6:
Some cities are reluctant to sponsor free public displays of fireworks or to solicit sponsoring partners from businesses or neighboring cities in lieu of the sale of fireworks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Invite area businesses, civic groups and/or neighboring communities to join with the city to sponsor a public fireworks display in lieu of fireworks sales.
F7:
Fireworks sellers do not share the financial burden of added law enforcement, fire safety and public works costs incurred by cities, in large part due to the sale of legal fireworks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Increase the permit fee to offset the extra costs of law enforcements services, fire services and public works in the enforcement of municipal codes and subsequent clean-up of debris of fireworks detonation in public areas.
F8:
Cities do not require fireworks sellers to advise all purchasers that it is illegal to detonate legally sold fireworks in any area of Orange County other than in the incorporated city limits of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and Stanton.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Require all fireworks sellers to advise all purchasers, both verbally and in written form that it is illegal to detonate legally purchased fireworks in any area of Orange County, other than in the incorporated city limits of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and Stanton.
F9:
Safety officials cannot enforce all laws and municipal ordinances regarding the illegal use of legal fireworks due to the large volume of activity on the Fourth of July.
F10:
The use of illegal fireworks is significantly greater in cities that allow the sale of legal fireworks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Declare a moratorium of fireworks sales for at least three or more consecutive years in the cities of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Stanton to allow law enforcement and fire officials in these cities the opportunity to curb the escalating use of illegal fireworks activity. (This recommendation arises from Findings F-9 through F-13) Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-9 are required from the mayors of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and Stanton. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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. 14
F11:
The use of legal fireworks can mask the use of illegal fireworks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Declare a moratorium of fireworks sales for at least three or more consecutive years in the cities of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Stanton to allow law enforcement and fire officials in these cities the opportunity to curb the escalating use of illegal fireworks activity. (This recommendation arises from Findings F-9 through F-13) Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-9 are required from the mayors of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and Stanton. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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. 14
F12:
Safety officials are of the opinion that legal fireworks sales should be banned in the interest of public safety.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Declare a moratorium of fireworks sales for at least three or more consecutive years in the cities of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Stanton to allow law enforcement and fire officials in these cities the opportunity to curb the escalating use of illegal fireworks activity. (This recommendation arises from Findings F-9 through F-13) Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-9 are required from the mayors of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and Stanton. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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. 14
F13:
Safety officials can significantly curb the use of illegal fireworks in these cities within three years if the sale of legal fireworks were banned. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-13 are required from the mayors of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and Stanton. Responses to Findings F-9 through F-13 are requested from the police chiefs of the cities of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department. Responses to Findings F-10 through F-13 are requested from the fire chiefs of the cities of Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and required from the Orange County Fire Authority. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Declare a moratorium of fireworks sales for at least three or more consecutive years in the cities of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Stanton to allow law enforcement and fire officials in these cities the opportunity to curb the escalating use of illegal fireworks activity. (This recommendation arises from Findings F-9 through F-13) Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-9 are required from the mayors of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and Stanton. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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. 14
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
- Some cities using limited-access shelters are sending animals deemed unadoptable to the County Animal Shelter, thereby shifting the cost and responsibility for care and euthanasia to the County if the animals are not adopted.
F2:
- The Orange County Animal County Shelter is faced with a growing animal population problem that exceeds the capacity of the County Shelter and its ability to place those animals in homes.
F3:
- The County Board of Supervisors has not taken a position on AB 1634, legislation which if passed could alleviate many future animal overpopulation problems. A response to Finding F-1 is required from the Mayors of all Orange County cities (listed below) that do not contract with OC Animal Care; and requested from OC Animal Care. Costa Mesa Dana Point Irvine Laguna Beach Laguna Niguel Laguna Woods Los Alamitos Mission Viejo Newport Beach San Clemente Seal Beach Westminster A response to Finding F-2 is requested from the County Executive Officer and requested from OC Community Resources/Animal Care. A response to Finding F-3 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: R–1 – The cities utilizing limited-access shelters adopt an open-shelter policy for all dogs and cats within their city limits or reimburse the County Shelter for the expense of boarding and euthanizing animals from their cities. 1 0 R–2 – The OC Animal Care Department prepare and present to the Board of Supervisors a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance to reduce animal overpopulation and to ease the strain on the capacity of the County Shelter. R–3 – The County Board of Supervisors examine and consider supporting State Assembly Bill AB 1634 to assist in alleviating many of Orange County’s animal overpopulation problems. Responses to recommendation R-1 are required from the Mayors of all Orange County cities (listed below) that do not contract with the OC Animal Care and requested from the OC Community Resources/Animal Care. Costa Mesa Dana Point Irvine Laguna Beach Laguna Niguel Laguna Woods Los Alamitos Mission Viejo Newport Beach San Clemente Seal Beach Westminster Responses to recommendation R-2 is requested from the County Executive Officer and the OC Community Resources/Animal Care. Response to recommendation R-3 is required from the County of Orange Board of Supervisors. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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. 1 1 (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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. 1 2
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The current organizational structure of the Internal Audit Department satisfies the most rigid of requirements for independence and objectivity required by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Institute of Internal Auditors. These organizations specifically state that audit organizations must be free from organizational impairments to independence with respect to the entities they audit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Preserve the current organizational structure of the Internal Audit Department. This is defined in Resolution 95-271 as a separate independent department removed from the Auditor-Controller and reporting directly to the Board of Supervisors.
F2:
The Audit Oversight Committee structure lacks representation from two of the primary stakeholders of the County Investment Pool: the educational institutions and other governmental entities in Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Add additional members to the Audit Oversight Committee such as one appointed by the Orange County Board of Education to represent school districts and one appointed by the Orange County League of Cities to represent cities.
F3:
After a resolution to revoke County Resolution 95-271 and return the Internal Audit Department to the Auditor Controller’s office failed to pass, the Auditor-Controller refused to renew the existing contract with IAD to perform audits mandated by state statue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Authorize the Internal Audit Department to perform separate Quarterly Audits of the Statements of Assets held by the County Treasury for the Board of Supervisors to re- establish the Board’s independent audit presence in the Treasurer’s Office, even though the Auditor-Controller has statutory authority to conduct these mandated audits Responses to Recommendation R-1 through R-3 are required from the Board of Supervisors REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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. 10
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The nursing and executive staffs of Correctional Medical Services interviewed are highly professional, competent and dedicated to providing a high level of medical service to the inmates housed in Orange County jail facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The nursing and executive staffs of Correctional Medical Services continue to provide professional, competent and dedicated quality medical service to the inmates housed in Orange County Jail Facilities.
F2:
Staffing levels for Correctional Medical Services are inadequate, particularly at Senior Nurse levels, leading to low morale and complaints about lack of communication.
F3:
Background checks for new nursing employees are over-burdensome and take too long to complete, resulting in fewer applicants and a high drop-out rate for those who have applied.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Health Care and Orange County Sheriff representatives develop an expedited and streamlined process for checking backgrounds for nursing applicants.
F4:
Current outreach programs to recruit nurses focus primarily on local schools and fail to reach out to all nursing schools in Southern California; programs for student interns are inadequate and could be expanded to provide a deeper pool for future recruits.
F5:
On-going training for nursing staff is insufficient; few hands-on drills or mock emergency scenarios are presently offered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Additional regularly scheduled and mandated training programs be developed for all nursing staff with an emphasis on unannounced mock drills.
F6:
Some computer programs are outdated or non-existent and new programs and training for nurses are needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Up to date computer programs be purchased and training provided to allow better patient charting and communication between nurses and supervisors
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The HVAC systems are inadequate for the Emergency Operations Center facility because they lack a smoke filtration system.
F2:
The sewage system is barely adequate for the present staffing level. Any increase in staffing will overload the system and require daily, or more frequent, trips of the sewage pump truck.
F3:
The Emergency Operations Center uses water for its fire suppression system in vital equipment areas that house computer servers, critical telecommunications systems, and backup batteries. The release of water will damage all electronic equipment in the vicinity and the system responds only when a fire has substantially developed.
F4:
The four Liebert Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) systems used in the critical electrical service are nearing the end of their rated design life of 20 years, according to the manufacturer specifications. The demand on these units has exceeded the desired “less than 50% of available capacity.” Responses to Findings F1 through F4 are required from the Orange County Sheriff- Coroner. Responses to Findings F1 through F4 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner’s Department replace the existing four Liebert UPS units with four other units of 60 to 80 Kva each. Responses to Recommendations R-1a, R-2a, R-3a, and R-4 are required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. Responses to Recommendations R-1b, R-2b and R-3b are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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. 9
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F2:
86 Department Safety Representatives have other duties and responsibilities and no formal safety training. Conflicts of interest may arise when employees inspect their own departments, and any such inspection lacks organizational independence.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Transfer the safety inspection and enforcement responsibilities from Department Safety Representatives to the centralized County Safety Office.
F3:
There is a lack of adequate nonstructural earthquake hazard mitigation standards consistently applied across all County buildings, including those owned and occupied by the Orange County Fire Authority.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Adopt uniform and consistent standards on nonstructural earthquake hazard mitigation based on guidelines similar to the ones in FEMA 74. These standards should be applied to all critical County buildings including the Sheriff-Coroner Department, Orange County Fire Authority, among others, and all County data centers.
F4:
Some County data centers housing critical computer and telecommunication equipment are using water in their fire suppression system rather than inert gas. Responses to Findings F-1a, F-1b, F-2, F-3 and F-4 are requested from the County Executive Officer. Responses to Findings F-1b and F-4 are required from the Orange County Sheriff- Coroner. Response to Finding F-3 is required from the Orange County Fire Authority. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Require all data centers in Orange County, including the Loma Ridge EOC and others, to replace water-based fire suppression systems with those using inert gas, based upon the Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2004 Edition published by the National Fire Protection Association. Responses to Recommendations R-1a, R-1b, R-2, R-3 and R-4 are requested from the County Executive Officer. Responses to Recommendations R-1b and R4 are required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. Response to Recommendation R-3 is required from the Orange County Fire Authority. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: 9 (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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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. REFERENCES “Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage: A Practical Guide”, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 74, September 1994 “Earthquake Hazard Mitigation for Nonstructural Elements”, Field Manual, FEMA 74-FM, September 2005 Nonstructural Earthquake Mitigation Guidance Manual, FEMA/URS May 28, 2004 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Section 404 Uptime Institute, Inc. (www.uptimeinstitute.org) Environment, Safety and Health Manual: Document 22.4 Earthquakes, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, 2007 Victor Avelar, “Mitigating Fire Risks in Mission Critical Facilities”, White Paper #83, American Power Conversion (APC) ”Standard for the Protection of Information Technology Equipment” Nation Fire Protection Association, 2003 10
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Registrar of Voters instituted security measures to ensure that votes are private, secure and accurate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Registrar of Voters shall continue to assess challenges to its system to maximize privacy, security and accuracy.
F2:
The Registrar and his staff have the technological expertise to conduct secure elections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Registrar and his staff shall continue to invest in education and training to maintain an advanced level of technological expertise.
F3:
The Registrar successfully collaborated with the California Secretary of State to arrive at the current effective election system. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-3 are requested from the Registrar of Voters. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-3 are required from the Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Registrar shall continue to collaborate with the Secretary of State on election issues. Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-3 are requested from the Registrar of Voters. Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-3 are required from the Board of Supervisors. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Los Piños Conservation Camp is in the fourth year of a ten-year plan to refurbish and upgrade the facility with some projects completed, some projects in progress, and other projects in the planning stages.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Complete the ten-year plan to refurbish and upgrade the facilities at Los Piños Conservation Camp.
F2:
Some of the older rooms at Juvenile Hall do not have toilets. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-2 are requested from the Chief Probation Officer of the Orange County Probation Department. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Authorize a study of the facilities at Juvenile Hall to determine if portions of the older living quarters without toilets should be remodeled or replaced. Responses to recommendations R-1 through R-2 are requested from the Chief Probation Officer of the Orange County Probation Department. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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. 10
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Sheriff Department’s existing tsunami inundation maps are inconsistent with those used by the two largest coastal cities, appear to minimize the threat and could contribute to misinformed decision-making during a crisis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sheriff Department’s Emergency Management Bureau: Develop a plan in coordination with beach cities to standardize tsunami maps for the entire Orange County coast. 13
F2:
Existing tsunami signs along roadways are small, difficult to read and, in at least one city, not visible to visitors driving into the tsunami hazard zone.
F3:
Sirens at the beach without public address capability are ineffective unless beachgoers know what the sirens mean and how to respond to the warning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach: Establish a means of informing non-resident visitors what the sirens mean and what visitors should do when the sirens sound.
F4:
Public education directed at beach visitors is inadequate, making them the least prepared and highest at-risk population in the event of a tsunami. Responses to findings F-1, F-2 and F-4 are required from: • City Council, City of Newport Beach • County of Orange Sheriff-Coroner • City Council, City of Dana Point • City Council, City of Laguna Beach • City Council, City of Huntington Beach • City Council, City of Seal Beach • City Council, City of San Clemente Responses to finding F-3 are required from: • City Council, City of Huntington Beach • City Council, City of Newport Beach A response to finding F-2 is requested from: • OC Infrastructure (formerly the County Resources and Development Management Department) RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
All beach cities and the Sheriff Department’s Emergency Management Bureau: Develop methods to communicate tsunami public education messages to beach visitors. Responses to recommendations R-1, R-2a, R-2b and R-4 are required from: • City Council, City of Newport Beach • County of Orange Sheriff-Coroner • City Council, City of Dana Point • City Council, City of Laguna Beach • City Council, City of Huntington Beach • City Council, City of Seal Beach • City Council, City of San Clemente Responses to recommendation R-3 are required from: • City Council, City of Huntington Beach • City Council, City of Newport Beach A response to recommendations R-2a and R-2b is requested from: • OC Infrastructure (formerly the County Resources and Development Management Department) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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. 14 (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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. 15