Gran Jurado del Condado de Orange
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 (18)
Recomendaciones adicionales
5
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
The Orange County Merit System Selection Rules and Appeals Procedure (SRAP) was last revised November 20, 1978. The Grand Jury found that: • The SRAP contains outdated terminology. • The SRAP does not reflect the current decentralized structure of the Human Resources function. • The SRAP is inconsistently interpreted among County agencies and departments. • The oversight and audit procedures of Orange County Human Resources (OCHR) are marginally effective. • The appeals process described in SRAP does not reflect current practice. • The SRAP references government programs which have evolved or been redefined. • The SRAP does not reference government programs which have been established since 1978. • The SRAP does not reflect current practice in reference to computerized or on-line capability and utilization.
F2:
The Human Resources function in Orange County has lost over 22% of its staff since 1996 and continues to shrink.
F3:
Background screening of job applicants is inconsistent and not verified in most cases.
F4:
Recruitment, hiring and promotion practices are inconsistent from agency to agency, deviating from the merit principles governing recruitment, selection and career advancement procedures, as defined in California Local Agency Personnel Standards (LAPS). 10
F5:
Material misrepresentations by job candidates in the hiring/promotion process may not result in termination. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-5 are requested from the Director of Human Resources and Employee Relations. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-5 are required from the Board of Supervisors. Response to Finding F-5 is requested from County Counsel. 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:
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Rewrite the Orange County Merit System Selection Rules and Appeals Procedure without further delay.
R3:
Redefine background screening procedures to verify job applicant qualifications, experience and credentials.
R4:
Implement consistent recruitment, hiring and promotion practices throughout County government in accordance with merit principles as defined in California Local Agency Personnel Standards (LAPS).
R5:
OCHR coordinate with County Counsel to draft new language which would be included as a standard statement in each posting, further defining the County’s right to terminate any employee upon discovery of a material omission or misrepresentation during the employment process. Responses to Recommendations R-1, R-3, R-4 and R-5 are requested from the Director of Human Resources and Employee Relations. Responses to Recommendations R-2a, R-2b and R-5 are required from the Board of Supervisors. Response to Recommendation R-5 is requested from County Counsel. 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.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
F1:
Opportunities for further water conservation exist especially with regard to landscape watering.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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:
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
13 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
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
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F2:
The County investment they did not. They said the SIVs SIVs did not meet the standard of policy prohibits investments were “facially” compliant. This prudency for Orange County and in the commercial paper or unclear comment is another ex- for this reason greater oversight of medium-term notes of cor- ample of the controversial nature of the County’s investment pools is porations that are not orga- the SIV investments. warranted. nized and operating within The Grand Jury is confident that Conclusions the United States. The policy the creative minds of Wall Street also prohibits investments in will come up with something new Because of the financial disaster derivatives. in the future that will again chal- in its recent past, Orange County lenge the financial discipline of should be expected to maintain F.2(a): Whistlejacket Capital, Orange County. It will not be called a higher quality and safety stan- a SIV investment held within an SIV or a CDO or a CLO. It will dard in managing its investments. the County’s investment most likely offer an attractive yield Instead, for the past ten years the portfolio, was an investment with an AAA rating, and it may Treasurer’s office invested in what vehicle incorporated in the not be specifically addressed in the we now know were high-risk SIVs state of Delaware. It was IPS. However, next time, with the allowing them to grow to a sizable established by Standard changes recommended in this re- proportion of the total portfolio. Chartered Bank, one of the port designed to improve financial The Grand Jury found that no one largest banks in the United discipline and bring more robust questioned the reasons why this Kingdom, and wholly-owned oversight of the County’s invest- was allowed to happen. Although by Whistlejacket Capital Ltd, ments, taking unnecessary risks the SIVs were “facially” compli- a firm incorporated in one of with hard-earned public funds can ant with the County’s policies, the Channel Islands under be prevented. these investments should have been the jurisdiction of the United reviewed and challenged. Kingdom. Findings: • The IPS limits investments to
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Investments in derivatives such Extended Fund in Section II of that reads: “…the standard of pru- as options, futures, swaps, caps, the revised IPS should be clari- dence to be used by County invest- floors and collars for any of the fied. It reads: “It will be invested ment officers shall be the prudent funds are strictly prohibited. primarily in high grade securities investor standard and shall be ap- The Grand Jury researched the commensurate with achieving a plied in the context of managing an nature of a derivative and found higher yield, while also consider- overall portfolio.” This statement that it is basically a type of security ing preservation of capital.” The appears less restrictive than the ac- the price of which is dependent or Grand Jury believes this places an tual language used in Government derived from some other type of emphasis on yield before safety of Code Section 27000.3 upon which asset. It is a contract between two principal. Also, the use of the word it is based. The language used in parties linked to the valuation of an “primarily” permits investments in the Code pertaining to prudent asset such as stocks, bonds, com- less than “high-grade securities.” investing reads: “Within the limita- modities or currencies. A deriva- The language in the IPS should be tions of this section and consider- tive can be used to hedge risk and clarified to show that yield is not a ing individual investments as part also to speculate. Derivatives can priority over safety, and that invest- of an overall investment strategy, include futures contracts, forward ments will be made only in high- investments may be acquired as contracts, swaps, and options, and grade securities. authorized by law.” The IPS sug- can quickly grow even more com- gests that the standard for measur- What Is A Structured Investment plex involving credit default swaps ing prudence is the performance of Vehicle (SIV)? and collateralized debt obligations. the entire portfolio, rather than risks SIVs are investment funds that The price of derivatives can be associated with individual invest- borrow money by issuing short- extremely volatile. Warren Buffet ments. This language should be term (commercial paper) or medi- once described them as “financial clarified to read that all individual um-term securities at low interest 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury rates and then lend that money mortgages, credit cards, student (London), and Rabobank (The by buying long-term securities at loans or other types of debt. How- Netherlands). higher interest, making a profit on ever, an SIV is not a bank, and There are risks with this struc- the difference. SIVs typically invest therefore is not regulated like one. ture however, and one of those in a range of asset-backed securi- It does not have the capital require- risks is solvency. Without strict ties that are a type of debt security ments nor the reporting require- capital requirements, the value collateralized by the cash flows of a ments as banks operating within of the mortgages and other credit specified pool of underlying assets. banking regulations are required instruments the SIV purchases (the The underlying assets are pooled to have. The amount of debt it can assets) could fall below the value of to make them more attractive and raise is unlimited which raises the the notes and commercial paper it to achieve diversification. Some of credit risk to an investor. It is not has sold (the debt raised to finance the more common assets within the surprising that some of the largest the assets). The second major risk pools are credit card receivables, banks in the world were the spon- is liquidity. The risk of borrowing auto loans, student loans, and home sors of SIVs because they could use short-term and lending long term mortgages. A typical structure them as a way to offload mortgages could create a shortage of cash if for an SIV is found in Figure 2. It and other debt instruments from the borrower cannot refinance. This shows the debt issued by the SIV their balance sheets and place them might force the SIV into selling its on the right side of the chart and the into non-regulated SIVs. This al- assets at depressed prices. With the securities comprised in the pool on lowed the banks to expand their rapid decline in housing prices and the left. The debt issued by the SIV own loan portfolios while continu- the turmoil in the credit markets is either commercial paper (CP) or ing to earn from the SIV both a beginning in 2007, solvency and medium-term notes (MTN). management fee and a potential liquidity created major headwinds An SIV operates much like a profit from the credit spread if they for all SIVs. Based on the char- bank in that it borrows money by retained an equity interest. (This is acteristics of SIVs outlined above issuing notes and commercial paper why an SIV is often referred to as a these types of investments do not (the depositors) and then loans that “shadow bank.”) The list of banks appear to be consistent with the money out by purchasing various sponsoring SIVs includes Citigroup County’s priorities of safety and debt instruments (borrowers). In (New York), Dresdner Bank (Ger- liquidity. effect, it is providing the funds for many), Standard Chartered Bank Orange County’s SIVs Orange County began investing in SIVs about ten years ago. With Figure 2 additional commitments in 2007, the County had over $800 million Typical SIV Structure in medium-term notes of SIVs rep- resenting about 14% of the entire •Invests in highly-rated asset-backed debt securities •Issues debt in the form of commercial paper (CP) or medium-term notes (MTN) portfolio. Shown in Figure 3 are the Percent of market values of those investments Capital Structure over the past year taken from the Assets Senior Rating County’s financial reports. Other Debt: Auto Loans than for Whistlejacket (described Cr S e t d u i d t e C n a t r L d o s a R n e s c. 80% A C n P d AAA further in this report) and Sigma, Residential Mortgages MTN Leases the decline in market values during Collateralized Debt Derivatives the period shown is entirely due to Junior A or principal payments received from 10% Debt BBB the SIVs. Equity Capital 10% Notes 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury tributions when available as deter- Figure 3 - Orange County Investments In mined by the manager of the fund, Structured Investment Vehicle Holdings Goldman Sachs. The new company Market Value called “Serpentine Funding Lim- ited” expects to “wind-down” its December June December assets over the next four years.) 2007 2008 2008 Other red flags besides the le- CC (USA) Inc. $ 97,000,000 $ 100,000,000 $ 1 00,000,000 verage caused the Grand Jury con- Five Finance, Inc. 113,031,000 6 5,000,000 - cern about the process under which K2 (USA) LLC 199,751,000 5 0,000,000 50,000,000 these investments were reviewed Sigma Finance Inc. 169,487,000 7 5,000,000 - and evaluated. Tango Finance Corp. 160,050,000 165,000,000 50,000,000 The Grand Jury reviewed a copy Whistlejacket Capital LLC 6 9,117,000 6 7,221,000 49,715,000* of the original Whistlejacket of- fering circular (published in 2005) Total $ 808,436,000 $ 522,221,000 $ 2 49,715,000 provided by the Treasurer’s Office. It was reported that Whistlejacket * December, 2008 derived by applying 80% market value factor to principal Capital is incorporated in Dela- consistent with year-end value described in Note 5B of 2008 CAFR. ware and their sole business is the issuance of medium-term notes. It is wholly-owned by Whistlejacket Two SIVs were of particular held within SIVs) were default- Capital LTD that is incorporated in interest to members of the Grand ing on their payments to investors. Jersey, one of the Channel Islands Jury because each had recently en- Whistlejacket went into receiver- under the jurisdiction of the United countered problems making interest ship under British law in February, Kingdom. The following are some payments and had suffered ratings 2008, after the market value of its additional key characteristics of this declines. investments fell to less than half investment taken from the offering: Whistlejacket the value of its start-up capital. • The investment manager is Stan- Whistlejacket Capital, LLC The accounting firm of Deloitte & dard Chartered Bank. It receives was created by Standard Chartered Touche was appointed receiver for a management fee plus the profit Bank, a London-based bank with the failing fund. Today, the bottom potential between the interest significant banking operations line for the County is that Whistle- earned on the SIV’s investments world-wide. Medium-term notes jacket is worth substantially less and the cost of the notes that of Whistlejacket Capital were than its original cost, and there is are issued, if it chooses to retain purchased by the County in Janu- virtually no market in which to an ownership interest. Standard ary and July of 2007 amounting sell it. (The Grand Jury recently Chartered Bank is an internation- to $80 million. The investment, learned that an auction of Whistle- al bank incorporated in England. with its AAA rating from S&P, jacket’s assets was held at the end • The notes are not registered “… was believed to be safe and secure of April, 2009 under the direction under the Securities Act, the by the County, and it offered an of the investment banking firm, securities laws of any state of the opportunity to further diversify Goldman Sachs. Because the bid United States or the securities into asset-backed securities. But price at that auction of 67% of the laws of any other jurisdiction…” Whistlejacket was highly leveraged principal (excluding cash held for • One of the four principal dealers and faced liquidity issues with the distribution) fell below the County’s of this private placement is Mer- downturn in real estate markets. reserve price, the Treasurer chose rill Lynch, who was a defendant Rating agencies began lowering the an alternative option of rolling over in an action brought by the ratings on asset-backed securities, the Whistlejacket investment into County regarding the County’s such as Whistlejacket, as more and a note issued by a new company. bankruptcy. more collateralized debt obliga- According to what the Grand Jury Various types of risks in these tions (CDOs, which are pools of learned, the new note will carry no investments were also disclosed: fixed income assets sometimes interest rate but will make cash dis- 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury • “Holders will be exposed to should have been carefully evaluat- rated in Delaware for the sole credit risk relating both to In- ed. The Grand Jury believes that the purpose of issuing and selling vestments purchased by the Par- Treasurer and the oversight com- debt securities. It is a wholly- ent and to Derivatives entered mittees who are charged with dis- owned subsidiary of Sigma into by the Parent with derivative cussing, reviewing, monitoring and Finance Corporation which is counterparties.” reporting these investments, need to incorporated in the Cayman • “Since the Parent may buy assets fully understand their consequences Islands. and the Co-issuers may issue before investing in them. They • The principal objectives of liabilities in a variety of cur- should evaluate how these invest- Sigma are to invest in “bonds, rencies and interest rate bench- ments comply with policy relative notes, debentures, certificates marks, Holders could be exposed to foreign investments and the use of deposit and debt securities of to risks in fluctuations in interest of derivatives. Were any concerns all kinds, entering into options, and currency exchange rates.” expressed about the excessive le- futures and other types of hedg- • The potential liquidity issue of verage being used? The Grand Jury ing transactions, borrowing and borrowing short and lending was interested in whom, if anyone, raising money in any currency, long, was disclosed: “Holders was asking these questions. granting security over its assets are exposed to liquidity risks Sigma to secure borrowings, and car- arising out of the funding by the Sigma Finance, Inc. was first rying on other incidental activi- Co-Issuers of longer-term assets purchased in 2001 and peaked with ties.” with short or medium-term li- a balance of $175 million in 2007. • Among the services provided by abilities.” Sigma was once the oldest and Gordian Knot under the manage- • Whistlejacket plans to make single largest investment vehicle ment contract are “arranging significant investments (up to of its kind and was managed by for Sigma to enter into options, 75% of total) in the structured London-based Gordian Knot. The futures and other derivatives finance industry. This means founders of Gordian Knot were transactions in order to hedge there will be potential invest- two former employees of Citigroup Sigma’s exposure to interest rate ments in asset-backed securities, who pioneered the first SIVs in the and currency risk.” mortgage-backed securities, col- late 1980s. Sigma fell victim to • Sigma was borrowing short and lateralized debt obligations, and the same forces as other SIVs and lending long, the same maturity credit derivatives. defaulted on its loans at the end of mismatch as existed with Whis- The Grand Jury reviewed the September, 2008. Fortunately for tlejacket. June, 2008, portfolio report issued the County, the Treasurer was able • Merrill Lynch was listed as a by the trustees of Whistlejacket, to completely sell the remainder of primary dealer in medium-term Deloitte & Touche. Included in the Sigma SIV in mid-September, notes of Sigma.. the report was a balance sheet that 2008, for 91.5 cents on the dollar, The Grand Jury was unable to shows a debt-to-capital ratio of 10 incurring a $6 million capital loss review a balance sheet of Sigma to 1. It also shows investments on the sale. It was speculated at the but it appears that, based on the scattered across the world from the time that the eventual liquidation descriptions above, the investments U.S. and United Kingdom to Tur- of Sigma’s assets would bring as contained in this SIV, much like key and Singapore. The bulk of the little as 15 cents on the dollar. The Whistlejacket, were scattered all assets were highly rated (at the time Treasurer’s actions were timely to over the world and also involved of the report) with either AAA or say the least, avoiding a potential derivatives. AA ratings. The types of assets in- loss of as much as $65 million. The use of derivatives, invest- clude auto loans, credit card loans, The Grand Jury reviewed an ments in international markets, and student loans, collateralized debt original offering circular from the potential lack of liquidity were obligations and arbitrage CDOs. Sigma for medium-term notes. warning signs for both of these SIV In reviewing the background for Some of the same risks found in the investments. In addition, further Whistlejacket it becomes apparent Whistlejacket documents appear investigation also revealed that 56 that this SIV is full of complicated again in the Sigma offering: of the 58 California counties chose investments with certain risks that • Sigma Finance, Inc. is incorpo- not to invest in SIVs of any sort. 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Los Angeles County chose not to Figure 4 Treasury Oversight venture into the SIV arena because of their complexity, however San Board of Supervisors Diego County made a minor pur- Approves Annual chase of SIVs and shortly thereafter Investment Policy Statement (IPS) Appoints Members of Treasury exited the investment. The Grand Oversight Committee Jury strongly believes investing in Commissioned Risk Analysis by PFM, a Consulting Firm SIVs was imprudent for the County because it was inconsistent with the County’s primary objectives Treasury Oversight Treasurer/Tax Audit Oversight Committee (TOC) Collector Committee (AOC) of safeguarding principal and the Reviews and Monitors Manages County Internal Audits prudent investor standard described Investment Policy Investment Portfolio Directed Audits Receives Treasury Review of Statement of in the Government Code. Investment Report Assets Daily Compliance External Audits Oversight of the Investment Pools Annual Financial Audit Annual Compliance Audit There are several entities Support within County government which Treasury Advisory Committee function to varying degrees in an (TAC): Provides Advice at Treasurer’s Discretion oversight or supporting role of the County Counsel: Provides Legal Opinion of Compliance Treasurer in the management of the County’s investment portfo- lios. These primarily include the Treasury Oversight Committee, the Treasury Oversight Committee of the County Treasurer, the County Treasury Advisory Committee, the (TOC) Auditor-Controller, a representative Audit Oversight Committee, and The creation of the TOC is root- appointed by the Board of Supervi- the Board of Supervisors. Used ed in Orange County’s 1994 bank- sors, the County Superintendent of in support of the oversight func- ruptcy. At that time Treasury Over- Schools, a second representative of tion are internal compliance audits, sight Committees became required the community colleges and school external financial audits fulfilled for each County by Government districts, a representative of the upon request from the Treasurer, Code. More recently that require- special districts, and up to five other or those required by law, such as ment was removed. However, Sec- members of the public. Further, it financial and compliance audits. tion 27130 of the Government Code recommends that a majority of the Outside consultants have also been still recommends that each County public members should have exper- used in the past to perform a risk have an oversight committee tise in public finance. analysis of the Treasurer’s invest- because “…the creation of County Since the TOC has such a ments. All of these various entities Treasury Oversight Committees critical role in the oversight of the shown in Figure 4 appear to present will promote the public interest by Treasurer’s activities, the Grand a comprehensive framework for the involving depositors in the manage- Jury conducted extensive research oversight of the Treasurer’s actions. ment of their funds and by enhanc- into the objectives of the Commit- Given this, why were investments ing the security and investment tee, how it performs in pursuing in SIVs allowed to begin with and return on their funds by providing a those objectives, its bylaws, and its why were they allowed to grow more stable and predictable bal- overall effectiveness. The Grand to such a significant level putting ance for investment by establish- Jury reviewed the TOC minutes for the County’s funds at risk? How ing criteria for the withdrawal of the past ten years, attended meet- was the prudency of investments funds.” Section 27131(a) of the ings as guests, and met with current in SIVs evaluated? How effective Government Code recommends and prior members of the Commit- is the oversight? To find out, the that the size of the committee be tee. It was discovered that, for the Grand Jury investigated further. from 3 to 11 members and should most part, there have been just three be appointed from a pool consisting members (County CEO, Auditor- 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Controller, and Superintendent of of Supervisors was not presented ed by members of the Grand Jury, Schools) for the past year and a with a revised IPS for approval the TOC has become more engaged half. Only recently, in December, until December, 2008. If the TOC in their oversight role. The past 2008, were two new members had expedited the necessary policy two quarterly meetings have been added to the Committee represent- changes by setting appropriate much more active and the addition ing the public. deadlines for doing so, there would of the two new public members has The TOC bylaws state in Rule 6 have been more time to act ac- contributed to more substantive that the Committee will consist of cordingly in this rapidly changing discussion. The current state of the five members including the County investment climate. economy and the volatile financial Auditor-Controller, the CEO, the Rule 27(e) of the TOC bylaws markets have injected a new sense County Superintendent of Schools, state a requirement that “…the of concern about the safety and one representative of the special Treasurer provide the Commit- liquidity of the County’s invest- districts, and one member of the tee with an investment report as ments. In order for these kinds of public. However, in Rule 8 it states required by the Board of Supervi- activities to continue, the bylaws that the BOS may reduce the Com- sors.” The Grand Jury believes that of the TOC should be changed to mittee to three members. During this means the TOC should review reflect a more expanded role with a time when the financial markets that investment report thoroughly specific expectations of its mem- were collapsing under the weight of and understand the activities that bers. Members should be expected sub-prime loans and the economy occurred in the month or quarter. to review the Treasurer’s monthly began a rapid decline, the TOC It should question those activities, investment report and question the could have used a few more mem- discuss them, challenge them, and major investment decisions, as well bers with the expertise to insure assure itself that policies are being as the strategies being employed, the County’s funds were safe and prudently applied, consistently and to insure that plans to safeguard liquid. Nevertheless, the Grand Jury correctly. The information is readily the principal are fully understood. found, based on its interviews and available from the Treasurer with The Grand Jury also believes public review of the Committee minutes, a comprehensive investment report membership on the TOC should there did not appear to be a very posted monthly on the Treasurer’s increase to four members instead of high level of urgency to add to the website. However, the Grand Jury just two. All four public members Committee’s membership. learned in several interviews and should be technically competent in The bylaws consist mostly meetings that reviewing policy was finance and investment principles. of procedural and administrative the limit of the TOC’s oversight. This will achieve a better bal- rules, but Rule 27 defines what the Some on the Committee stated their ance between County and public TOC is actually mandated to do. It function is not to question but to members and serve to enhance the specifically states that, “The Com- “trust” the Treasurer. Members of Committee’s expanded role in the mittee shall review and monitor the the TOC should realize that their oversight of the investment pools. annual investment policy prepared value is in their independence and The Grand Jury acknowledges that by the Treasurer in accordance with if they don’t ask the tough ques- it is difficult to recruit and retain Section 27133.” The Grand Jury tions, who will? How can they say public members due to conflict-of- believes the Committee is carrying they are fulfilling their obligation if interest laws that limit involvement out the responsibility of reviewing they don’t question the Treasurer’s by investment experts. Nonetheless, and monitoring the IPS but is not actions? If they had known that increasing the effort to expand pub- doing so in a timely manner. The they were overseeing investments lic membership in such a critical 2007 IPS was approved by the BOS tied to student loans in Finland area would be worthwhile. in February of that year. The Board or that monthly interest payments The Grand Jury is not advocat- of Supervisors re-affirmed the IPS were linked to the successful use of ing the TOC get involved in the without modification in December, derivatives, or that in the event of day-to-day operations of the Trea-
F3:
Findings pertaining to the IPS was outside the
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Treasurer should participate. (F-4) from the Treasury Oversight Com- exit all SIV investments as mittee soon as practicable. (F-2, F- R.5(b): The investment Responses to F-6 are required 2(a), F-2(b), F-2(c), F-3,) report produced monthly by from the Auditor-Controller and the Treasurer’s Office should the Treasurer-Tax Collector
F4:
The TOC is not function- the revised December, 2008, scope of PFM’s review. PFM ing as an oversight com- IPS are: limited its interviews and re- mittee as it was originally search to Treasury staff and a) The language used in intended and as set forth in Treasury documents. Section III reads: “…the its bylaws, and as a conse- standard of prudence to be quence, is not as effective
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervi- be reviewed by the TOC. Response to F-7 is required sors should consider the 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury The structure of the TOC good accounting principles rent investing climate and meetings should allow for and practices. (F-6) any issues previously raised the Treasurer to be ques- with the Treasurer’s Office.
F5:
The Treasury Oversight investor standard and shall & Associates and Macias Committee (TOC) has been be applied in the context of Gini & O’Connell) showed operating, for the most part, managing an overall port- that the audits were lim- with only three members, folio.” This suggests that ited in scope. Neither audit all holding County posi- the standard for measuring completely addresses the tions, for most of 2007 and prudence is the performance sections of Government 2008. In December, 2008, of the entire portfolio, rather Code and the IPS regarding two members representing than risks associated with prohibited investments. the public were added. The individual investments. Government Code recom-
F6:
The Treasurer produced cludes: “…specifically includ- were purchased in compli- financial statements with ing, but not limited to, the ance with the IPS.” mark-to-market values for general economic conditions the County’s investments in and the anticipated needs F.10: County Counsel issued SIVs that were unsupport- of the County and other a legal opinion in November, able according to the Coun- depositors…” This phrase 2008, stating that the SIVs ty’s own internal auditors. suggests that the County’s facially meet the require- budgetary requirements are ments of Government Code
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
a): The TOC should Oversight Committee that an annual compliance consider expanding to seven Responses to R-4 (a), (b), (c) audit be conducted that ad- members including four are required from the Board of dresses all elements of the members of the public. This Supervisors Government Code as well as will achieve a better balance Response to R-5 (a), (b), (c) the IPS. The audit should between County and public are requested from the Treasury be conducted by a firm or membership and serve to Oversight Committee firms that have legal as well enhance the Committee’s Responses to R-6 (a), (b) are as investment expertise in expanded role in oversight required from the Board of Su- the types of investments of the investment pools. pervisors and requested from the included in the investment Since the Committee re- Treasury Oversight Committee pools. (F-8, F-9, F-10) cently added two members Responses to R-7 is required of the public, two additional from the Auditor-Controller
F7:
PFM Asset Manage- dependent on yield to an section 53601, subsection ment, a consulting firm, 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury (k) and the provisions of the from the Treasurer-Tax Collector following revisions to the County’s 2007 IPS relating and requested from the Treasury December, 2008, IPS: to medium-term notes. The Oversight Committee a) This language “…the opinion letter is qualified by Response to F-8 is requested standard of prudence to be stating that County Counsel from the Treasury Oversight Com- used by County investment has no experience or exper- mittee officers shall be the prudent tise in the legal structure of Response to F-9 is required investor standard and shall SIVs. from the Auditor-Controller be applied in the context of Response to F-10 is required
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
The Auditor-Controller major credit agencies. Prop- should insure that financial er due diligence begins with Required Responses statements prepared by the a review of credit ratings; it Treasurer’s Office showing doesn’t end there. (F-11) The California Penal Code investment balances be reg- specifies the required permis-
F8:
A review of compliance used by County investment as it should be. audits by two outside firms officers shall be the prudent that later merged (Moreland
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
The TOC, in its ex- tioned as to the portfolio’s (F-12) panded role, should direct performance, recent invest- the activities of consulting Response to R-1 is required ment decisions, and the firms used to conduct in- from the Treasurer-Tax Collector strategies being employed. dependent reviews or risk Response to R-2 are required Since financial markets and assessments of the County’s from the Treasurer-Tax Collec- economic conditions can investment pools. This will tor and the Board of Supervisors, change rapidly, the TOC increase independent and and requested from the Treasury should fully understand at effective oversight and may Oversight Committee all times how the Treasurer help expose shortcomings in Response to R-3 is required intends to “safeguard the future reviews. (F-7) from the Treasurer-Tax Collector principal.” (F-4) and requested from the Treasury
F9:
The CAFR, released b) The language used in mends that the size of this in December, 2008, states Section III describing how committee be from 3 to 11 in the Notes to the Basic the Treasurer should invest members. Financial Statement section with care and prudence in- that “the SIV investments
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
The TOC should insure
F11:
The investment in SIVs managing an overall port- from the Auditor-Controller were imprudent for several folio.” should be clarified to Responses to F-11 are required reasons. Among them are: mean that all individual in- from the Treasurer-Tax Collector safety and liquidity, the high- vestments meet the prudent and requested from the Treasury est priorities for the County’s investor standard. (F-3a) Oversight Committee investments, were not Response to F-12 is required b) The statement “…specifi- adequately considered; the from the Treasurer-Tax Collector cally including, but not lim- TOC never reviewed them; and requested from the Treasury ited to, the general economic and, 56 out of 58 California Oversight Committee conditions and the antici- counties chose not to invest In accordance with Califor- pated needs of the County in them. nia Penal Code Sections 933 and and other depositors…” 933.05, each recommendation will
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
The Treasurer’s Office ularly audited. In the event sible responses to the findings and should schedule an annual any future investment bal- recommendations contained in the meeting between the TAC ances or values are called report. The specific sections are and the TOC to discuss the into question, there will be quoted below: safety and quality of the an immediate response or investment pools, the cur- restatement consistent with 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury §933.05 2. For purposes of subdivision explanation and the scope and 1. For purposes of Subdivi- (b) of Section 933, as to each grand parameters of an analysis or study, sion (b) of Section 933, as to each jury recommendation, the respond- and a timeframe for the matter to grand jury finding, the responding ing person or entity shall report one be prepared for discussion by the person or entity shall indicate one of the following actions: officer or head of the agency or of the following: (1) The recommendation has department being investigated or (1) The respondent agrees with been implemented, with a summary reviewed, including the governing the finding. regarding the implemented action. body of the public agency when (2) The respondent disagrees (2) The recommendation has applicable. This timeframe shall not wholly or partially with the finding, not yet been implemented, but will exceed six months from the date of in which case the response shall be implemented in the future, with publication of the grand jury report. specify the portion of the finding a timeframe for implementation. (4) The recommendation will that is disputed and shall include an (3) The recommendation not be implemented because it is explanation of the reasons there- requires further analysis, with an not warranted or is not reasonable, fore. with an explanation therefore. 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
F12:
There is confusion should be further clarified to be responded to by the government surrounding the purpose of describe that the County’s entity to which it is addressed. The the TAC, its membership, budget needs will not impact responses are to be submitted to and the advice it gives to the County’s requirement to the Presiding Judge of the Superior the Treasurer’s Office at its safeguard principal. (F-3b) Court. Based on the findings, the quarterly meetings. 2008-2009 Orange County Grand c) The language in the IPS Response to F-1 is required Jury makes the following recom- “It will be invested primar- from the Treasurer-Tax Collector mendations: ily in high grade securities Responses to F-2, F-2(a), F- commensurate with achiev- Recommendations 2(b) and F-2(c) are required from ing a higher yield, while also the Treasurer-Tax Collector and R.1: The Treasurer-Tax considering preservation from the Board of Supervisors Collector should establish of capital” should be clari- and requested from the Treasury measurable safety goals for fied to show that yield is not Oversight Committee both Money Market and all a priority over safety, and Responses to F-3 (a), (b), (c) Extended Funds. (F-1) that investments will only be are required from the Board of made in high-grade securi- Supervisors and the Treasurer-Tax R.2: The Treasurer-Tax Col- ties. (F-3c) Collector and requested from the lector should consider the Treasury Oversight Committee intent and spirit of the IPS R.5(a): The TOC should re- Response to F-4 is requested and Government Code in all write its bylaws to clarify its from the Treasury Oversight Com- investment decisions. (F-2, role in oversight, the activi- mittee F-2(a), F-2(b), F-2(c), F-3) ties it will conduct, and how its members are expected to Response to F-5 is requested
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Investments in commercial pa- ty’s budgetary requirements could risk analysis of the County’s invest- per are allowed only if they are be dependent on yield to an extent ment portfolios described later in issued by entities organized and that might influence the degree of this report. The Grand Jury supports operating in the U.S., otherwise care and prudence required. The these revisions including those they are prohibited. Medium- Grand Jury believes this statement associated with prohibited transac- term notes, which are held in should be further clarified to ensure tions. For example, it is now clearly the Extended Fund portfolios, that, in the future, the County’s stated that SIVs are prohibited. must be issued by corporations budget needs will not impact the However, there are other examples organized and operating within County’s requirement to safeguard where the Grand Jury recommends the United States or by deposi- principal. that further clarification would be tory institutions licensed and Finally, the language used to even more beneficial. One instance operating within the U.S. describe the investments in the is in Section III of the revised IPS
R10:
There is a general ten- members of the public are Response to R-8 is requested dency to over-rely on ratings recommended. (F-5) from the Treasury Oversight Com- issued by the major credit mittee rating agencies. In these b) While Section 27132 (1) Responses to R-9 is required times when rating agency of the Government Code from the Treasury Oversight Com- credibility is being called into requires at least two of the mittee question, it is recommended public members be well Responses to R-10 is required that Treasury staff conduct versed in public finance and from the Treasurer-Tax Collector thorough and independent investment techniques, all Response to R-11 is required evaluations of prospective four of the public members from the Treasurer-Tax Collector investments, rather than just should be so qualified. (F-5) and requested from the Treasury relying on ratings issued by Oversight Committee
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
There is inadequate services. To this end, LAFCo is conducive to inherent coordination between local is conducting a governance conflicts. land-use planning agencies study of MWDOC which is and local water supply agen-
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Each Orange County Beach, Orange, San Clemente, and Santa Ana; and the city coun- municipal planning agency, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, cils of the cities served by Golden in cooperation with its Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin- State Water Company: cities of respective water supply ster; East Orange County Water Cypress, Los Alamitos, Placentia agency, should prepare for District, El Toro Water District, and Stanton. adoption by its city council, a Irvine Ranch Water District, La- Responses to Finding F.4, dedicated Water Element to guna Beach County Water District, F.4(a) and F.4(b) are required its General Plan in conjunc- Mesa Consolidated Water District, from the Board of Directors of the tion with a future update, Moulton Niguel Water District, Municipal Water District of Or- not to exceed June 30, Santa Margarita Water District, ange County; the Board of Direc- 2010. This document should Serrano Water District, South tors of the Orange County Water include detailed implemen- Coast Water District, Trabuco District; the city councils and tation measures based on Canyon Water District and Yorba boards of directors of all Orange objective-based policies that Linda Water District; the Board of County retail water suppliers: match realistic projections Directors of the Municipal Water cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena of the County’s future water District of Orange County. the Park, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, supplies. These objectives, Board of Directors of the Orange Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, policies and implementation County Water District, and the La Habra, La Palma, Newport measures should address city councils of the cities served Beach, Orange, San Clemente, imported supply constraints, by Golden State Water Company; San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, including catastrophic out- cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin- ages and incorporate the re- Placentia and Stanton. ster; East Orange County Water alistic availability and timing Responses to Finding F.3, District, El Toro Water District, of “new” water sources such
F2:
California’s looming Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, water supply management. water supply crisis receives 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Dana Point, Fountain Valley, ton Beach, La Habra, La Palma, councils of the cities served by Fullerton, Garden Grove, Hun- Newport Beach, Orange, San Golden State Water Company; tington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin- Placentia, and Stanton. Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna ster; East Orange County Water Recommendations Woods, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos, District, El Toro Water District, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Irvine Ranch Water District, La- In accordance with Califor- Orange, Placentia, Rancho Santa guna Beach County Water District, nia Penal Code Sections 933 and Margarita, San Clemente, San Mesa Consolidated Water District, 933.05, each recommendation will Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Moulton Niguel Water District, be responded to by the government Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Santa Margarita Water District, entity to which it is addressed. The Westminster and Yorba Linda; the Serrano Water District, South responses are to be submitted to city councils and boards of direc- Coast Water District, Trabuco the Presiding Judge of the Superior tors of all retail water suppliers: Canyon Water District and Yorba Court. Based on the findings, the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Linda Water District; the Orange 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Park, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, County Local Agency Formation Jury makes the following recom- Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Commission; the City Council of mendations: La Habra, La Palma, Newport the cities of Anaheim, Fullerton
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
For purposes of subdivision County Water District; the city (b) of Section 933, as to each councils and boards of directors grand jury recommendation, of all Orange County retail water the responding person or entity suppliers: cities of Anaheim, Brea, shall report one of the follow- Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Ful- ing actions: lerton, Garden Grove, Hunting- (1) The recommendation ton Beach, La Habra, La Palma, has been implemented, with Newport Beach, Orange, San a summary regarding the Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, implemented action. Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Tustin (2) The recommendation has and Westminster; East Orange not yet been implemented, County Water District, El Toro but will be implemented in Water District, Irvine Ranch Water the future, with a timeframe District, Laguna Beach County for implementation. Water District, Mesa Consolidated (3) The recommendation Water District, Moulton Niguel requires further analysis, with Water District, Santa Margarita an explanation and the scope Water District, Serrano Water Dis- and parameters of an analysis trict, South Coast Water District, or study, and a timeframe for Trabuco Canyon Water District 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Table 1: Findings and Recommendations Matrix * * * * * * * * City/Organization/ F F F F R R R R F F F F R R R R Agency 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 City/Organization/Agency 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Land Use City & County Planners Retail Water Suppliers Aliso Viejo • • • Anaheim • • • • • • • • Anaheim • • • Brea • • • • • • • • Brea • • • Buena Park • • • • • • • • Buena Park • • • Fountain Valley • • • • • • • • Costa Mesa • • • Fullerton • • • • • • • • Cypress • • • Garden Grove • • • • • • • • Dana Point • • • Huntington Beach • • • • • • • • Fountain Valley • • • La Habra • • • • • • • • Fullerton • • • La Palma • • • • • • • • Garden Grove • • • Newport Beach • • • • • • • • Huntington Beach • • • Orange • • • • • • • • Irvine • • • San Clemente • • • • • • • • La Habra • • • San Juan Capistrano • • • • • • • • La Palma • • • Santa Ana • • • • • • • • Laguna Beach • • • Seal Beach • • • • • • • • Laguna Hills • • • Tustin • • • • • • • • Laguna Niguel • • • Westminster • • • • • • • • Laguna Woods • • • East Orange County Water District • • • • • • • • Lake Forest • • • El Toro Water District • • • • • • • • Los Alamitos • • • Irvine Ranch Water District • • • • • • • • Mission Viejo • • • Laguna Beach County Water District • • • • • • • • Newport Beach • • • Mesa Consolidated Water District • • • • • • • • Orange • • • Moulton Niguel Water District • • • • • • • • Placentia • • • Santa Margarita Water District • • • • • • • • Rancho Santa Margarita • • • Serrano Water District • • • • • • • • San Clemente • • • South Coast Water District • • • • • • • • San Juan Capistrano • • • Trabuco Canyon Water District • • • • • • • • Santa Ana • • • Yorba Linda Water District • • • • • • • • Seal Beach • • • Wholesale Water Suppliers Stanton • • • Municipal Water District of Orange County • • • • • • • • Tustin • • • Orange County Water District • • • • • • Villa Park • • • Golden State Water Company Contract Agencies Westminster • • • City of Cypress • • • • • • • • Yorba Linda • • • City of Los Alamitos • • • • • • • • County of Orange • • • City of Placentia • • • • • • • • City of Stanton • • • • • • • • * Includes subsets of findings [(a), (b), (c), etc.] Other Public Agencies OC Local Agency Formation Commission • • 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
F4:
Orange County is strengthen the County’s condition.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Each Orange County Irvine Ranch Water District, La- District of Orange County; the city retail and wholesale water guna Beach County Water District, councils and boards of directors 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury of all Municipal Water District and Yorba Linda Water District: the matter to be prepared for of Orange County member agen- and the city councils of the cit- discussion by the officer or cies: cities of Brea, Buena Park, ies served by Golden State Water head of the agency or de- Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Company: cities of Cypress, Los partment being investigated Huntington Beach, La Habra, Alamitos, Placentia and Stanton. or reviewed, including the La Palma, Newport Beach, Or- governing body of the public Required Responses ange, San Clemente, San Juan agency when applicable. This Capistrano, Seal Beach, Tustin timeframe shall not exceed The California Penal Code and Westminster; East Orange six months from the date of specifies the required permis- County Water District, El Toro publication of the grand jury sible responses to the findings and Water District, Irvine Ranch Water report. recommendations contained in the District, Laguna Beach County (4) The recommendation will report. The specific sections are as Water District, Mesa Consolidated not be implemented because follows: Water District, Moulton Niguel it is not warranted or is not §933.05 Water District, Santa Margarita reasonable, with an explanation 1. For purposes of Subdivision Water District, Serrano Water Dis- therefore. (b) of Section 933, as to each trict, South Coast Water District, grand jury finding, the respond- Trabuco Canyon Water District ing person or entity shall indi- and Yorba Linda Water District; cate one of the following: the Orange County Local Agency (1) The respondent agrees Formation Commission: the city with the finding. councils of the cities served by (2) The respondent disagrees Golden State Water Company: wholly or partially with the cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos, finding, in which case the Placentia, and Stanton. response shall specify the Responses to Recommendation portion of the finding that is
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R3:
Each MWDOC mem- Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Moulton Niguel Water District, ber agency should reaffirm Orange, Placentia, Rancho Santa Santa Margarita Water District, to LAFCo that it will assign Margarita, San Clemente, San Serrano Water District, South the resources necessary to Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Coast Water District, Trabuco expediently resolve regional Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Canyon Water District and Yorba governance issues. While Westminster and Yorba Linda; the Linda Water District; the Board of the subject study is being city councils and boards of direc- Directors of the Municipal Water facilitated by LAFCo, the tors of all retail water suppliers: District of Orange County. the options are with the agen- cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Board of Directors of the Orange cies to decide what is best Park, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, County Water District; and the for all. Once conclusions are Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, city councils of the cities served reached, the parties need La Habra, La Palma, Newport by Golden State Water Company: to agree quickly and, hope- Beach, Orange, San Clemente, cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos, fully, unanimously to adopt San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Placentia and Stanton. a course of action. (Finding Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin- Responses to Recommendation
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
Up to date computer programs be purchased and training provided to allow better patient charting and communication between nurses and supervisors
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
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:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
The Registrar of Voters instituted security measures to ensure that votes are private, secure and accurate.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.