Orange County 2008-2009 - California Grand Jury Reports

March 30, 2010 — Status Update on Open Grand Jury Implementation Items

11 páginas 7 recomendaciones

Recomendaciones adicionales 7

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R1: Closed-Circuit Color Television Cameras Over 400 Closed-Circuit Color Television Cameras (CCTV) were installed throughout the eight courthouses. The cameras were placed at all public entrances, public hallways, entrances to elevators and stairwells and public filing windows. Cameras were also installed in detention areas that cover all inmate entrances, cells, corridors, stairwells and custody entrances into courtrooms. All cameras, both public and detention, are monitored by on-duty Sheriff's staff and are recorded on digital video recorders (DVRs). The images are maintained on the DVRs for approximately six months.

R2: Transfer Personnel Management Functions: The Board of Supervisors should transfer the personnel management functions of P/G to the OCHR. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The Human Resources Department worked with the County Executive Office to identify options available to the Board related to the personnel management functions of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) department. Transfer of personnel management functions will be dependent on the option(s) selected by the Board of Supervisors regarding the structure of the PA/PG functions. The County Executive Office will provide further analysis to the Board of Supervisors in the FY 2009-10 First Quarter Budget Report to be heard by the Board of Supervisors in November 2009. Current Status: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable or is not warranted. The Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on December 15, 2009 to consider rescinding Ordinance 07-008 and returning the Public Guardian (PG) to an appointed position, reporting to the CEO. The motion to approve the staff recommendations of rescinding the ordinance and revising the PA/PG organization failed. As such, transfer of the personnel management functions of the PA/PG is not warranted, and those functions will remain with the PA/PG department.

R3: Detailed Examination of Staffing and Finances: The Board of Supervisors direct that a detailed examination of staffing and finances at Orangewood Children's Home be conducted by both the Social Services Agency and the county financial oversight staff. Original Response: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Social Services Agency, in coordination with the County Executive Office, is already reviewing staffing levels and finances and will include identified changes in the FY 09-10 Budget. Current Status: The recommendation has been implemented. Social Services Agency's (SSA) review of staffing levels at Orangewood Children's Home (to be renamed Orangewood Children and Family Center per Agenda Item #33 approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 26, 2010) during the FY 2009-10 Budget and Quarterly Budget Report process resulted in deletion of 20 Group Counselor positions effective July 1, 2009 and one Office Technician effective November 24, 2009. An additional reduction of 7 support positions became effective January 2010. SSA, in coordination with the County Executive Office, continues to monitor the staffing levels and finances of Orangewood Children and Family Center. Report: Guardian of Last Resort Released: May 6, 2009

R4: Personnel Record Review: The County Internal Audit Department should conduct an in-depth review of OCHR personnel records to determine if additional instances of questionable pension practices exist in agencies other than the PA/PG office. The audit report and any resulting County responses will be forwarded to the Grand Jury for information. Original Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The County Internal Audit Department included such a review in the 2009-10 Audit Plan approved by the Audit Oversight Committee on May 27, 2009. The Board of Supervisors and the County Internal Audit Department anticipates completing the review by December 31, 2009. The Orange County Human Resources Department will work with the Internal Audit Department on this matter. Current Status: The recommendation has been implemented. The County Internal Audit Department opened audit number 2913, completed field work, and issued a draft report on January 25, 2010. The final report is expected to be issued by April 2010.

R7: Separate PA and PG: The Board of Supervisors should complete a comprehensive independent review of Public Administrator/Public Guardian. Based on the results of this review and the Grand Jury report, they should reconsider whether separating the PA/PG from the Health Care Agency and turning it into a separate stand- alone County department has been cost and performance improvement effective. If not, the Board of Supervisors should return Public Guardian to the HCA or another County department. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The County Budget Office, Legislative Affairs, and the Human Resources Department continue to work to identify options available to the Board related to the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) department. Such options might include: Repeal Ordinance 07-008 designating the Public Administrator the ex officio Public Guardian allowing for separation of the Administrator and Guardian functions Separate Public Guardian (PG) from Public Administrator (PA) and place PG • back with the Health Care Agency (HCA) under CEO oversight Comparison of how other neighboring counties organize the PA/PG function • The County Executive Office will provide further analysis to the Board of Supervisors in the FY 2009-10 First Quarter Budget Report to be heard by the Board of Supervisors in November 2009. HCA will work with the Board and CEO as directed. Current Status: The recommendation has been implemented. A comprehensive review of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) was completed by the County Executive Office staff and, on December 12, 2009, the Board of Supervisors considered Agenda Item #59, the first reading of "An Ordinance of the County of Orange, California Repealing Ordinance No. 07-008, Which Designated the Public Administrator as the Ex Officio Public Guardian." The motion to approve rescinding the ordinance as recommended failed. The Public Administrator remains as the ex officio Public Guardian (PG) and the PG function remains with the PA/PG department. The Board of Supervisors directed that the CEO bring back the issue of separation of functions during the Fiscal Year 2010-11 Budget discussions to be held in June 2010.

R8: Consider Moving PA Function: When the term of the current PA expires in two years, the Board of Supervisors should consider moving the Public Administrator function into the same department that administers Public Guardian activities. This action should be coordinated with the recommendation identified in R.7 to eliminate any logistic or redundancy problems. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The County Executive Office will provide further analysis to the Board of Supervisors in the FY 2009-10 First Quarter Budget Report to be heard by the Board of Supervisors in November 2009. CEO Legislative Affairs has researched the option of placement of an initiative on the next available ballot to make the PA position appointed rather than elected. If an initiative is placed on the ballot and voters in the County approve the PA as an appointed position, the Board of Supervisors would determine the placement of the PA function. Current Status: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable or is not warranted. Because the Public Administrator remains an elective, not an appointive, office, it is not warranted for the Board of Supervisors to consider moving the PA function into another department. Report: Orange County Investments: The Need for Stronger Oversight Released: June 9, 2009

R11: between the TAC and the TOC to discuss the safety and quality of the investment pools, the current investing climate and any issues previously raised with the Treasurer's Office. (F-12) Original Response: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. A meeting between the TAC and the TOC will be held prior to December 31, 2009. Current Status: The recommendation has been implemented. The TOC held a joint meeting with the TAC on December 28, 2009. Treasurer's reports from July 2009 through September 2009 were received and discussed. In addition, discussion was held regarding the purpose of the TAC and the relationship between the TAC and the TOC. Condition of Orange County Jails Report: Released: June 18, 2009

June 16, 2009 — Water Districts: a New Era In Public Involvement Summary well as for the benefit of succeeding County’s disastrous

6 páginas 7 hallazgos 3 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 7 hallazgos

F1: For purposes of Subdivision (1) The recommendation body of the public agency (b) of Section 933, as to each has been implemented, with when applicable. This grand jury finding, the respond- a summary regarding the timeframe shall not exceed ing person or entity shall indi- implemented action. six months from the date cate one of the following: (2) The recommendation of publication of the grand (1) The respondent agrees has not yet been imple- jury report. with the finding. mented, but will be imple- (4) The recommendation (2) The respondent dis- mented in the future, with a will not be implemented agrees wholly or partially timeframe for implementa- because it is not warranted with the finding, in which tion. or is not reasonable, with an case the response shall (3) The recommendation explanation therefore. specify the portion of the requires further analysis,

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: For purposes of subdivision timeframe for the matter to sible responses to the findings and (b) of Section 933, as to each be prepared for discussion recommendations contained in the grand jury recommendation, by the officer or head of the report. The specific sections are as the responding person or entity agency or department being follows: shall report one of the following investigated or reviewed, §933.05 actions: including the governing

F2: Some board members District, Municipal Water District should be used only in are conducting their profes- of Orange County and Orange exceptional circumstances. sional practices with mem- County Water District. (F.5) ber agencies and use their elected positions to promote Recommendations R.5: Each water district their competitiveness. should promulgate rules In accordance with Califor- requiring each director to

F3: Codes of ethics among nia Penal Code Sections 933 and inform the other board mem- districts are quite varied. 933.05, each recommendation will bers of any other offices Some are very comprehen- be responded to by the government including seats on boards of sive and some do not exist entity to which it is addressed. The member agencies that he or other than to reference state responses are to be submitted to she holds. (F.6) laws. the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings, the R.5a: Water Districts

F4: Water board meetings 2008-2009 Orange County Grand should consult their legal are frequently scheduled for Jury makes the following recom- counsel to advise them times that discourage public mendations: whether there exists an attendance.

F5: An unusually high form Act of 1974 and Gov- holds multiple offices at the percentage of water board ernment Code section 1090, same time. (F.6) directors were originally ap- the water districts should pointed, not elected to their

F6: Some board members boards of directors to formal- to exceed three terms of hold multiple elected posi- ly disclose to their organiza- service. (F.7) tions that under certain tions any contracts they are circumstances could create pursuing or have attained Responses to Recommendations an appearance of a conflict with member agencies. The

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: In addition to the laws incompatibility of offices set forth in the Political Re- when a board member

F7: There are no time limits (F.1, F.2) County Water District, Mesa Con- for how long individuals can solidated Water District, Moulton serve on any water district R.2. Each water district Niguel Water District, Santa board in Orange County. should develop a specific Margarita Water District, Ser- code of ethics, hold train- Responses to Finding F.1 rano Water District, South Coast ing sessions and monitor its through F.7 are required from the Water District, Trabuco Canyon enforcement. (F.3) Boards of Directors of the East Water District, Yorba Linda Water Orange County Water District, El R.3: Water board meetings District, Municipal Water District Toro Water District, Irvine Ranch need to be scheduled at of Orange County and Orange Water District, Laguna Beach times that would generate County Water District. County Water District, Mesa Con- maximum public attendance. solidated Water District, Moulton (F.4) Niguel Water District, Santa Required Responses finding that is disputed and with an explanation and the shall include an explanation scope and parameters of The California Penal Code of the reasons therefore. an analysis or study, and a specifies the required permis- 2. For purposes of subdivision timeframe for the matter to sible responses to the findings and (b) of Section 933, as to each be prepared for discussion recommendations contained in the grand jury recommendation, by the officer or head of the report. The specific sections are as the responding person or entity agency or department being follows: shall report one of the following investigated or reviewed, §933.05 actions: including the governing 1. For purposes of Subdivision (1) The recommendation body of the public agency (b) of Section 933, as to each has been implemented, with when applicable. This grand jury finding, the respond- a summary regarding the timeframe shall not exceed ing person or entity shall indi- implemented action. six months from the date cate one of the following: (2) The recommendation of publication of the grand (1) The respondent agrees has not yet been imple- jury report. with the finding. mented, but will be imple- (4) The recommendation (2) The respondent dis- mented in the future, with a will not be implemented agrees wholly or partially timeframe for implementa- because it is not warranted with the finding, in which tion. or is not reasonable, with an case the response shall (3) The recommendation explanation therefore. specify the portion of the requires further analysis,

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: Water districts should promulgate rules requiring position. adopt self-imposed term professionals seated on their limits for their members, not

May 04, 2009 — Supplemental Guardian of Last Resort Report This report does not supersede the 2008-2009 Grand Jury report titled

4 páginas 1 hallazgos 2 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos

F2005: As of May 2009, the annualized hourly wages for those in the management category is $1,156,002, an increase of 118.2% over the last four years. In the past six months, PA/PG management salaries have increased by $133,174 on an annualized basis. SF.2: In the Agenda Staff Report 05-000743 document, the Board of Supervisors separated the PA/ PG from the Health Care Agency. In Ordinance No. 07-008, the Board of Supervisors designated the PA ex officio PG. SF.3: Since the April 9, 2009, interview, the PA/PG has continued to create permanent Administrative Manager III positions over the objec2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury

Página 1

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2005: As of May 2009, the whereby the Board of Super- been added to the manage- annualized hourly wages for visors designated the PA as ment ranks and one Chief those in the management ex officio PG, in order that Deputy position has been category is $1,156,002, an the PA would no longer oper- created. increase of 118.2% over ate as ex-officio PG. (F.2) the last four years. In the SF.7: In 2005, the County past six months, PA/PG SR.1(a): The Board of Su- Internal Auditor recommend- management salaries have pervisors should report on ed a new software system increased by $133,174 on the feasibility and legality of for the PA/PG. It missed an annualized basis. converting the Public Ad- several self-imposed imple- ministrator to an appointed mentation deadlines includ- SF.2: In the Agenda Staff rather than elected office. ing June, 2008, and will miss Report 05-000743 docu- The PA salary should be ad- the deadline of July, 2009. ment, the Board of Super- justed to that which existed The current management visors separated the PA/ prior to the approval of Ordi- staff has been unable to PG from the Health Care nance No. 07-008 combining implement a new computer Agency. In Ordinance No. the PA and PG. (F.2) software system in a timely 07-008, the Board of Super- visors designated the PA ex and reasonable period. SR.2: Subsequent to R-1(a), officio PG. the P/A and the P/G should Responses to Findings F.2 be combined and placed through F.7are required from the SF.3: Since the April 9, 2009, under the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors. Responses interview, the PA/PG has County Executive office as to Findings F.1 through F. 6 is re- continued to create perma- opposed to having each quested from the County Executive nent Administrative Manager operate as a stand-alone office. Responses F.1, F.3 through III positions over the objec- department. (F.2) 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury SR.3: The Board of Super- Responses to Recommenda- 2. For purposes of subdivi- visors should determine tions R.1, through R.7are required sion (b) of Section 933, as to each whether two permanent from the Board of Supervisors. grand jury recommendation, the Administrative Management Responses to Recommendations responding person or entity shall III positions are warranted R.2 through R. 6 are requested report one of the following ac- and if not, eliminate the posi- from the County Executive office. tions: tions. (F.3) Response to recommendation R.7 (1) The recommendation is requested from County Execu- has been implemented, with a SR.4: OCHR should be tive office – Information Technol- summary regarding the imple- given approval authority in ogy. mented action. instances wherein County (2) The recommendation departments deviate from Required Responses has not yet been implemented, standard personnel prac- but will be implemented in the The California Penal Code tices. (F.3, F.4, F.5, F.6) future, with a timeframe for specifies the required permis- implementation. SR.5: OCHR should be sible responses to the findings and (3) The recommendation re- given oversight authority re- recommendations contained in the quires further analysis, with an garding management hiring report. The specific sections are explanation and the scope and and promotions in the PA/ quoted below: parameters of an analysis or PG. (F,3, F.4, F.5, F.6) §933.05 study, and a timeframe for the

Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R1: For purposes of Subdivi- SR.6: The County Execu- matter to be prepared for dis- sion (b) of Section 933, as to each tive office should determine cussion by the officer or head grand jury finding, the responding whether two Chief Deputy of the agency or department person or entity shall indicate one positions are warranted and being investigated or reviewed, of the following: if not, eliminate one Chief including the governing body (1) The respondent agrees Deputy position. (F.6) of the public agency when ap- with the finding. plicable. This timeframe shall (2) The respondent dis- SR.7: The County Executive not exceed six months from the agrees wholly or partially with Office – Information Technol- date of publication of the grand the finding, in which case ogy should assume respon- jury report. the response shall specify the sibility for implementation (4) The recommenda- portion of the finding that is and oversight of the new tion will not be implemented disputed and shall include an software system and report because it is not warranted or is explanation of the reasons to the County Administrator not reasonable, with an expla- therefore. on a regular basis. (F.7) nation therefore.

March 10, 2009 — Education of Parents in the Development of Strategies to Keep Their Children Out of Gangs Summary of using them to help

12 páginas 2 hallazgos 4 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos

F2: The most effective oration’s Gang Intervention used as a model program way to prevent children and Prevention Program for other cities and school from joining gangs in most so that it can be exported districts throughout Orange cases is to work with parents to other cities and school County. of young children to teach districts throughout Orange them to spot the danger F.9: Businesses in Orange County. signs for gang activity and County benefit greatly from

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: Provide funding to aid to help them develop effec- gang prevention and inter- in the reproduction of the tive strategies to keep their vention through decreased Pio Pico materials for export children from joining gangs. graffiti and crime. to other school districts and F.: The most effective time Responses to Findings F.1 and cities in areas of Orange to begin gang prevention ef- F.4 through F.9 are required from County with heavy gang forts is when children are in the Board of Supervisors and the activity and to provide fund- elementary school. Mayor of Santa Ana. ing for coordination of this effort to export materials and F.: The most effective Responses to Findings F.1 technology. gang prevention and in- through F.6 are required from the tervention programs are District Attorney’s Office. R.: Keep the GRIP pro- done by a collaboration of Responses to Findings F.1 gram growing by seeing government agencies and through F.5 and F.7 are requested that funding is available to private organizations and it from the Probation Department. provide stable leadership for is important for governmen- the program. Responses to Findings F.1 through tal entities to support such

F4: and F.8 are required from the R.: Provide funding for collaborations. Orange County Superintendent of an experienced profes- F.: Stable leadership of Schools and requested from the sional who can coordinate the GRIP program has been School Superintendents of Garden fund raising efforts to enlist an important factor within Grove Unified School District, Orange County businesses the District Attorney’s Of- Orange Unified School District, in supporting gang preven- fice and will contribute to its Santa Ana Unified School District, tion programs through cash rapid growth. Tustin Unified School District, 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury donations or donation of Unified School District, Orange parameters of an analysis or services/products. Unified School District, Santa Ana study, and a timeframe for the Unified School District, Tustin matter to be prepared for dis- R.: Recommend that Unified School District, Anaheim cussion by the officer or head school districts with high City School District and Buena of the agency or department numbers of at-risk children Park School District. being investigated or reviewed, join forces and exchange including the governing body information on how to begin Required Responses of the public agency when ap- gang prevention and inter- plicable. This timeframe shall vention programs, how to The California Penal Code specifies not exceed six months from the expand existing programs by the required permissible responses date of publication of the grand working cooperatively, and to the findings and recommenda- jury report. how to export proven prac- tions contained in the report. The tices to other districts that specific sections are quoted below: (4) The recommendation will would benefit from them. not be implemented because §933.05 it is not warranted or is not R.: Recognize and reward 1. For purposes of Subdivision (b) reasonable, with an explanation the cost effectiveness of of Section 933, as to each grand therefore. the Probation Department’s jury finding, the responding person efforts to prevent children or entity shall indicate one of the References from joining gangs by not following: making short-sighted budget 1. Aos, Steve, Roxanne Lieb, (1) The respondent agrees with cuts that would disable such Jim Mayfield, Mama Miller, the finding. programs. and Annie Pennucci. (2004) (2) The respondent disagrees Benefits and Costs of Preven- Responses to Recommendations wholly or partially with the tion and Early Intervention Pro-

Recomendaciones adicionales 3

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R1: through R.6 are required from finding, in which case the re- grams for Youth. Washington the Board of Supervisors. sponse shall specify the portion State Institute for Public Policy, of the finding that is disputed Olympia, WA. Responses to Recommendations and shall include an explana-

R3: is required from the District will be implemented in the Changing Lives; Delinquency Attorney’s Office future, with a timeframe for Prevention as Crime Control Response to Recommendation implementation. Policy. University of Chicago

R5: are required from the Orange Press. (3) The recommendation re- County Superintendent of Schools quires further analysis, with an and requested from the School explanation and the scope and Superintendents of Garden Grove Page 0 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury

February 15, 2009 — Let The Sheriff Do Her Job Summary County of Orange, unlike any of written statements of both policy

2 páginas 1 hallazgos 2 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos

F1: The California Penal matter to be prepared for dis- Sheriff-Coroner. Code gives the Sheriff the cussion by the officer or head power to establish both a of the agency or department Required Responses policy and an application being investigated or reviewed, process for the issuance of The California Penal Code including the governing body concealed weapons per- specifies the required permis- of the public agency when ap- mits/licenses. This includes sible responses to the findings and plicable. This timeframe shall the power to revoke prior recommendations contained in the not exceed six months from the licenses/permits not issued report. The specific sections are date of publication of the grand in conformity with the code. quoted below: jury report. §933.05 The recommendation will not be Response to Finding 1 is 1. For purposes of Subdivision implemented because it is not war- required from the Board of Su- (b) of Section 933, as to each grand ranted or is not reasonable, with an pervisors and the Orange County jury finding, the responding person explanation therefore. Sheriff-Coroner.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: Allow the Sheriff to (b) of Section 933, as to each grand ing the issuance of CCW permits jury recommendation, the respond- continue her legally permis- is a waste of county resources and ing person or entity shall report one sible actions in establish- these efforts could be redirected of the following actions: ing a CCW license permit toward more vital issues facing the policy and the adherence (1) The recommendation has citizens of Orange County. to an application process. been implemented, with a This includes the possible summary regarding the imple- Findings revocation of permits issued mented action. In accordance with Califor- by the prior Sheriff and the (2) The recommendation has nia Penal Code Sections 933 and review of each applicant to not yet been implemented, but 933.05, each finding will be re- insure compliance with the will be implemented in the sponded to by the government mandates of the penal code future, with a timeframe for entity to which it is addressed. The as to "good cause", training, implementation. responses are to be submitted to good moral character and (3) The recommendation re- the Presiding Judge of the Supe- residency. quires further analysis, with an rior Court. The 2008-2009 Orange explanation and the scope and

Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R2: For purposes of subdivision menting corrective actions involv- R.1: Allow the Sheriff to (b) of Section 933, as to each grand ing the issuance of CCW permits jury recommendation, the respond- continue her legally permis- is a waste of county resources and ing person or entity shall report one sible actions in establish- these efforts could be redirected of the following actions: ing a CCW license permit toward more vital issues facing the policy and the adherence (1) The recommendation has citizens of Orange County. to an application process. been implemented, with a This includes the possible summary regarding the imple-

January 21, 2009 — They Are All Children: Addressing the Inequity in the Resources Available for Orange County’s Most Vulnerable Children

10 páginas 4 hallazgos 1 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos

F1: The Orangewood Chil- Children’s Home caused by the dren’s Home can continue to lot splitting. Responses to Recommendation deliver the services necessary

F2: The Orangewood Chil- cer. Responses to F.1 through F.3 Recommendation R.2 are required dren’s Home operation could 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury from the Board of Supervisors, and (2) The respondent disagrees the future, with a timeframe requested from the Probation De- wholly or partially with the for implementation. partment and the Chief Executive finding, in which case the (3) The recommendation Officer. Responses to Recommenda- response shall specify the requires further analysis, with tion R.3 are required from the Board portion of the finding that is an explanation and the scope of Supervisors, and requested from disputed and shall include an and parameters of an analysis the Social Services Agency, and the explanation of the reasons or study, and a timeframe for Chief Executive Officer. therefore. the matter to be prepared for Required Responses 2. For purposes of subdivision discussion by the officer or (b) of Section 933, as to each head of the agency or de- The California Penal Code speci- grand jury recommendation, partment being investigated fies the required permissible respons- the responding person or entity or reviewed, including the es to the findings and recommenda- shall report one of the follow- governing body of the public tions contained in the report. The ing actions: agency when applicable. This specific sections are quoted below: (1) The recommendation timeframe shall not exceed §933.05 has been implemented, with six months from the date of 1. For purposes of Subdivision a summary regarding the publication of the grand jury (b) of Section 933, as to each implemented action. report. grand jury finding, the respond- (2) The recommendation has (4) The recommendation will ing person or entity shall indicate not yet been implemented, not be implemented because one of the following: but will be implemented in it is not warranted or is not (1) The respondent agrees with reasonable, with an explana- the finding. tion therefore. Page 0 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury

F4: The Probation Department benefactors will also recognize the Presiding Judge of the Superior has an immediate need for that a high percentage of the WIC Court. Based on the findings, the expanded facilities for Juvenile §600 delinquent children of Orange 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Hall, the Youth Leadership County also have backgrounds that Jury makes the following recom- Academy, and the Youth Guid- include abuse and neglect and that mendations: ance Center. these children are also, in spite

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: Study the feasibility of of the mistakes they have made, F.5: The Probation Depart- allowing the Probation Depart- worthy of help. We hope that the ment programs such as regular ment to use up to one-half of generous contributors, past and cur- schooling, counseling and job the Orangewood Children’s rent, might refocus their charitable training have been shown to be Home property currently be- giving and include the crying needs effective. ing used by the Department of of Probation Department programs Social Services. Study to be as well as the soon-to-open Tustin F.6: Additional facilities will completed within six months. Family Campus. allow the Probation Depart- ment more capability to deliver R.2: The Probation Depart- Findings services. ment to consider developing the transferred property for use by IIn accordance with Califor-

F7: A reduction in the facili- Juvenile Hall and/or the Youth nia Penal Code sections 933 and ties and excess staffing of the Leadership Academy and/or the 933.05, each finding will be re- Orangewood Children’s Home Youth Guidance Center. sponded to by the government will save substantial dollars entity to which it is addressed. The without compromising its care R.3: The Board of Supervisors responses are to be submitted to for abused, abandoned, and direct that a detailed examina- the Presiding Judge of the Supe- neglected children. tion of staffing and finances at rior Court. The 2008-2009 Orange Orangewood Children’s Home County Grand Jury has arrived at F.8: The new Tustin Family be conducted by both the Social the following findings: Center can accommodate ser- Services Agency and the county vice reductions at Orangewood financial oversight staff.

November 18, 2008 — Condition of Orange County Jails Summary Captain who was selected because ful review the Grand Jury came to of

16 páginas 13 hallazgos 11 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 13 hallazgos

F2: Holding cells could is to review it with the employee independent civilian review of the eventually present unsafe unions. OCSD. The stated purpose is to working conditions for Sheriff The Crout & Sida (C&S) report monitor, assist, oversee, and advise personnel because needed noted previously performed a the OCSD in the investigation of upgrades and maintenance comprehensive staffing assessment the following: are being delayed. of the jails and concluded each had 1. Review selected internal and “staffing shortages that significantly citizen complaints alleging that

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: For purposes of subdivision will be implemented in the future, ing body of the public agency (b) of Section 933, as to each grand with a timeframe for implementa- when applicable. This timeframe jury recommendation, the respond- tion. shall not exceed six months from ing person or entity shall report one (3) The recommendation the date of publication of the of the following actions: requires further analysis, with an grand jury report. (1) The recommendation has explanation and the scope and pa- (4)The recommendation will been implemented, with a sum- rameters of an analysis or study, not be implemented because it is mary regarding the implemented and a timeframe for the matter to not warranted or is not reason- action. be prepared for discussion by the able, with an explanation there- officer or head of the agency or fore. 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury

F3: The jail system is oper- impact the ability of the OCSD peace and custodial officers ating within its capabilities to safely operate and manage the committed certain actions, or and therefore overcrowding county jail system.” This conclu- inactions, in the performance of is not currently an issue. sion validated the principal cause their duties. of the overtime identified in the 2. Review selected incidents of F.4: Recently completed jail performance audit noted above, that death or serious injury occur- needs assessment reports is, staff vacancies. C&S recom- ring to persons while in cus- predict a significant popula- mended that an additional 455 tody. tion increase in minimum custody personnel were needed to The mission of the OIR is to and medium-security in- insure the safety and security of strengthen the response of the mates. the County jail system. Since the OCSD to critical incidents and

F5: Without a Musick majority of the additional positions allegations of officer misconduct, medium-security capacity recommended by C&S pertain to as well as to increase the public’s expansion, early release of CJX (253 new positions) the Grand confidence in those responses, by inmates may be the only op- Jury reviewed the specific points providing full-time civilian over- tion available to avoid OCSD (some that have been implemented sight. jail overcrowding. and others that are subject to further It is too early to measure the ef- study) for achieving efficiencies at fectiveness of the OIR. The Execu-

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: The OCSD and the security and medical rea- Sheriff-Coroner Board of Supervisors should sons. (F.6) Responses to Recommenda- pursue discussions with the

F6: Early release of in- that facility by the redeployment tive Director indicates that he has mates through the use of of staff to unfilled positions, thus received full cooperation from the alternates-to-incarceration reducing overtime. The OCSD has Sheriff and her staff. After nine programs (e.g. Community already begun the process of de- months the OIR recently issued its Work Program (CWP) have veloping the specifications for the first report, and as of the time of avoided gross overcrowding selection and training of SSO’s to this writing the Grand Jury has not within OCSD jails. fill vacant positions within the jails. had the opportunity to review it. Based on this review the Grand F.7: Today’s inmate profile Findings Jury believes CJX will make a is made up of more serious significant contribution towards In accordance with Califor- and mentally ill offenders achieving the $3 million in over- nia Penal Code Sections 933 and who require greater segre- time savings identified in the audit. 933.05, each finding will be re- gation thus reducing bed sponded to by the government space. I. Office of Independent entity to which it is addressed. The Review F.8: Re-entry and post-re- responses are to be submitted to lease programs have re- The Office of Independent Re- the Presiding Judge of the Supe- duced inmate recidivism but view (OIR) was created to address rior Court. The 2008-2009 Orange there exists little quantitative alleged problems of law enforce- County Grand Jury has arrived at information and analysis to ment misconduct. After a thor- the following findings: support such a conclusion. ough examination of the identified F.1: Both the OCSD and problems within the Department, CEO Risk Management per- the Board of Supervisors authorized form risk management activi- 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: In order to achieve cost Required Responses (F.17) savings, CCTV should be The California Penal Code placed in all city jails where R.12a: Statistics and data specifies the required permis- feasible to be utilized for all should be quantified and sible responses to the findings and court appearances where analyzed to measure the recommendations contained in the inmates do not have to be success of the CWP. (F.14, report. The specific sections are personally present. (F.9) F.15) quoted below:

F9: The Board of Supervi- F.16: When inmates are Responses to Findings F.1 sors has not authorized the interviewed at the IRC medi- through F.18 and F.20 are re- Musick expansion project cal screening area there is quired from the Orange County and there is no alterna- no privacy provided and this Sheriff-Coroner tive proposal. Video visita- could result in reluctance Response to Finding F.1 is tions and arraignment were to reveal relevant personal requested from the County Execu- features of the expansion information. tive Officer project. Responses to Findings F.9,

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R9: Volunteers are critical to R.14: The OIR should sub- lier for the preparation of the the success of the Inmate mit a written progress report Musick expansion design/ Services Division/Inmate on a quarterly basis as con- construction documents. Re-Entry Unit and the OCSD tractually required. (F.19) The estimated cost is $9.2 should continue supporting million. These documents

F10: Even with an immedi- fied by wristband or module the Board of Supervisors ate Musick expansion go- card. Other than color, the Responses to Finding F.16 and ahead in 2009, new beds to only information on the card

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R10: While being booked ing loop at Theo Lacy. (F.20) debate, litigation and project at the IRC medical screen- delay. (F.3, F.4, F.5, F.7, F.9, Responses to Recommendations ing area, privacy should be

F11: OCSD provides many nia Penal Code Sections 933 and correctional programs to jail F.18: An audit report issued 933.05, each recommendation will inmates aimed at easing in October, 2008, concluded be responded to by the government re-entry into the community. that the previous administra- entity to which it is addressed. The The re-entry programs utilize tion mismanaged the use of responses are to be submitted to volunteers and have proven overtime in the OCSD, and the Presiding Judge of the Superior to be successful in assisting lacked clear policy guide- Court. Based on the findings, the inmates and their families. lines and protocols for man- 2008-2009 Orange County Grand aging it. OCSD has taken Jury makes the following recom-

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R11: Bar codes on wrist- tions R.3, R.4, R.6 and R.15 are State and local communities bands should include book- required from the Orange County regarding the Musick expan- ing number, photo, medical Board of Supervisors sion to resolve any outstand- needs and special issues, Response to Recommendation ing issues and objections. which would allow greater R.14 is requested from the Office (F.3, F.4, F.7, F.9, F.10, F.13) control, accountability and of Independent Review

F12: Programs to address steps to remedy the situa- mendations: and solve the projected tion and this has resulted R.1: The OCSD should inmate population growth for in reduced costs, however, provide CEO Risk Manage- the period between now and as of the time of this report, ment with Captains’ logs on when expansion of Musick a new policy has yet to be a daily basis. (F.1) is completed have not been approved. defined. R.2: A detailed study should

F13: The only location for Board of Supervisors. It was whether risk management jail expansion in Orange created to provide indepen- activities for OCSD claims County is the Musick facility. dent oversight regarding and lawsuits would be better incidents and allegations and more efficiently per-

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R13: The OCSD should (2)The respondent disagrees alternatives to incarceration finalize the draft overtime wholly or partially with the find- should be developed, fund- policy, resolve any outstand- ing, in which case the response ed and implemented and ing issues with the employee shall specify the portion of the existing programs expanded unions, and approve the finding that is disputed and shall 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury include an explanation of the (2) The recommendation has department being investigated or reasons therefore. not yet been implemented, but reviewed, including the govern- 2. For purposes of subdivision will be implemented in the future, ing body of the public agency (b) of Section 933, as to each grand with a timeframe for implementa- when applicable. This timeframe jury recommendation, the respond- tion. shall not exceed six months from ing person or entity shall report one (3) The recommendation the date of publication of the of the following actions: requires further analysis, with an grand jury report. (1) The recommendation has explanation and the scope and pa- (4)The recommendation will been implemented, with a sum- rameters of an analysis or study, not be implemented because it is mary regarding the implemented and a timeframe for the matter to not warranted or is not reason- action. be prepared for discussion by the able, with an explanation there- officer or head of the agency or fore. 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury

F14: The CWP is effective of law enforcement mis- formed in OCSD. (F.1) for inmates who are not a conduct. The overall effec- threat to society and can be- R.3: The OCSD and the tiveness of this additional come productive members Board of Supervisors should oversight organization has of the community. pursue with the AOC needed yet to be determined. facility upgrades and mainte-

F17: An inmate is identi-

F19: The OIR reports to the be conducted to determine

F20: The booking/receiving nance to avoid future safety have not been analyzed in loop at Theo Lacy is out- issues at courthouse holding order to quantify the success dated, inadequate and inef- facilities. (F.2) and savings achieved by the ficient for the handling of the CWP. increased inmate population. 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury

Recomendaciones adicionales 4

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R4: Funding should be to meet inmate population new overtime policy as soon authorized for immediate growth. (F.6, F.10, F.12) as possible. (F.18) expenditure in 2010 or ear-

R7: Develop a way to R.12b: In order to increase §933.05 calculate recidivism rates savings, the OCSD should 1. For purposes of Subdivision to adequately measure the identify ways to expand (b) of Section 933, as to each grand effectiveness of re-entry the CWP for minimum-risk jury finding, the responding person and post-release programs inmates who are currently or entity shall indicate one of the provided by Inmate Services not participating in the following: Division. (F.8) program. (F.14, F.15) (1) The respondent agrees with the finding.

R8: Programs that provide

R15: A study should be con- the recruitment of these key can be used to address the ducted to reconfigure and contributors. (F.11) concerns of the surrounding remodel the booking/receiv- communities, avoid future

November 04, 2008 — 2008 General Election Report Summary Jury wished to see how the “les- Background and Facts sons learned” during the

4 páginas 4 hallazgos 1 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos

F1: The 2008 General Election (VCCs), the VTC from which the Election Security had a record turnout by mail and trucks departed and collected the pre- at the polling places. Election night security was cinct equipment from the VCCs, and provided by a volunteer force of 65 those deputies who provided internal F.2: The County was well pre- OC Sheriff Department reserve of- and perimeter security at the VTC. pared to handle the voter turnout ficers and four professional service Reserve personnel also provided and handled it well. responders. The Orange County briefings to their people specifying

F2: The recommendation has not tions contained in the report. The yet been implemented, but In accordance with Califor- specific sections are quoted below: will be implemented in the nia Penal Code Sections 933 and §933.05 For purposes of Subdi- future, with a timeframe for 933.05, each recommendation will vision (b) of Section 933, as to each implementation. be responded to by the government grand jury finding, the responding

F3: The County was adequately Sheriffs Department (OCSD) Re- their duties and responsibilities. prepared to handle the contin- serve Bureau has been providing The reserve deputies deployed gencies which occurred on Elec- election security to the Registrar of in the field were in constant contact tion Day and handled it well. Voters Department for at least 28 with the OCSD command center by

F4: Security at the Voter Talley years. These personnel provided a radio. They reported their departures Center and at the Vote Collection variety of services including internal from the garage, their arrivals and Centers was without incident. and perimeter security of the Vote departures from the VCCs, and their Tally Center (VTC). Here 20 reserve departures from the ballot collection F.5: The Registrar’s lessons- officers were posted at key locations centers as well as the numbers of bal- learned activities following the to limit access only to authorized lot boxes they were transporting and election were appropriate to im- personnel. Special security was pro- their arrival at the VTC. More impor- prove future election processes. vided to the computer room where tantly, they immediately reported any Responses to all Findings are only six Registrar employees were unplanned incidents that arose while requested from the Registrar of allowed access. enroute to or deployed at the vote Voters. Another 48 reserve officers per- collection centers. Responses to all Findings are formed driver escort, thus providing Deploying this all-volunteer force required from the Board of Supervi- a chain of custody to the integrity of provided a large cost savings to the sors. the ballots and precinct equipment Orange County taxpayers. It is esti- Responses to all Findings are from the time they were delivered mated that, compared to deploying requested from the County Execu- to the ballot collection centers until regular OCSD deputies on an over- tive Officer. A Response to Finding F4 is Required Responses 1. The recommendation has required from the Orange County been implemented, with The California Penal Code speci- Sheriff. a summary regarding the fies the required permissible respons- implemented action. Recommendations es to the findings and recommenda- 2. The recommendation has not tions contained in the report. The yet been implemented, but In accordance with Califor- specific sections are quoted below: will be implemented in the nia Penal Code Sections 933 and §933.05 For purposes of Subdi- future, with a timeframe for 933.05, each recommendation will vision (b) of Section 933, as to each implementation. be responded to by the government grand jury finding, the responding 3. The recommendation re- entity to which it is addressed. The person or entity shall indicate one of quires further analysis, with responses are to be submitted to the following: an explanation and the scope the Presiding Judge of the Superior 1. The respondent agrees with and parameters of an analysis Court. Based on the findings, the the finding. or study, and a timeframe for 2008-2009 Orange County Grand 2. The respondent disagrees the matter to be prepared for Jury makes the following recommen- wholly or partially with the discussion by the officer or dation: finding, in which case the head of the agency or de-

Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R1: The Registrar of Voters response shall specify the partment being investigated is urged to maintain the posi- portion of the finding that is or reviewed, including the tive efforts acknowledged in the disputed and shall include an governing body of the public report and pursue his estab- explanation of the reasons agency when applicable. This lished strategies to continue to therefore. exact outstanding performance timeframe shall not exceed For purposes of subdivision (b) from his organization and deliver six months from the date of of Section 933, as to each grand jury excellent service to the public. publication of the grand jury recommendation, the responding report. Response to Recommendation 1 person or entity shall report one of 4. The recommendation will is requested from the Registrar of the following actions: not be implemented because Voters. it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explana- tion therefore.

October 22, 2008 — The Guardian of Last Resort Summary business, which is mandated by law Method of Investigation to attend to the details

12 páginas 6 hallazgos 7 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos

F1: The management of PA/PG

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: Personal papers are invento- stacked against the East wall. for administering cases in ried and placed in the personal Place items to be kept into the which the Public Guardian has papers section of the PA/PG lidded boxes. Use the smallest been given medical powers un- warehouse. size appropriate. Put the items der Probate Code Section 2355.

F2: Personnel practices at PA/ b and c, add deputies to help trative cost reductions. The ad- PG have used temporary pro- reduce caseload. ministrative costs have actually motions and selective exclusion increased without any apparent R.2: The Board of Supervisors criteria to circumvent standard improvement in decedent estate should transfer the personnel hiring procedures. processing or conservatee management functions of PA/

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: is required from the Board of development, trials and conver- reports to senior management Supervisors and requested from sion to the replacement for required action. County Executive Office/Orange system. County Human Resources Depart-

F3: The current ePAGES care. The agency has made PG to the OCHR. computer program is no longer ineffective decisions that have

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: The assigned Deputy re- please leave them there). Inven- lic Guardian. moves all papers necessary to tory sorted papers on property POLICY: the administration of the estate inventory sheet as “sorted per- Letters of conservatorship and throws away all junk mail, sonal papers”. Indicating how or orders of conservatorship advertisements, etc. 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury issued to the public Guardian Determines if conservatee is/ mended by Supervisor before may give the Public Guard- is not adherent of a religion authorizing intrusive procedure. ian authority to give medical whose tenets and practices re- REFERENCE: County Counsel consent. Those cases that do lay on prayer alone for healing opinion 91-236 give the Public Guardian au- If yes, contact accredited Probate Code Sections 2355 and thority to give medical consent practitioner of that religion. If 2356 include the authority to consent not, contact treating doctor and OC WASTE AND RECYCLING to intrusive medical procedure request doctor’s declaration in without additional Court ap- writing that treatment is neces- (FORMERLY: COUNTY OF proval when recommended by sary. ORANGE INTEGRATED medical professional. Court After review of doctor’s decla- WASTE MANAGEMENT DE- approval should be requested, ration and conference with case PARTMENT) however, in those cases where worker to obtain additional Disposal Procedures for House- you receive conflicting medi- information, may concur with hold Generated “Sharps” Waste cal advice and cannot make a treatment and authorize proce-

F5: Public Administrator/Pub- be responded to by the government has become top heavy which lic Guardian policies and proce- entity to which it is addressed. The complicates communication dures are outdated, confusing responses are to be submitted to with employees, increases costs and are not being adhered to as the Presiding Judge of the Superior and lowers morale and depart- written making it difficult to ef- Court. Based on the findings, the ment performance. fectively implement the PA/PG 2008-2009 Orange County Grand a) The Administrative stated mission. Jury makes the following recom- Services section consists of mendations:

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: In accordance with the Heirs’ SCRIPTION DRUGS, SHARPS INVENTORIES OF PERSONAL wishes, or after 60 days has AND CONTAMINATED ITEMS PROPERTY elapsed the assigned Deputy PROCEDURE:

F6: The lack of business three managers and two non-

F7: Management practices Level III positions within the trative Services department. used since the separation of PA/PG are unwarranted due the Public Guardian from the

Recomendaciones adicionales 3

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R4: The County Internal Audit Guardian. Based on the results from the Board of Supervisors and Department should conduct of this review and the Grand requested from the County Execu- an in-depth review of OCHR Jury report, they should recon- tive Office and the Orange County personnel records to determine sider whether separating the Health Care Agency. if additional instances of ques- PA/PG from the Health Care tionable pension practices exist Required Responses Agency and turning it into a in agencies other than the PA/ separate stand-alone County The California Penal Code PG office. The audit report and department has been cost and specifies the required permis- any resulting County responses performance improvement sible responses to the findings and will be forwarded to the Grand effective. If not, the Board recommendations contained in the Jury for information. of Supervisors should return report. The specific sections are Public Guardian to the HCA or

R8: When the term of the cur- developed. Appropriate train- (b) of Section 933, as to each rent PA expires in two years, ing based on these documents grand jury finding, the respond- the Board of Supervisors should be given and that action ing person or entity shall indi- should consider moving the documented. cate one of the following: Public Administrator function (1) The respondent agrees into the same department that

R10: During the inventory all sends a memo to personal prop- 3. Property Services Staff will items listed on the inventory erty Services advising whether count and list the number of sheet are tagged or labeled with to ship, destroy or release to a unopened and opened syringes the identifying number on the specified agent. on the inventory sheet in the Property Inventory Sheet and 6. A deputy assigned to a Public presence of the witness. The the identifying code letters. The Guardian case will not release estimated value will be NV- importance of accurate tagging Personal Paper to heirs or No Value. Unopened syringes can not be over emphasized as other family members during are left in their packages and they are used to trace the chain the lifetime of the case, unless placed in a standard inven- of custody from the decedent/ written and informed consent is tory box. Opened syringes are conservatee’s residence to the obtained from the conservatee placed in a sharps container. If warehouse and ultimately to and only if there is no will de- the sharps container becomes buyers and heirs. tailing disposition of personal full, a plastic soda bottle or Policy and Procedure 4.6 property. similar appropriate container MAINTAINING WAREHOUSE Policy and Procedure 4.10 will be used to temporarily store the sharps. Sharps will be AND IMPOUND SECURITY ACCESS/USE OF PA/PG PA- removed form the temporary PRACTICE PERS ROOM, BUILDING “B” container and put in a designat- To establish a uniform proce- (Remember this Policy has ed sharps container upon return dure for access and security been deleted according to the note to the warehouse. of the PA/PG warehouse and attached to it directing the reader Policy and Procedure No.8.9 impound area. to 4.6) PA papers are to the right, PG PUBLIC GUARDIAN AUTHOR- Policy and Procedure No. 4.8 papers are to the left. Unsorted ITY IN INTRUSIVE MEDICAL DISPOSITION OF PERSONAL papers are on the racks labeled PROCEDURE PAPERS “unsorted PA papers”. Empty PURPOSE: PROCEDURE: boxes for sorting into are To establish a uniform policy

”Statement of

16 páginas 10 hallazgos 10 recomendaciones

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

“Paper Water” — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future? Summary “Predictions are for a 67% The unique complexities

22 páginas 3 hallazgos 4 recomendaciones

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