Orange County Grand Jury

2009-2010

13 reports

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Support a Revision of the California Penal Code: Orange County should join other counties in supporting a revision of the California Penal code that would eliminate or modify the Inconclusive finding. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. SSA will request that the CWDA agendize, for discussion, the issue of revision of the California Penal Code as it relates to the Inconclusive finding at the meeting to be held on January 13, 2011. Current Status: The recommendation has been implemented. In October 2010, SSA submitted a proposal to the County Welfare Director's Association (CWDA) Children's Committee, Policy Committee, and Operations Committee requesting amendment to the California Penal Code to eliminate the current requirement for submission of Inconclusive findings of child abuse and severe neglect to the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI). Although in December 2010, SSA was notified by CWDA that the proposal was reviewed and CWDA declined to support the recommendation. SSA continues to work with Orange County CEO/Legislative Affairs Office to pursue the proposal to revise the Penal Code. Lobbying: The Shadow Government Report: Released: June 9, 2010
R2: Annual Cost Analysis-OC Crime Lab: The County Internal Auditor should conduct an annual cost analysis as to what it would cost for the Orange County Crime Lab to analyze the DNA samples collected by the Orange Count District Attorney that are now being sent to Bode Technology Group, Inc. of Virginia. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The Internal Audit Department currently does not have the audit resources to allow for an annual cost analysis as recommended. Funding availability for a cost analysis could be considered during the Strategic Financial Plan process in the fall of 2010. Current Status: The recommendation has been implemented. Internal Audit conducted a preliminary survey on whether the Orange County Crime Lab (OCCL) can process and analyze the DNA samples being collected by the Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) on a low cost comparable basis to what the OCDA currently pays to Bode Technology Group Inc. of Virginia. After conducting interviews and discussing relevant and critical cost information related to the OCDA's contract with Bode it was determined that the OCCL was not competitive with Bode on either the price or the volume of samples being processed for the OCDA. There are some very important differences in the type of sample and the context of its collection that make the two operations so different so as to be really outside an easy or ready comparison. It was concluded that OCCL is not a competitive, commercial business which processes "standard" DNA samples in a wholesale fashion like Bode. The Internal Audit Department does not see the benefit of performing this review on an annual basis. Annual Cost Analysis-DA Database: Annually review the costs associated with
R3: collections, analysis and uploading DNA profiles in the Orange County's District Attorney's database with a view toward instituting or raising fees from individuals, cities, or any others who request access to the database. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The Internal Audit Department currently does not have the audit resources to allow for an annual review as recommended. Funding availability for a cost analysis could be considered during the Strategic Financial Plan process in the fall of 2010. Current Status: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The Internal Audit Department does not see the benefit of performing this review on an annual basis. DA DNA Unit Review: The County of Orange Internal Audit should review the
R4: District Attorney's DNA unit to determine the actual costs associated with this specialized unit, including the collection and processing of DNA samples, and the operations and maintenance of the database, including updating of the software. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The Internal Audit Department currently does not have the audit resources to allow for a review as recommended. Funding availability for a cost analysis could be considered during the Strategic Financial Plan process in the fall of 2010. Current Status: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The Internal Audit Department does not see the benefit of performing this review on an annual basis. Report: Child Abuse Central Index Released: June 15, 2010
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F4: JDAI assessment: Because the JDAI pro- R.4 Cost effectiveness: The Grand Jury cau- gram in Orange County is still in its early tions the Probation Department that success stages, it is too early to assess the program’s should not be measured just by empty beds success or failure. in Juvenile Hall and related cost savings, but in reducing recidivism rates.
F5: Cost effectiveness: Saving money for the County by vacating beds at Juvenile Hall is Responses to Recommendations R.1 through clearly a worthy objective, but it is not the R.4 are requested from the Orange County Proba- only criterion that must be considered. tion Department. Responses to Findings F.2 through F.5 are requested from the Probation Department. 7. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code specifies the required 6. RECOMMENDATIONS permissible responses to the findings and recom- mendations contained in this report. The specific In accordance with California Penal Code Sec- sections are quoted below: tions 933 and 933.05, the 2009-2010 Grand Jury requires, or as noted, requests responses from each §933.05 agency affected by the recommendations presented (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section in this section. The responses are to be submitted to 933, as to each grand jury finding the responding the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. person or entity shall indicate one of the following: Based on its investigation of Orange County (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. Probation Department’s Juvenile Detention Alter- (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or native Initiative, the 2009-2010 Orange County partially with the finding, in which case Grand Jury makes the following four recommenda- the response shall specify the portion of the tions: finding that is disputed and shall include an
Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Lack of communication: In order for the explanation of the reasons therefore. RAI to achieve its optimum effectiveness, (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section the Grand Jury believes it is important that 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the all affected law enforcement agencies have responding person or entity shall report one of the a working knowledge of RAI. Additionally, following actions: the Orange County Probation Department (1) The recommendation has been imple- needs to collaborate with law enforcement. mented, with a summary regarding the
R2: Method of communication: Orange County implemented action. Probation Department must ensure that law (2) The recommendation has not yet been enforcement agencies have received and un- implemented, but will be implemented in derstood RAI information, and the agencies the future, with a timeframe for implemen- have an opportunity to provide feedback to tation. the Probation Department. (3) The recommendation requires further
R3: JDAI assessment: Orange County Proba- analysis, with an explanation and the scope tion should continue monitoring recidivism and parameters of an analysis or study, and rates to determine whether the JDAI pro- a timeframe for the matter to be prepared gram is an appropriate approach to interven- for discussion by the officer or head of the ing with juveniles who enter the juvenile agency or department being investigated or 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be imple- mented because it is not warranted or is not reason- able, with an explanation therefore. 8. COMMENDATION The Grand Jury was pleased that the Orange County Register newspaper recently printed two articles about the JDAI program in Orange County. These reports were timely given the study being conducted by the Grand Jury. 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury
R8: COMMENDATION The Grand Jury was pleased that the Orange County Register newspaper recently printed two articles about the JDAI program in Orange County. These reports were timely given the study being conducted by the Grand Jury. 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: The five agencies cited or studied provide to increase the use of natural lighting and reduce examples of environmentally-conscious prac- maintenance and energy costs. tices that are economically sound. In its environmental policy statement, John
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The sound environmental practices of the of low-emission electric vehicles and support equip- five agencies studied by the Grand Jury ment also has cut emissions. should be emulated by other Orange County Airport policy now requires all fleet vehicles, government entities. such as taxi cabs and parking shuttles, to use com- Response to Recommendation R.1 is required pressed natural gas (CNG) or other clean burning from the Board of Supervisors. Page  . REQUIRED RESPONSES (1) The recommendation has been imple- mented, with a summary regarding the The California Penal Code specifies the required implemented action. permissible responses to the findings and recom- (2) The recommendation has not yet been mendations contained in this report. The specific implemented, but will be implemented in sections are quoted below: the future, with a timeframe for implemen- §933.05 tation. (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section (3) The recommendation requires further 933, as to each grand jury finding the responding analysis, with an explanation and the scope person or entity shall indicate one of the following: and parameters of an analysis or study, and (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or agency or department being investigated or partially with the finding, in which case reviewed, including the governing body of the response shall specify the portion of the the public agency when applicable. This finding that is disputed and shall include an timeframe shall not exceed six months from explanation of the reasons therefore. the date of publication of the grand jury (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section report. 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the (4) The recommendation will not be imple- responding person or entity shall report one of the mented because it is not warranted or is not following actions: reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury Page 
F2: OC Waste & Recycling is one of the most Wayne Airport cites "rigorous" testing of on-site fuel cost-conscious agencies in the county and tanks to prevent leaks and notes that airport employ- one of the most respected in the nation. ees and tenants undergo regular training in contain- ment, cleanup and pollution prevention techniques. Responses to F.1, F.2 are required from the To prevent or reduce pollution, the airport diverts Board of Supervisors. storm water runoff through oil-water separators Response to F.2 is required from OC Waste & before the runoff leaves JWA. The airport uses site- Recycling specific structural and non-structural "best manage- ment practices" to reduce the potential for pollutants RECOMMENDATIONS 6. to contaminate storm water discharges. The airport has achieved major reductions in In accordance with California Penal Code Sec- emissions from aircraft and vehicles that use JWA. tions 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be Ten times less fuel is burned by making airliners responded to by the government entity to which it is replace jet-fueled onboard auxiliary power units addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the (APUs) with ground-based electrical power and Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the electric preconditioned air units. Substantial reduc- findings, the 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury tions in carbon emissions and lower fuel costs have makes the following recommendations: resulted. On the commercial aircraft ramp, the use
Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R6: to contaminate storm water discharges. The airport has achieved major reductions in In accordance with California Penal Code Sec- emissions from aircraft and vehicles that use JWA. tions 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be Ten times less fuel is burned by making airliners responded to by the government entity to which it is replace jet-fueled onboard auxiliary power units addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the (APUs) with ground-based electrical power and Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the electric preconditioned air units. Substantial reduc-
R7: REQUIRED RESPONSES (1) The recommendation has been imple- mented, with a summary regarding the The California Penal Code specifies the required implemented action. permissible responses to the findings and recom- (2) The recommendation has not yet been mendations contained in this report. The specific implemented, but will be implemented in sections are quoted below: the future, with a timeframe for implemen- §933.05 tation. (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section (3) The recommendation requires further 933, as to each grand jury finding the responding analysis, with an explanation and the scope person or entity shall indicate one of the following: and parameters of an analysis or study, and (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or agency or department being investigated or partially with the finding, in which case reviewed, including the governing body of the response shall specify the portion of the the public agency when applicable. This
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F2: Orange County police agencies can report When a name has been sent to Sacramento for names directly to CACI without notifying inclusion in CACI as a result of a Substantiated Children and Family Services. or Inconclusive finding, the person has 30 days
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Orange County CFS should be the central (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section reporting agency for all county CACI reports 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the and should conduct all grievance hearings. responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
F3: A court decision does not always result in to appeal that action through Children and Fam- removal of a name from CACI by the Chil- ily Services. However, the time limit is not strictly dren and Family Services. enforced; hearings often are granted after the time
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Case files should reflect oral and written notification of the suspects and any unsuc- (1) The recommendation has been imple- cessful contact should be noted. mented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
F4: There is no system to verify that individu- period has expired. als received notification that their name had CFS may resolve a grievance either by review of been placed on CACI. records or a formal hearing process then notifying
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Registered Mail should be considered for written notifications. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in Responses to Recommendation R1 through R4 the future, with a timeframe for implemen- are requested from the Orange County Children tation. and Family Services, a department of the Social Services Agency. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope 7. REQUIRED RESPONSES and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared The California Penal Code specifies the required for discussion by the officer or head of the permissible responses to the findings and recom- agency or department being investigated or mendations contained in this report. The specific reviewed, including the governing body of sections are quoted below: the public agency when applicable. This §933.05 timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section report. 933, as to each grand jury finding the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (4) The recommendation will not be imple- mented because it is not warranted or is not (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or
F5: Children and Family Services is investigating CDOJ of any pertinent changes in the case disposi- child abuse in a professional and well-orga- tion affecting CACI. nized manner and maintains an unbiased A grievance hearing is the final level of review. appeal procedure. The grievance goes to a hearing officer in the Pro-
F6: There is a high level of initial and ongoing gram Integrity section of the Social Services Agency. training required for all CFS social workers. These hearing officers are separate from CFS. They do not participate in the investigations and do not Responses to Findings F1 through F4 are report to any department or manager in CFS. This is requested from the Orange County Social Services to ensure their independence.20 Agency. The hearing officer reviews pertinent files and 6. RECOMMENDATIONS schedules a hearing. The appellant is entitled to legal representation. Based on its investigation of the Social Services Those Police Departments independently sub- Agency in Orange County, the 2009-2010 Orange mitting names to CDOJ utilize their own appeal County Grand Jury makes the following four recom- process. mendations: 19California Penal Code Section 11170(3)(f)(1) 20OCSSA CFS Operations Manual A-301
Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Orange County should join other counties partially with the finding, in which case in supporting a revision of the California the response shall specify the portion of the Penal Code that would eliminate or modify finding that is disputed and shall include an the Inconclusive finding. explanation of the reasons therefore.
R7: REQUIRED RESPONSES and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared The California Penal Code specifies the required for discussion by the officer or head of the permissible responses to the findings and recom- agency or department being investigated or mendations contained in this report. The specific reviewed, including the governing body of sections are quoted below: the public agency when applicable. This §933.05 timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section report. 933, as to each grand jury finding the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (4) The recommendation will not be imple- mented because it is not warranted or is not (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F2: Westminster does not include field staff and car. The home kit should be stored in an easily acces- supervisory staff in its quarterly “tabletop” sible location and placed into a mobile, watertight exercises. container such as a wheeled trash barrel. The car kit
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Westminster should include representa- tives from supervision and appropriate field (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. operations in quarterly “tabletop” exercises; (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or CERT volunteers should help to set up the partially with the finding, in which case EOC during activation and be included in” the response shall specify the portion of the tabletop” exercises. finding that is disputed and shall include an
F3: Costa Mesa’s backup EOC is located either should be in an easily carried pack, such as a back- in the Police Department Communications pack, and each kit should have an identification tag Room or at Fire Station #5, both in the same for each person. area as the primary EOC. The Red Cross suggests the following items for
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Costa Mesa should find a backup EOC explanation of the reasons therefore. location that is not within the Civic Center (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section complex. 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the
F4: Santa Ana, in an emergency, will use fire- both the home and car kits: fighters from Station #3 to assist in setting • First aid kit and essential medications. up the EOC. • Canned food and can opener.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Santa Ana should recruit and train CERT responding person or entity shall report one of the volunteers and staff located in the Public following actions: Works Administration Building to help set (1) The recommendation has been imple- up the EOC during activation. Firefighters mented, with a summary regarding the from station #3 should be utilized to evalu- implemented action. ate emergency needs throughout the city. (2) The recommendation has not yet been
F5: San Clemente uses effective procedures to • At least three gallons of water per person. alert, notify and mobilize the EOC staff in a timely manner, using telephones, pagers, • Protective clothing, rainwear and bedding or cellular phones and text messaging. sleeping bags.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Although the time taken to set up San Clem- implemented, but will be implemented in ente’s EOC to make it operational has been the future, with a timeframe for implemen- deemed adequate, the city should consider tation. adding wiring and permanent displays to the (3) The recommendation requires further EOC facility to reduce setup time. analysis, with an explanation and the scope
F6: Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD), • Battery-powered radio, flashlight and extra through donations and grants, has built an batteries. impressive, sophisticated EOC. CUSD has a • Special items for infant, elderly, or disabled mobile command vehicle ready with resourc- family members. es to support school relocation or any other • Written instructions for how to turn off gas, emergency in its jurisdiction. electricity and water if necessary. Responses to Finding F.2 are required from the • Keep essentials, such as a flashlight and Mayor, City of Westminster. Responses to Finding sturdy shoes, by your bedside.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Orange County and its municipalities should and parameters of an analysis or study, and continue to make public safety and disaster a timeframe for the matter to be prepared preparedness the number one priority. Public for discussion by the officer or head of the education should be stressed through www. agency or department being investigated readyoc.org and emergency management or reviewed, including the governing body expos. of the public agency when applicable. This Responses to Recommendation R.2 are re- timeframe shall not exceed six months from quired from the Mayor, City of Westminster. the date of publication of the grand jury Responses to Recommendation R.3 are required report. from the Mayor, City of Costa Mesa. Responses (4) The recommendation will not be imple- to Recommendation R.4 are required from the mented because it is not warranted or is not Mayor, City of Santa Ana. Responses to Recom- reasonable, with an explanation therefore. mendation R.5 are required from the Mayor, City of San Clemente. 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 7. REQUIRED RESPONSES The 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury acknowledges the following individuals and organi- The California Penal Code specifies the required zations for their assistance in compiling this report: permissible responses to the findings and recom- City of Anaheim – Ellen Lopez, Manager, Office mendations contained in this report. The specific of Disaster Preparedness. sections are quoted below: City of Costa Mesa – Elizabeth Edlemon, Direc- §933.05 tor, Emergency Services. Page  2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury City of Mission Viejo – Paul Catsimanes, Public those who live or work in Orange County informed Service Administrative Manager. of important information during emergency events and has the capability of quickly sending time-sensi- City of Santa Ana – Captain Steve Snyder, tive emergency voice messages from public safety Emergency Management. officials to your home, cell or business phone. City of San Clemente – Jen Tucker, Emergency WebEOC – A web-based (Extranet) program Planning Officer. being hosted by the Operational Area EOC with City of Westminster – Rebecca Barlow, Emer- redundant systems at Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine gency Preparedness. and Huntington Beach, available to all cities and the Orange County Fire Authority – Battalion Chief State, enables communication between jurisdictions. Mike Fertig, Emergency Planning. Includes displaying of significant events, resource John Wayne Airport – Allen Murphy, Airport tracking, and latest situation status and activity logs. Director; Jim Ellis, Administrative Manager, Provides a list of all employee contacts for the city, Emergency Preparedness CERT volunteers and allows members to monitor from home. Emergency Management Bureau (Loma Ridge) – Donna Boston, Emergency Manager. CERT – Community Emergency Response Team: Program educates people about disaster pre- Orange County Water District – Kelly Hubbard, paredness for hazards that may impact their area and Emergency Response Organization. trains them in basic disaster response skills, such as San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station – Deb- fire safety, light search and rescue, team organization, bie Knight, Corporate Communications South- and disaster medical operations. Using the training ern California Edison learned in the classroom and during exercises, CERT members can assist others in their neighborhood or 9.
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R7: REQUIRED RESPONSES The 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury acknowledges the following individuals and organi- The California Penal Code specifies the required zations for their assistance in compiling this report: permissible responses to the findings and recom- City of Anaheim – Ellen Lopez, Manager, Office mendations contained in this report. The specific of Disaster Preparedness. sections are quoted below: City of Costa Mesa – Elizabeth Edlemon, Direc- §933.05 tor, Emergency Services. Page  2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury City of Mission Viejo – Paul Catsimanes, Public those who live or work in Orange County informed Service Administrative Manager. of important information during emergency events and has the capability of quickly sending time-sensi- City of Santa Ana – Captain Steve Snyder, tive emergency voice messages from public safety Emergency Management. officials to your home, cell or business phone. City of San Clemente – Jen Tucker, Emergency WebEOC – A web-based (Extranet) program Planning Officer. being hosted by the Operational Area EOC with City of Westminster – Rebecca Barlow, Emer- redundant systems at Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine gency Preparedness. and Huntington Beach, available to all cities and the Orange County Fire Authority – Battalion Chief State, enables communication between jurisdictions. Mike Fertig, Emergency Planning. Includes displaying of significant events, resource John Wayne Airport – Allen Murphy, Airport tracking, and latest situation status and activity logs. Director; Jim Ellis, Administrative Manager, Provides a list of all employee contacts for the city, Emergency Preparedness CERT volunteers and allows members to monitor from home. Emergency Management Bureau (Loma Ridge) – Donna Boston, Emergency Manager. CERT – Community Emergency Response Team: Program educates people about disaster pre- Orange County Water District – Kelly Hubbard, paredness for hazards that may impact their area and Emergency Response Organization. trains them in basic disaster response skills, such as San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station – Deb- fire safety, light search and rescue, team organization, bie Knight, Corporate Communications South- and disaster medical operations. Using the training ern California Edison learned in the classroom and during exercises, CERT members can assist others in their neighborhood or
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: Repayment of $134 million loan. Terms of the Loan Agreement make it difficult for the Irvine Redevelopment Agency to fully repay its $134 million loan from the City of Irvine.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Repayment of $134 million loan. Irvine Redevelopment Agency Board members (who also are Irvine City Council members) should decide whether they will commit to repaying the $134 million which they borrowed from the City. If they will not make that commitment, they should amend the Loan Agreement by removing conditions that make full repayment extremely difficult.
F2: Forgiving the loan. After setting difficult standards for loan repayment, City and Redevelopment officials then agreed to forgive the loan if it is not repaid after the Redevelopment Agency expires in 45 years. 19
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Forgiving the loan. The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency Board should consider amending the forgiveness clause in the Loan Agreement to ensure that the $134 million loan is repaid. 20
F3: Business cycle ignored. In forecasting steadily increasing tax increment revenue over the Redevelopment Agency‟s 45-year life, Agency officials ignored the periodic recessionary effect that the business cycle has on assessed valuation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Business cycle ignored. Tax increment revenue projections made by the Redevelopment Agency should be revised to take into account the business cycle that regularly puts the economy through predictable periods of recession and recovery.
F4: Promises of no new taxes. Despite pledges that no new taxes would be needed to build the Great Park, much of the Park‟s proposed funding will come from new taxes and the redirecting of increased property taxes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Promises of no new taxes. City officials should inform Irvine residents that new taxes and/or increases in existing taxes may be needed for Great Park construction.
F5: Potential conflict of interest. It is difficult for differing views to be adopted in Great Park planning because the five people who are City Council members also are the Redevelopment Agency Board members as well as the majority the Great Park Board. Responses to Findings F.1 and F.2 are required from the Irvine City Council and Irvine Redevelopment Agency. Response to Finding F.3 is required from the Irvine Redevelopment Agency. Responses to Findings F.4 and F.5 are required from the Irvine City Council. 7. Recommendations. In accordance with California Penal Code 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings, the 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Potential conflict of interest. The five Irvine City Council members should make the boards of the Great Park Corp. and the Redevelopment Agency and the Council independent of one another. Responses to Recommendations R. 1 and R. 2 are required from the Irvine City Council and Irvine Redevelopment Agency. Response to Recommendation R.3 is required from the Irvine Redevelopment Agency. Responses to Recommendations R.4 and R.5 are required from the Irvine City Council. 8. Required Responses The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in the report. The specific sections are quoted below: 933.05 1. For purposes to Subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. 21 2. For purposes of subdivision (b) or Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding persons or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. Appendix: Financing the Great Park The following documents and written sources were used in the preparation of this report: American City & County. June 1, 2009. “Grand Plans for the Great Park,” by Larry Agran. Contract Compliance Review of Agreement for Master Designer Services. Oct. 1, 2009. Orange County Great Park Corp. Financial Statement, with Report on Audit, Irvine Redevelopment Agency. June 30, 2007. Financial Statement, with Report on Audit, Irvine Redevelopment Agency. June 30, 2008. Great Park Corp. Board of Directors Meeting. Dec. 5, 2003. Los Angeles Times. Jan. 5, 2005. “Great Park to Get Tax Funds?” by Daniel Yi. Los Angeles Times. Aug. 14, 2008. “Designers underestimate Orange County Great Park building costs, firm says,” by Paloma Esquivel. Orange County Great Park Proposed Strategic Business Plan. Nov. 12,, 2009. Orange County Register. March 14, 2008. “Great Park board discusses cash flow,” by Cameron Bird. Orange County Register. March 14, 2008. “Great Park will costs $377 million more,” by Sean Emery. Redevelopment Plan, Orange County Great Park Redevelopment Project. Adopted by Irvine City Council March 8, 2005. (Ordinance No. 05-04) Purchase and Sale and Financing Agreement Between the Irvine Redevelopment Agency and City of Irvine. Adopted by Irvine City Council, Aug. 14, 2007. Redevelopment Tax Increment Projections. Heritage Fields, Sept. 4, 2009, scenario. State of the City Speech. Jan. 27, 2004. Larry Agran. State of the Park Speech. July 9, 2009. Larry Agran. What Is Mello-Roos? www.californiataxdata.com ##### 23
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R8: Required Responses The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: There is no reference to fraud prevention in the number of fraud investigators has reduced the the Mission statement or the vision of the essential support for fraud detection. Social workers Social Services Agency. This lack of emphasis often are pressured by supervisors to act on an appli- on fraud detection by management results in cation before the investigation is complete. In most welfare funds going to ineligible individuals. instances, the case is approved and sent to ongoing
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Social Services Agency should include in its the response shall specify the portion of the Mission Statement
F2: The Social Services Agency has not per- case technicians to deal with future problems. formed any meaningful analyses to deter- The state audit points out that “early fraud mine the cost effectiveness of its efforts to detection programs generally are more cost effective detect and deter fraud in the CalWORKS than ongoing investigations.”12 Intake social work- and food stamp programs. The only statistics ers are hampered because they are not authorized to that are used by the Social Services Agency, do field investigations. State law requires that sworn other than the number of applications, are officers conduct all field investigations.13 those recorded and kept by the District 4.10 Disbursement of Funds Attorney’s office as required by the state.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Social Services Agency should develop responding person or entity shall report one of the management reporting systems that monitor following actions: the performance of the fraud detection and (1) The recommendation has been imple- prevention program. mented, with a summary regarding the
F3: There is no structured cross-training or shar- The disbursement of funds is the main prior- ing between social workers and investiga- ity of the CalWORKS program. SSA managers see tors with regard to the role each plays in the fraud detection and prevention as a distraction to investigative process. this process. The emphasis is on completing cases
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Social Services Agency should develop cross implemented action. training and cross sharing between the Social (2) The recommendation has not yet been Services intake workers and the fraud investi- implemented, but will be implemented in the gators. future, with a timeframe for implementation.
F4: There is no evidence of fraud detection and not the integrity of the application. Some intake training in an organized, periodic fashion supervisors stated that the reduction in fraud refer- that meets the State requirement, beyond the rals enables intake workers to process cases more initial orientation training each new em- quickly. Intake workers do not have to wait for the ployee receives as required by California DSS fraud investigation to be completed before they ap- MANUAL CFC 98 01 20 005 24. prove the application. In such situations the poten- tial for fraudulent payments is increased.14 F.5: The fiduciary responsibility to protect tax funds from abuse should not be mitigated 5. FINDINGS by budget cuts. It is the responsibility of the In accordance with California Penal Code Sec- Social Services Agency to ensure the integ- tions 933 and 933.05, the 2009-2010 Grand Jury rity of the fraud detection and prevention requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each program. agency affected by the findings presented in this F.6: Social Services Agency does not effectively section. The responses are to be submitted to the utilize statistical records that would assist in Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. management of the program and evaluating Based on its investigation of Fraud Prevention employee performance. in Orange County, the 2009-2010 Orange County F.7: In the last half of 2009, Social Services Agen- Grand Jury has arrived at seven principal findings, as cy cut the fraud detection and prevention follows: function by $900,000 in staffing, resulting 12California State Audit Report 2009- 101 page21 13DSS MANUAL 98-01 , Fraud and suspected law violations recipient fraud 10-007. 115 14Interviews Page  2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury in an estimated $9.6 million paid out in R.7: Social Services Agency needs to restore fraud fraudulent claims during the last six months detection staffing to the 2008 level. of 2009. Responses to Recommendation R1 through Responses to Findings F1 through F7 are R7 are requested from the Orange County Social requested from the Orange County Social Services Services Agency. Agency. 7. REQUIRED RESPONSES 6. RECOMMENDATIONS The California Penal Code specifies the required In accordance with California Penal Code Sec- permissible responses to the findings and recom- tions 933 and 933.05, the 2009-2010 Grand Jury mendations contained in this report. The specific requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each sections are quoted below: agency affected by the recommendations presented §933.05 in this section. The responses are to be submitted to (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding Based on its investigation of the Social Services person or entity shall indicate one of the following: Agency in Orange County, the 2009-2010 Orange (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. County Grand Jury makes the following seven (7) (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or recommendations: partially with the finding, in which case
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Social Services Agency should provide an- (3) The recommendation requires further nual ongoing fraud detection training in analysis, with an explanation and the scope accordance with the California-DSS-MAN- and parameters of an analysis or study, and UAL-CFC-98-01 20-005.24. a timeframe for the matter to beprepared
Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: Social Services Agency should develop a plan for discussion by the officer or head of the that maintains program integrity in fraud agency or department being investigated or detection at the 2008 level or greater. reviewed, including the governing body of
R6: Social Services Agency should better utilize the public agency when applicable. This statistical records to assist them in manage- timeframe shall not exceed six months from ment of the fraud detection and prevention the date of publication of the grand jury program and evaluation of employee perfor- report. mance. 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury (4) The recommendation will not be imple- Chart-6 mented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.” Average number of referrals submitted by SSA workers - July through December 2008 to 2009. 8. COMMENDATIONS Chart-7 The Grand Jury extends their appreciation to members of the Social Services Agency and the of- Total number of Investigators - July through fice of the District Attorney’s Welfare Fraud unit for December 2008 to 2009. their assistance and cooperation in the research and Chart-8 development of this report. State formulas used to determine cost avoidance 9.
R8: COMMENDATIONS Chart-7 The Grand Jury extends their appreciation to members of the Social Services Agency and the of- Total number of Investigators - July through fice of the District Attorney’s Welfare Fraud unit for December 2008 to 2009. their assistance and cooperation in the research and Chart-8 development of this report. State formulas used to determine cost avoidance
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Lack of coordination: Orange County a $353 million national grant. In March 2010, Health Care Agency currently is respon- Orange County learned that its $20 million grant sible for the coordination of all programs proposal to be used to fight childhood obesity in the receiving grants to fight childhood obesity. County was not selected. OCHCA and groups of administrators at- The County had submitted a plan along with tempt to coordinate the efforts of numerous the grant application outlining how the grant money programs. However, with limited personnel was to be used. Had the County been awarded dedicated to childhood obesity prevention, the grant, this money would have gone a long way OCHCA is unable to provide the required toward enhancing the coordination of existing coordination to better use its limited funds. programs as well as developing additional programs
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Lack of coordination: The County needs to address the coordination gap which exists §933.05 between all of the programs designed to ad- (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section dress childhood obesity in the County. The 933, as to each grand jury finding the responding necessary resources need to be appropriated person or entity shall indicate one of the following: to ensure centralized coordination by OCH- (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. CA of these programs. (See Finding 1) (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or
F2: Grant limitations: The County receives fed- designed to address childhood obesity. The obesity eral and state grants that support programs problem still exists. The fight against childhood to fight childhood obesity which contain obesity is negatively impacted by the failure of this conditions that restrict how funds may be grant money to be awarded to Orange County. This used, thus limiting the effectiveness of the over reliance on grant money will limit OCHCA’s programs’ efforts. For example, some chil- ability to implement those plans outlined in the dren may be excluded because they are not grant application in addressing this growing epi- in a group targeted by grant criteria, such as demic. County government needs to make a com- food stamp eligibility or being below federal mitment to be creative and aggressive in appropriat- poverty level. ing resources or we can expect to continue to lose
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Grant limitations: The County should partially with the finding, in which case dedicate funding to address the childhood the response shall specify the portion of the obesity epidemic across all demographic finding that is disputed and shall include an groups. (See Finding 2) explanation of the reasons therefore.
F3: Over-reliance on grant funds: There is an ground in reversing this epidemic. over-reliance by the County on state and federal grants to address the obesity epidemic 4.8 Commendation in children. There is no assurance that any grants will be awarded. The 2009-2010 Grand Jury commends and thanks the personnel of OCHCA for their assistance F.4 Lack of parental involvement: Parental and cooperation during this study. involvement is a crucial element in combat- ing childhood obesity. Existing city and county programs, networks, workgroups and committees are composed of administrators Page  2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury from various public agencies, who meet pe- ner groups in expanding their fight against riodically. Few, if any of these groups meet childhood obesity. (See Finding 3) directly with parents; therefore, little infor-
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Over-reliance on grant funds: The County (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section should provide support through the use of 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the generalfunds to assist OCHCA and its part- 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury responding person or entity shall report one of the 8.
F5: Lack of comprehensive plans: There is not ment new programs or adapt current ones a comprehensive plan which outlines all to directly involve parents through regularly County efforts in place to address childhood scheduled meetings designed to promote obesity. healthy children. (See Finding 4) Responses to Findings F.1 through F.5 are re- R.5 Lack of comprehensive plans: The County quested from Orange County Health Care Agency. and OCHCA need to create a compre- hensive strategic plan which addresses and Responses to Findings F.2, F.3, and F.5 are measures all efforts designed to fight the required from the Orange County Board of Super- childhood obesity epidemic in the County. visors. (See Finding 5) 6. RECOMMENDATIONS Responses to Recommendations R.1 through
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: are requested from Orange County Health In accordance with California Penal Code Sec- Care Agency. tions 933 and 933.05, the 2009-2010 Grand Jury Responses to Recommendation R.2 and R.3 requires, or as noted, requests responses from each are required from the Orange County Board of agency affected by the recommendations presented Supervisors. in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. 7. REQUIRED RESPONSES Based on its investigation of Childhood Obesity in Orange County, the 2009-2010 Orange County The California Penal Code specifies the required Grand Jury makes the following five recommenda- permissible responses to the findings and recom- tions: mendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below:
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: Lack of parental involvement: The County mation reaches the home. and OCHCA should create and imple-
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F4: Compliance: All facilities were found to be Response to Recommendation R.2 is requested in compliance with state law and regulations from Garden Grove Police Department. at the time of inspection. Response to Recommendation R.3 is requested Response to Finding F.1 is required from the from Santa Ana City Jail Administrator. Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. 7. REQUIRED RESPONSES Response to Finding F.2 is requested from the Police Chief of the Garden Grove Police Depart- The California Penal Code specifies the required ment. permissible responses to the findings and recom- Response to Finding F.3 is requested from mendations contained in this report. The specific Santa Ana City Jail Administrator. sections are quoted below: Response to Finding F.4: No response is re- §933.05 quired or expected to this Finding. (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding the responding 6. RECOMMENDATIONS person or entity shall indicate one of the following: In accordance with California Penal Code Sec- (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. tion 933 and 933.05, the 2009-2010 Grand Jury (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each partially with the finding, in which case agency affected by the recommendations presented the response shall specify the portion of the in this section. The responses are to be submitted to finding that is disputed and shall include an the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. explanation of the reasons therefore. Based on its investigation of Detention Facilities (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section in Orange County, the 2009-2010 Orange County 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the Grand Jury makes the following three recommenda- responding person or entity shall report one of the tions: following actions:
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F2: With at least $4.4 billion dollars at stake, the the Clerk of the Board detailing their public deserves to know: lobbying activities during the preceding quarter, includingthe following: • How the money is spent a. A description of the matters for • How decisions are made to allocate these which the lobbyist or lobbyist firm funds and attempted to influence official ac- • The influence of paid lobbyists in this tion. decision process b. The payments made to the lobbyist
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The language in the lobbying ordinance County Officeholder or Department should be written in a manner to improve Head. All lobbyists or lobbying firms the community’s trust in county govern- will update their registration annually. ment. 2. Fees: The County should establish a fee
F3: The lack of a lobbying ordinance reduces or lobbyist firm for their services and transparency of County Government. the source of payment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Orange County ordinance should apply schedule for initial and annual registra- to all elected and appointed County Officers tion of lobbyists. The fees should be ad- as well as all County Department Heads. equate to offset the cost of administering the lobbyist registration and reporting Responses to Recommendations R.1, R.2, and process. R.3. are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. 3. Reporting: Each lobbyist and lobbying firm should file a quarterly report with . REQUIRED RESPONSES (1) The recommendation has been imple- mented, with a summary regarding the The California Penal Code specifies the required implemented action. permissible responses to the findings and recom- (2) The recommendation has not yet been mendations contained in this report. The specific implemented, but will be implemented in sections are quoted below: the future, with a timeframe for implemen- §933.05 tation. (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section (3) The recommendation requires further 933, as to each grand jury finding the responding analysis, with an explanation and the scope person or entity shall indicate one of the following: and parameters of an analysis or study, and (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or agency or department being investigated or partially with the finding, in which case reviewed, including the governing body of the response shall specify the portion of the the public agency when applicable. This
F4: Most lobbying ordinances apply both to c. Payments in any form given to elected and appointed officials as well as County officials during the preceding department heads. month. F.5 The Board of Supervisors has begun con- d. Campaign contributions made to sideration of this issue, but is divided in its County elected officials. support of a substantive lobbying ordinance. 4. Data Base: The Clerk of the Board Responses to Findings F.1, F.2, F.3, and F.4 are should maintain comprehensive data required from the Orange County Board of Super- regarding all registered lobbyists includ- visors. ing quarterly reports and registration 6. RECOMMENDATIONS information. These data will be part of the public record and be fully accessible
F5: The Board of Supervisors has begun con- d. Campaign contributions made to sideration of this issue, but is divided in its County elected officials. support of a substantive lobbying ordinance. 4. Data Base: The Clerk of the Board Responses to Findings F.1, F.2, F.3, and F.4 are should maintain comprehensive data required from the Orange County Board of Super- regarding all registered lobbyists includ- visors. ing quarterly reports and registration 6. RECOMMENDATIONS information. These data will be part of the public record and be fully accessible R1. Orange County Board of Supervisors should to the public including electronic access adopt a lobbying ordinance that includes the to records. following key elements: 5. Enforcement: Lobbyist or Lobbying 1. Registration: Any individual as de- firms failing to register or report should fined as a lobbyist shall register with the be subject to fines and penalties up to County Clerk of the Board as a “Reg- and including the filing of misdemeanor istered Lobbyist” prior to contact with charges. Fees and penalties should be or within 10 calendar days after con- progressive and tough enough to ensure tact with any member of the Board of compliance. Supervisors or other elected or appointed R2. The language in the lobbying ordinance County Officeholder or Department should be written in a manner to improve Head. All lobbyists or lobbying firms the community’s trust in county govern- will update their registration annually. ment. 2. Fees: The County should establish a fee R3. The Orange County ordinance should apply schedule for initial and annual registra- to all elected and appointed County Officers tion of lobbyists. The fees should be ad- as well as all County Department Heads. equate to offset the cost of administering the lobbyist registration and reporting Responses to Recommendations R.1, R.2, and process. R.3. are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. 3. Reporting: Each lobbyist and lobbying firm should file a quarterly report with . REQUIRED RESPONSES (1) The recommendation has been imple- mented, with a summary regarding the The California Penal Code specifies the required implemented action. permissible responses to the findings and recom- (2) The recommendation has not yet been mendations contained in this report. The specific implemented, but will be implemented in sections are quoted below: the future, with a timeframe for implemen- §933.05 tation. (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section (3) The recommendation requires further 933, as to each grand jury finding the responding analysis, with an explanation and the scope person or entity shall indicate one of the following: and parameters of an analysis or study, and (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or agency or department being investigated or partially with the finding, in which case reviewed, including the governing body of the response shall specify the portion of the the public agency when applicable. This finding that is disputed and shall include an timeframe shall not exceed six months from explanation of the reasons therefore. the date of publication of the grand jury (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section report. 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the (4) The recommendation will not be imple- responding person or entity shall report one of the mented because it is not warranted or is not following actions: reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury Page 
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Orange County Board of Supervisors should to the public including electronic access adopt a lobbying ordinance that includes the to records. following key elements: 5. Enforcement: Lobbyist or Lobbying 1. Registration: Any individual as de- firms failing to register or report should fined as a lobbyist shall register with the be subject to fines and penalties up to County Clerk of the Board as a “Reg- and including the filing of misdemeanor istered Lobbyist” prior to contact with charges. Fees and penalties should be or within 10 calendar days after con- progressive and tough enough to ensure tact with any member of the Board of compliance. Supervisors or other elected or appointed
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: While severe cuts are being made in Orange Rail project. County’s bus service because of reduced
F2: OCTA’s need for operating funds is more
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The governmental relations committee of the Based on its investigation of the Orange County OCTA Board should urge Orange County’s Transportation Authority, the 2009-2010 Orange congressional delegation to lobby for legisla- County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal find- tive modification of the $2.25 billion award ings, as follows: of federal stimulus funds to the High Speed
F3: Service hour reductions, route eliminations Representatives of business and industry as and fare increases have negatively impacted well as the public could be invited by the lo- the total number of OCTA bus boardings. cal transportation officials to participate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: If full state funding is restored to OCTA, bus funding, OCTA has budgeted $143 mil- fares should be reduced because the 2009 lion of Measure M revenue for an Anaheim fare increase was counterproductive. Lower transportation center for which Anaheim is fares could stimulate greater ridership and contributing no funds. thus increase operating revenue.
F4: OCTA needs enhanced authority in order Responses to Recommendations R.1, R.2, R.3, to overcome local parochial interests that and R.4 are required from the OCTA. thwart development of a modern county- wide transit system. 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury Page  7. REQUIRED RESPONSES (1) The recommendation has been imple- mented, with a summary regarding the The California Penal Code specifies the required implemented action. permissible responses to the findings and recom- (2) The recommendation has not yet been mendations contained in this report. The specific implemented, but will be implemented in sections are quoted below: the future, with a timeframe for implemen- §933.05 tation. (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section (3) The recommendation requires further 933, as to each grand jury finding the responding analysis, with an explanation and the scope person or entity shall indicate one of the following: and parameters of an analysis or study, and (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or agency or department being investigated or partially with the finding, in which case reviewed, including the governing body of the response shall specify the portion of the the public agency when applicable. This finding that is disputed and shall include an timeframe shall not exceed six months from explanation of the reasons therefore. the date of publication of the grand jury (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section report. 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the (4) The recommendation will not be imple- responding person or entity shall report one of the mented because it is not warranted or is not following actions: reasonable, with an explanation therefore. Page  2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Orange County political leaders and trans- urgent and immediate than that of other portation managers should launch a series transportation entities, yet OCTA has not of meetings aimed at creating a countywide moved to revise its funding distribution transit agency that will have sufficient au- formula so that the county’s bus system can thority and funding to overcome parochial- receive Measure M revenue. ism in developing a modern transit system.
F5: are required from the OCTA. keep pace. Meanwhile, Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, who 6. RECOMMENDATIONS is chairman of the High Speed Rail board, promises 600,000 new construction jobs to build the “bul- Based on its investigation of bus transit system let train” line and another 450,000 permanent jobs in Orange County, the 2009-2010 Orange County statewide once the system is built with a large infu- Grand Jury makes the following five recommenda- sion of federal funds. tions: Most observers agree that it will be many years R.1 Re-examine the decision to use $143 million before any of those jobs are created, even if the num- of Measure M revenue to build the Anaheim bers are accurate. And critics point out that some of Regional Transportation Intermodal Center the federal money could be used more quickly by and consider acting to revise the Measure OCTA to save transit jobs and maintain bus routes. M fund allocation formula, with a goal of increasing the portion for bus transit and re- 5. FINDINGS ducing the portion for freeway construction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: FINDINGS ducing the portion for freeway construction. R.2 The governmental relations committee of the Based on its investigation of the Orange County OCTA Board should urge Orange County’s Transportation Authority, the 2009-2010 Orange congressional delegation to lobby for legisla- County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal find- tive modification of the $2.25 billion award ings, as follows: of federal stimulus funds to the High Speed F.1 While severe cuts are being made in Orange Rail project. County’s bus service because of reduced R.3 If full state funding is restored to OCTA, bus funding, OCTA has budgeted $143 mil- fares should be reduced because the 2009 lion of Measure M revenue for an Anaheim fare increase was counterproductive. Lower transportation center for which Anaheim is fares could stimulate greater ridership and contributing no funds. thus increase operating revenue. F.2 OCTA’s need for operating funds is more R.4 Orange County political leaders and trans- urgent and immediate than that of other portation managers should launch a series transportation entities, yet OCTA has not of meetings aimed at creating a countywide moved to revise its funding distribution transit agency that will have sufficient au- formula so that the county’s bus system can thority and funding to overcome parochial- receive Measure M revenue. ism in developing a modern transit system. F.3 Service hour reductions, route eliminations Representatives of business and industry as and fare increases have negatively impacted well as the public could be invited by the lo- the total number of OCTA bus boardings. cal transportation officials to participate. F.4 OCTA needs enhanced authority in order Responses to Recommendations R.1, R.2, R.3, to overcome local parochial interests that and R.4 are required from the OCTA. thwart development of a modern county- wide transit system. 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury Page 
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R7: REQUIRED RESPONSES (1) The recommendation has been imple- mented, with a summary regarding the The California Penal Code specifies the required implemented action. permissible responses to the findings and recom- (2) The recommendation has not yet been mendations contained in this report. The specific implemented, but will be implemented in sections are quoted below: the future, with a timeframe for implemen- §933.05 tation. (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section (3) The recommendation requires further 933, as to each grand jury finding the responding analysis, with an explanation and the scope person or entity shall indicate one of the following: and parameters of an analysis or study, and (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or agency or department being investigated or partially with the finding, in which case reviewed, including the governing body of the response shall specify the portion of the the public agency when applicable. This
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: The Orange County Crime Lab and the Or- est number of DNA profiles and having the ange County District Attorney’s DNA unit largest number of DNA cold hits than any perform DNA collection services, which are other California crime lab. similar yet different: OCCL collects forensic Responses to Findings F.1, F.2, and F.3 are re- DNA from crime scenes and obtains felony quired from the Orange County District Attorney. suspect DNA samples, which can be upload- Responses to Finding F.4 are required from the ed into the national database (CODIS) and Board of Supervisors, Sheriff-Coroner, District the state database (SDIS); the OCDA col- Attorney, and requested from County Executive lects voluntary samples from low-level drug Officer. possession felony suspects and nonviolent misdemeanor suspects; those samples are not 6. RECOMMENDATIONS eligible for uploading into state or national databases. Based on its investigation of “DNA: Whose Is It,
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Keep the Crime Lab’s database and the OCDA pays to Bode Technology Group, District Attorney’s database separate until Inc. Possible duplication of operating ex- an audit can be conducted of the District penses cannot be determined at this time Attorney’s DNA unit. At this time, there because cost analysis information has not appears to be no duplication of equipment been provided by the OCDA’s office. and/or expenses involved with having two
F2: The OCCL and the OCDA each serves a Orange County Crime Lab’s or the District Attor- different crime/criminal classification and ney’s?” the 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury the OCCL could not analyze the OCDA’s makes the following recommendations: samples for the same contracted price
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The County Internal Auditor should con- November 2009, the database has had three duct an annual cost analysis as to what it independent hits and confirmed two previ- would cost for the Orange County Crime ously identified suspects. Lab to analyze the DNA samples collected
F3: After nearly a decade (starting with the DNA databases since they serve very dif- Innocent Review Panel), the OCDA’s low- ferent populations of the criminal justice level, non-violent crimes DNA database is system. just beginning to realize its potential. Since
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Annually review the costs associated with responsibility to a temporary shared manage- collection, analysis, and uploading DNA ment structure, known as the Cooperating profiles in the Orange County District Department Head Structure, composed of Attorney’s database with a view toward the Sheriff, the District Attorney, and the instituting or raising fees from individuals, County CEO. Despite the unsettled man- cities, or any others who request access to the database. 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury
F4: Because of political unrest in the Sheriff’s by the Orange County District Attorney Department in 2007-08, the management that are now being sent to Bode Technology structure of the Orange County Crime Group, Inc. of Virginia. Lab changed from being solely the Sheriff’s
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The County of Orange Internal Audit (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. Department should review the District (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or Attorney’s DNA unit to determine the actual partially with the finding, in which case costs associated with this specialized unit, in- the response shall specify the portion of the cluding the collection and processing of the finding that is disputed and shall include an DNA samples, and the operation and main- explanation of the reasons therefor. tenance of the database, including updating (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section of the software. 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the
Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: The management of the Orange County responding person or entity shall report one of the Crime Lab should revert to its prior status following actions: under the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. (1) The recommendation has been imple- Responses to Recommendations R.1, R.2, and mented, with a summary regarding the
R7: REQUIRED RESPONSES agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of The California Penal Code specifies the required the public agency when applicable. This permissible responses to the findings and recom- timeframe shall not exceed six months from mendations contained in this report. The specific the date of publication of the grand jury sections are quoted below: report. California Penal Code §933.05: (4) The recommendation will not be imple- “(a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section mented because it is not warranted or is not 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding reasonable, with an explanation therefor.” person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Inadequate RFP: Santa Ana political leaders Responses to Findings F.1, F.2, F.3, F.4 and and administrative staff followed inconsis-
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The City of Santa Ana should develop spe- requested from the Orange County Transportation cific guidelines in its RFP process, specifying Authority. all program requirements used to evaluate applicants, including the scope and vision of 7. REQUIRED RESPONSES the leadership. The California Penal Code specifies the required
F2: Recommendations of Expert Panel Ignored: In accordance with California Penal Code Sec- Santa Ana City staff created an expert panel tions 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be to evaluate the capabilities of the three ap- responded to by the government entity to which it is plicant groups but the findings from this addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the evaluation were ignored in awarding the final Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2009- contract. The contract was awarded to the 2010 Grand Jury arrived at the following recom- lowest-rated bidder with a poorly document- mendations: ed process. 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: City Council should give full consideration permissible responses to the findings and recom- to the findings of the duly appointed evalua- mendations contained in this report. The specific tion team and publicly disclose, with justifi- sections are quoted below: cation, at a Council meeting any deviation from the team’s recommendation so as not to §933.05 jeopardize public confidence. (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section
F5: Lack of Transparency: Elected City officials applicants in developing a consolidated agreement. violated the intent and specific provisions Witnesses interviewed by the Grand Jury re- of their Code of Ethics and Conduct as well vealed that the City Manager’s close contact with as provisions of AB 1234, the Government all of the Council members during this period took Transparency and Fair Process Act. City place outside public view. The City Council may leaders and elected officials failed to provide have come to a consensus on the Cordoba pro- transparency and public input in the con- posal by using the City Manager as an intermediary tract award, possibly violating the Brown among all parties. Act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The City Attorney should conduct a retrain- 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the ing program for the City Council regarding responding person or entity shall report one of the the Ralph M. Brown Act, AB1234 and the following actions: City of Santa Code of Ethics and Conduct (1) The recommendation has been imple- by June 1, 2010. The training programs mented, with a summary regarding the shall be scheduled every two years thereafter implemented action. including an emphasis on an open and trans- (2) The recommendation has not yet been parent process. implemented, but will be implemented in
F6: Limited OCTA Oversight: Over 90% of 5. FINDINGS funding for the Santa Ana Street Car plan- ning project came from Orange County In accordance with California Penal Code Sec- Transportation Authority-administered sales tions 933 and 933.05, each finding will be re- tax funds (Measures M1 and M2). OCTA sponded to by the government entity to which it is provided limited oversight for award of this addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the contract. and use of funds. Similar projects Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2009- funded with State or Federal taxes require 2010 Grand Jury arrived at the following findings: aggressive oversight of grant awards
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: OCTA should exercise stronger oversight in the future, with a timeframe for implemen- awarding planning and engineering con- tation. tracts involving Measure M1 and M2 funds. (3) The recommendation requires further Currently, OCTA utilizes 1% of Measure analysis, with an explanation and the scope M funds for oversight of approved projects. and parameters of an analysis or study, and This should be increased to allow for greater a timeframe for the matter to be prepared oversight of transportation contract awards for discussion by the officer or head of the consistent with State and Federal funding agency or department being investigated guidelines. to insure that Measure M funds or reviewed, including the governing body are properly spent. of the public agency when applicable. This Responses to Recommendations R.1, R.2, R.3 timeframe shall not exceed six months from and R.4 are required from the Santa Ana City the date of publication of the grand jury Council and requested from the City Manager. report. Responses to Recommendation R.5 are required (4) The recommendation will not be imple- from the Santa Ana City Council and the City mented because it is not warranted or is not Attorney. Response to Recommendation R.6 is reasonable, with an explanation therefore.” 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury
Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: The City of Santa Ana should develop guide- 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding lines to improve the awarding of contracts person or entity shall indicate one of the following: to better reflect the expectations of the (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. elected officials and direct professional staff (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or accordingly. partially with the finding, in which case
R4: The City of Santa Ana needs to tighten the response shall specify the portion of the procedures to assure compliance with the finding that is disputed and shall include an expectations and timelines of the agencies explanation of the reasons therefore: that grant funds to the City. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.