Orange County Grand Jury
2010-2011
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (13)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Based on the data submitted, no position was found where the compensation or employment contract was considered to be abusive.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Transparency - All cities in Orange County report their compensation information to the public on the Internet in an easily accessible manner. The Compensation Disclosure Model (Appendix 4) provides a sample as to the items that should be included in determining total compensation.
F2:
There is no discernable correlation between compensation levels in charter vs. general law cities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Employment Contracts – Each city reveal any individual employment contracts in an easily accessible manner.
F3:
Compensation of individual high-level positions bears no significant relationship to city population.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Upper level Employees – The cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach conduct a review of their organizations to reconcile the necessity of maintaining a relatively large number of upper level positions in relation to their populations.
F4:
Public disclosure of municipal compensation levels is widely inconsistent, ranging from good to non-existent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Compensation Levels – The City of Laguna Hills conduct a compensation review of top officials. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are required from the city council of each of the following Orange County cities: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations All Orange County Cities F.4, F.7 R.1, R.2 Laguna Beach and Newport Beach F.5 R.3 Laguna Hills F.6 R.4 Appendix 1 O.C. Grand Jury Request for Municipal Compensation Data Annual Compensation Amounts (Dollars) For the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2009 City of _____________________________________ Compensation Component (as described below): Position Position Position Position Position Component 1. Component 2. Component 3. Component 4. Component 5. Component 6. Component 7. Component 8. Component 9. Component 10. Component 11. Component: Description: 1. Base Salary (Primary Position) Per payroll records 2. Base Salary (Second Position - if applicable) Per payroll records 3. Board / Commission fees Bonuses, Awards, Performance 4. Management Incentives Improvement Payments City contribution to a deferred 5. Deferred Compensation compensation account City cost of retirement plans such as 6. Retirement PERS, (include Social Security - if Plan applicable) City cost of auto allowance paid for the 7. Automobile Expenditures position 8. Medical, Dental, Vision, Disability & Life Insurance City cost for these benefits premiums Include unused sick leave and 9. Unused Paid Time off Payouts vacation leave payments 10. Employer's Medicare Costs City cost for Medicare contributions 11. Total per W-2 Box 5 per W-2 report Appendeix 2(a) City Council Compensation $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 Irvine 21,120 26,976 Anaheim 18,692 27,767 L. Hills 7,484 31,228 Tustin 11,374 26,319 NP Beach 20,259 16,584 Buena Park 14,219 18,896 Cypress 9,984 20,094 Santa Ana1,500 28,411 Orange 8,280 21,525 Costa Mesa 11,424 18,364 Fullerton 9,000 17,664 Westminster 10,926 13,777 G. Grove 5,833 18,642 Brea 8,168 14,897 Aliso Viejo 6,240 16,382 RSM 5,562 16,623 L. Niguel 4,800 16,004 Y. Linda 6,000 13,235 F. Valley 6,000 12,805 Placentia 2,610 16,148 SJ Capistrano 3,600 12,616 M. Viejo 12,000 3,538 Dana Point 8,620 5,024 Hunt Beach 2,101 10,714 Lake Forest 9,463 1,742 Stanton 10,200 959 S. Beach 7,410 575 L. Beach 6,720 1,198 La Habra 6,000 1,422 L. Alamitos 5,400 73 S. Clemente 4,800 270 La Palma 3,600 975 L. Woods 3,600 0 Villa Park00 ________________________________________________________________________ 30 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(b) City Manager Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 L. Hills 233,592 144,835 Buena Park 239,954 105,035 Lake Forest 222,611 120,763 Anaheim 258,351 80,077 Santa Ana 262,272 75,079 Irvine 250,307 85,458 L. Niguel 226,200 107,623 G. Grove 233,496 95,029 Hunt Beach 247,212 70,022 M. Viejo 197,725 111,061 S. Clemente 193,710 109,632 Orange 213,072 89,738 Tustin 242,393 55,532 Dana Point 203,486 93,147 Brea 210,559 82,850 Cypress 212,952 79,807 Costa Mesa 211,011 80,600 L. Beach 238,453 52,098 NP Beach 190,747 89,977 S. Beach 220,153 59,623 F. Valley 228,300 43,957 RSM 214,428 47,501 Westminster 207,232 51,434 Fullerton 212,372 43,146 SJ Capistrano 169,629 85,262 Placentia 189,264 58,554 La Palma 165,505 69,357 L. Woods 158,574 70,574 Aliso Viejo 176,951 51,242 Stanton 199,845 22,223 Y. Linda 169,017 51,970 La Habra 176,110 37,180 L. Alamitos 170,000 26,849 Villa Park 120,000 65,045 ________________________________________________________________________ 31 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(c) City Clerk Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 Irvine 155,584 54,583 Buena Park 149,372 51,193 Y. Linda 110,933 82,022 Brea 144,352 42,631 NP Beach 145,964 38,143 Hunt Beach 134,784 40,647 Anaheim 126,843 44,173 Orange 111,612 57,262 Santa Ana 139,944 27,846 M. Viejo 122,408 42,335 L. Hills 110,796 51,304 L. Beach 115,656 41,932 Costa Mesa 105,842 46,107 Dana Point 101,210 50,502 S. Beach 115,118 32,855 Stanton 107,760 37,470 La Habra 105,641 37,086 Westminster 113,652 29,064 Cypress 108,864 31,400 Aliso Viejo 111,329 26,208 Tustin 105,805 31,292 SJ Capistrano 104,832 23,697 Fullerton 111,509 16,799 L. Alamitos 100,188 23,820 S. Clemente 00 Lake Forest 00 L. Woods 00 G. Grove 00 L. Niguel 00 F. Valley 00 RSM 00 Placentia 00 La Palma 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 32 /2011 noitasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(d) City Engineer Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 Cypress 160,464 53,308 Anaheim 171,644 40,560 Westminster 161,808 47,161 Santa Ana 149,712 53,578 Orange 140,388 55,735 Fullerton 161,463 32,716 SJ Capistrano 153,336 38,994 Irvine 132,642 57,066 Stanton 136,910 52,117 L. Beach 134,928 53,485 G. Grove 146,292 41,109 Tustin 146,013 40,497 M. Viejo 130,874 53,476 S. Clemente 127,920 55,786 Dana Point 130,205 52,423 Costa Mesa 127,085 55,154 Placentia 127,204 50,029 NP Beach 132,132 39,653 Buena Park 123,052 47,744 S. Beach 120,679 36,955 Lake Forest 110,369 47,052 La Habra 128,723 20,544 Brea 113,818 28,926 Hunt Beach 111,467 27,338 F. Valley 107,723 24,888 Y. Linda00 L. Niguel 00 RSM00 Aliso Viejo00 L. Hills 00 L. Woods 00 La Palma00 L. Alamitos 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 33 /2011 itasnepmC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(e) Finance Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 L. Hills 193,296 107,915 Irvine 185,203 84,023 M. Viejo 178,693 85,016 Anaheim 217,089 35,943 F. Valley 162,300 90,585 Y. Linda 138,820 108,506 G. Grove 171,564 60,023 Orange 154,344 64,473 La Habra 162,238 55,235 Westminster 156,384 58,284 L. Beach 157,506 56,986 Buena Park 168,246 45,730 S. Beach 164,986 46,335 Santa Ana 154,152 49,154 Placentia 151,561 46,022 Lake Forest 142,992 50,700 Tustin 157,764 34,846 Hunt Beach 173,368 18,381 Costa Mesa 102,819 75,438 RSM 151,764 22,688 NP Beach 135,481 37,882 L. Alamitos 138,000 33,173 S. Clemente 118,914 52,022 Dana Point 122,460 45,450 Cypress 126,804 39,660 L. Niguel 131,880 34,506 Fullerton 153,250 12,749 Brea 124,738 38,175 La Palma 115,155 43,538 Stanton 116,256 38,173 Aliso Viejo 123,861 29,546 SJ Capistrano 102,288 37,191 L. Woods 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 34 /2011 noitasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(f) Public Works Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 L. Beach 179,064 105,656 Irvine 185,203 71,270 Tustin 169,611 82,553 L. Hills 169,692 74,526 Hunt Beach 182,000 52,535 Anaheim 187,996 44,250 Orange 168,000 61,281 G. Grove 180,300 48,024 SJ Capistrano 153,336 71,083 Costa Mesa 146,377 73,537 Buena Park 168,246 47,909 S. Clemente 148,075 67,407 Dana Point 158,292 56,572 S. Beach 167,921 46,911 NP Beach 170,768 43,614 F. Valley 172,608 39,593 Lake Forest 150,159 56,228 L. Niguel 152,460 50,135 M. Viejo 140,774 56,525 Brea 144,352 49,518 Fullerton 152,872 30,784 Placentia 137,788 42,684 Santa Ana 165,996 5,766 RSM 144,996 21,794 La Habra 154,513 11,088 La Palma 118,027 46,709 Cypress 107,052 32,857 Westminster 104,052 33,659 Aliso Viejo00 Y. Linda00 Stanton00 L. Woods 00 L. Alamitos 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 35 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(g) Parks and Recreation Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 Buena Park 168,246 57,297 Orange 154,344 67,633 NP Beach 154,658 55,698 S. Clemente 144,539 65,510 Irvine 149,587 59,621 M. Viejo 146,786 58,793 Santa Ana 150,396 50,639 Stanton 134,580 51,702 Lake Forest 130,154 53,804 Tustin 131,148 45,909 Cypress 134,376 41,332 Anaheim 143,064 26,100 Fullerton 136,396 32,340 Hunt Beach 118,331 46,708 Y. Linda 111,168 53,651 Dana Point 120,060 44,694 La Palma 120,860 42,154 Costa Mesa 112,781 49,679 S. Beach 118,799 40,099 L. Alamitos 122,990 29,908 Placentia 120,506 21,541 Aliso Viejo00 G. Grove00 Westminster00 L. Niguel 00 La Habra00 F. Valley 00 RSM00 Brea00 SJ Capistrano00 L. Hills 00 L. Beach00 L. Woods 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 36 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(h) Community Development Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 Anaheim 206,827 47,531 Irvine 185,203 61,717 L. Hills 162,552 81,259 L. Niguel 146,700 90,374 S. Clemente 151,778 80,768 L. Beach 163,002 64,195 G. Grove 180,300 46,138 Lake Forest 150,159 70,658 Orange 158,244 62,331 S. Beach 125,753 94,086 Dana Point 158,274 60,606 Buena Park 168,246 45,099 Costa Mesa 149,244 61,411 M. Viejo 146,786 60,847 Cypress 157,056 50,496 SJ Capistrano 149,604 56,508 Brea 153,254 47,448 Tustin 155,030 43,814 NP Beach 154,665 43,079 Santa Ana 142,512 53,197 La Palma 138,057 54,589 La Habra 140,679 49,678 Westminster 143,820 40,641 Fullerton 161,463 15,677 RSM 142,776 32,828 Stanton 116,252 58,523 Placentia 127,204 43,892 Y. Linda 123,321 39,566 L. Alamitos 123,115 30,524 Hunt Beach 116,002 16,531 Aliso Viejo 105,528 14,626 F. Valley 00 L. Woods 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 37 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(i) Human Resources Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 Anaheim 183,220 44,857 Orange 154,344 57,229 G. Grove 170,200 40,597 Hunt Beach 151,736 54,734 NP Beach 153,785 50,097 Santa Ana 146,712 51,786 Irvine 142,002 52,811 Tustin 140,645 41,096 L. Beach 129,252 47,377 S. Clemente 121,888 49,925 Fullerton 135,875 34,651 Westminster 135,924 33,663 Lake Forest 117,094 47,706 F. Valley 133,583 30,102 SJ Capistrano 107,520 54,663 M. Viejo 114,608 40,743 Costa Mesa 109,245 38,329 Buena Park 110,166 30,992 Cypress 106,800 23,426 Y. Linda00 L. Niguel 00 La Habra00 RSM00 Placentia00 Aliso Viejo00 Brea00 Stanton00 Dana Point 00 L. Hills 00 S. Beach00 L. Woods 00 La Palma00 L. Alamitos 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 38 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(j) Information Technology Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 G. Grove 168,154 52,661 M. Viejo 146,786 56,871 Santa Ana 139,044 50,203 Irvine 132,642 46,603 S. Clemente 124,862 53,791 Costa Mesa 120,269 50,543 Y. Linda 115,963 41,482 NP Beach 121,274 34,731 Westminster 118,992 32,947 F. Valley 122,160 27,873 Anaheim 128,560 19,958 Cypress 120,000 27,077 Brea 106,621 35,592 Hunt Beach 111,467 24,096 Tustin 104,232 30,254 Fullerton 118,061 14,913 La Habra 108,270 6,622 Dana Point 00 Buena Park 00 Orange00 Lake Forest 00 L. Niguel 00 RSM00 Placentia00 Aliso Viejo00 Stanton00 SJ Capistrano00 L. Hills 00 S. Beach00 L. Beach00 L. Woods 00 La Palma00 L. Alamitos 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 39 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(k) Building Official Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 NP Beach 154,665 48,498 Costa Mesa 142,250 49,995 Santa Ana 150,396 41,568 S. Clemente 127,920 57,552 Orange 130,272 49,711 Irvine 127,338 51,256 L. Beach 129,252 42,181 Dana Point 131,879 38,833 Cypress 120,000 47,009 Brea 127,171 39,491 SJ Capistrano 107,520 57,316 Westminster 121,476 40,015 Tustin 126,643 32,942 Hunt Beach 120,120 31,675 Buena Park 111,658 36,528 Anaheim 115,801 28,346 Y. Linda 105,827 37,298 Fullerton 119,181 22,985 La Habra 104,091 32,501 L. Woods 00 G. Grove 00 M. Viejo 00 Lake Forest 00 L. Niguel 00 F. Valley 00 RSM 00 Placentia 00 Aliso Viejo 00 Stanton 00 L. Hills 00 S. Beach 00 La Palma 00 L. Alamitos 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 40 /2011 oitasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 3a Number of City Positions Paying over $100 K No. Positions No.Positions City Population per 10,000 over $100K* population Anaheim 348,467 173 4.96 Irvine 212,793 106 4.98 Huntington Beach 202,480 90 4.44 Santa Ana 355,662 85 2.39 Newport Beach 86,252 60 6.96 Orange 141,634 39 2.75 Costa Mesa 116,479 33 2.83 Garden Grove 174,715 33 1.89 Fullerton 137,624 31 2.25 Tustin 74,825 28 3.74 San Clemente 68,316 25 3.66 Mission Viejo 100,242 23 2.29 Laguna Beach 25,208 22 8.73 Buena Park 83,385 21 2.52 San Juan Capistrano 36,870 18 4.88 Brea 40,176 17 4.23 Westminster 93,284 16 1.72 Cypress 49,647 15 3.02 Fountain Valley 58,309 15 2.57 Dana Point 37,082 14 3.78 La Habra 62,822 14 2.23 Yorba Linda 68,399 14 2.05 Lake Forest 78,344 12 1.53 Laguna Niguel 67,201 11 1.64 Seal Beach 25,913 9 3.47 Stanton 39,480 8 2.03 Placentia 51,932 8 1.54 Laguna Hills 33,434 7 2.09 Aliso Viejo 45,683 6 1.31 La Palma 16,205 5 3.09 Los Alamitos 12,217 4 3.27 Rancho Santa Margarita 49,704 4 0.80 Laguna Woods 18,477 2 1.08 Villa Park 6,276 1 1.59 Average 3.21 * Excludes Police, Fire, Great Park and Electric Utility positions Appendix 3b Laguna Beach Salaries over $100K * POSITION SALARY City Manager 238,453 Asst City Manager 179,064 Dir of Public Works 179,064 Dir Community Development 163,002 Dir of Finance and IT 157,506 Asst City Engineer 134,628 Finance Officer 133,120 Personnel Services Mgr 129,252 Planning Mgr 129,252 Building Official 129,252 Zoning Admin 129,252 Dpty Dir of Public Works 129,252 Building Official 129,252 Project Dir 129,252 City Clerk 115,656 Senior Plan Checker 114,053 CAD/RMS Project Mgr 110,676 Dir of Community Services 108,765 Computer Network Admin 108,623 Principal Planner 102,817 Principal Planner 102,817 Principal Planner 102,817 * Excludes Police, Fire, Great Park and Electric Utility Positions Appendix 3c Newport Beach Salaries over $100K * POSITION SALARY POSITION SALARY City Attorney 220,000 Civil Eng, Sr 118,851 City Mgr 190,747 Civil Eng Sr - Plan Check 118,837 Asst City Mgr 179,424 Civil Eng, Sr 117,149 Public Works Dir 170,768 Civil Eng, Sr 117,149 Gen Services Dir 166,433 Park & Tree Supt 116,875 Asst City Attorney 159,805 Civil Eng Sr - Plan Check 115,181 Dpty PW Dir/City Eng 159,224 Planning Mgr 115,138 Building Dir 154,665 GIS Supv 113,318 Planning Dir 154,665 IT Opers Supv 113,318 Rec & SR Service Dir 154,658 Human Resources Supv 112,060 Human Resources Dir 153,785 Civil Eng Sr - Plan Check 111,821 Dpty Admin Services Dir 145,964 Recreation Supt 111,738 Library Services Dir 145,195 Dpty City Attorney P/T 110,628 Dpty Bldg Official 142,272 Civil Eng, Principal 110,201 Dpty Gen Svcs Dir 138,923 Lifeguard Battalion Chief 108,493 City Traffic Eng 138,778 Apps Coord P.D. 108,056 Asst City Eng 138,778 Telecom/Network Coord 107,588 Asst City Eng 138,778 EMS Mgr 106,756 Revenue Mgr 135,481 PIO-Video 106,142 Finance Officer 135,481 Pers Comp/Network Coord 106,072 Civil Eng, Principal 132,132 Accountant, Principal 104,166 Risk Mgr 128,991 Planner, Principal 104,125 Human Resources Mgr 128,991 Sr Services Mgr 103,303 Public Infor Mgr 123,446 Civil Eng Assoc 5% 102,835 IT Apps Supv 121,274 Construction Inspec Supt 102,835 PW Finance/Admin Mgr 120,910 Civil Eng Assoc 5% 102,106 Civil Eng, Sr 118,851 Human Resources Analyst, Sr 101,650 Civil Eng Sr - Plan Check 118,851 Civil Eng Assoc 5% 101,376 Civil Eng, Sr 118,851 Field Maint Supt 100,581 Civil Eng Sr - Plan Check 118,851 Opers Support Supt 100,581 * Excludes Police, Fire, Great Park and Electric Utility Positions
F5:
With the exceptions of Laguna Beach and Newport Beach, the number of high-level positions in each city is generally commensurate with its population.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Deferred Compensation compensation account City cost of retirement plans such as
F6:
The compensation of the City Manager and Assistant City Manager/Finance Director in the City of Laguna Hills exceeds levels in other comparably sized cities both inside and outside of Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Retirement PERS, (include Social Security - if Plan applicable) City cost of auto allowance paid for the
F7:
There is currently no disclosure of written employment contracts on the majority of cities’ websites. RECOMMENDATIONS: The 2010/2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requires responses from each city affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of the 34 cities in Orange County, the 2010- 2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Automobile Expenditures position
F8:
Medical, Dental, Vision, Disability & Life Insurance City cost for these benefits premiums Include unused sick leave and
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Medical, Dental, Vision, Disability & Life Insurance City cost for these benefits premiums Include unused sick leave and
F9:
Unused Paid Time off Payouts vacation leave payments
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Unused Paid Time off Payouts vacation leave payments
F10:
Employer's Medicare Costs City cost for Medicare contributions
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Employer's Medicare Costs City cost for Medicare contributions
F11:
Total per W-2 Box 5 per W-2 report Appendeix 2(a) City Council Compensation $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 Irvine 21,120 26,976 Anaheim 18,692 27,767 L. Hills 7,484 31,228 Tustin 11,374 26,319 NP Beach 20,259 16,584 Buena Park 14,219 18,896 Cypress 9,984 20,094 Santa Ana1,500 28,411 Orange 8,280 21,525 Costa Mesa 11,424 18,364 Fullerton 9,000 17,664 Westminster 10,926 13,777 G. Grove 5,833 18,642 Brea 8,168 14,897 Aliso Viejo 6,240 16,382 RSM 5,562 16,623 L. Niguel 4,800 16,004 Y. Linda 6,000 13,235 F. Valley 6,000 12,805 Placentia 2,610 16,148 SJ Capistrano 3,600 12,616 M. Viejo 12,000 3,538 Dana Point 8,620 5,024 Hunt Beach 2,101 10,714 Lake Forest 9,463 1,742 Stanton 10,200 959 S. Beach 7,410 575 L. Beach 6,720 1,198 La Habra 6,000 1,422 L. Alamitos 5,400 73 S. Clemente 4,800 270 La Palma 3,600 975 L. Woods 3,600 0 Villa Park00 ________________________________________________________________________ 30 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(b) City Manager Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 L. Hills 233,592 144,835 Buena Park 239,954 105,035 Lake Forest 222,611 120,763 Anaheim 258,351 80,077 Santa Ana 262,272 75,079 Irvine 250,307 85,458 L. Niguel 226,200 107,623 G. Grove 233,496 95,029 Hunt Beach 247,212 70,022 M. Viejo 197,725 111,061 S. Clemente 193,710 109,632 Orange 213,072 89,738 Tustin 242,393 55,532 Dana Point 203,486 93,147 Brea 210,559 82,850 Cypress 212,952 79,807 Costa Mesa 211,011 80,600 L. Beach 238,453 52,098 NP Beach 190,747 89,977 S. Beach 220,153 59,623 F. Valley 228,300 43,957 RSM 214,428 47,501 Westminster 207,232 51,434 Fullerton 212,372 43,146 SJ Capistrano 169,629 85,262 Placentia 189,264 58,554 La Palma 165,505 69,357 L. Woods 158,574 70,574 Aliso Viejo 176,951 51,242 Stanton 199,845 22,223 Y. Linda 169,017 51,970 La Habra 176,110 37,180 L. Alamitos 170,000 26,849 Villa Park 120,000 65,045 ________________________________________________________________________ 31 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(c) City Clerk Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 Irvine 155,584 54,583 Buena Park 149,372 51,193 Y. Linda 110,933 82,022 Brea 144,352 42,631 NP Beach 145,964 38,143 Hunt Beach 134,784 40,647 Anaheim 126,843 44,173 Orange 111,612 57,262 Santa Ana 139,944 27,846 M. Viejo 122,408 42,335 L. Hills 110,796 51,304 L. Beach 115,656 41,932 Costa Mesa 105,842 46,107 Dana Point 101,210 50,502 S. Beach 115,118 32,855 Stanton 107,760 37,470 La Habra 105,641 37,086 Westminster 113,652 29,064 Cypress 108,864 31,400 Aliso Viejo 111,329 26,208 Tustin 105,805 31,292 SJ Capistrano 104,832 23,697 Fullerton 111,509 16,799 L. Alamitos 100,188 23,820 S. Clemente 00 Lake Forest 00 L. Woods 00 G. Grove 00 L. Niguel 00 F. Valley 00 RSM 00 Placentia 00 La Palma 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 32 /2011 noitasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(d) City Engineer Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 Cypress 160,464 53,308 Anaheim 171,644 40,560 Westminster 161,808 47,161 Santa Ana 149,712 53,578 Orange 140,388 55,735 Fullerton 161,463 32,716 SJ Capistrano 153,336 38,994 Irvine 132,642 57,066 Stanton 136,910 52,117 L. Beach 134,928 53,485 G. Grove 146,292 41,109 Tustin 146,013 40,497 M. Viejo 130,874 53,476 S. Clemente 127,920 55,786 Dana Point 130,205 52,423 Costa Mesa 127,085 55,154 Placentia 127,204 50,029 NP Beach 132,132 39,653 Buena Park 123,052 47,744 S. Beach 120,679 36,955 Lake Forest 110,369 47,052 La Habra 128,723 20,544 Brea 113,818 28,926 Hunt Beach 111,467 27,338 F. Valley 107,723 24,888 Y. Linda00 L. Niguel 00 RSM00 Aliso Viejo00 L. Hills 00 L. Woods 00 La Palma00 L. Alamitos 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 33 /2011 itasnepmC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(e) Finance Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 L. Hills 193,296 107,915 Irvine 185,203 84,023 M. Viejo 178,693 85,016 Anaheim 217,089 35,943 F. Valley 162,300 90,585 Y. Linda 138,820 108,506 G. Grove 171,564 60,023 Orange 154,344 64,473 La Habra 162,238 55,235 Westminster 156,384 58,284 L. Beach 157,506 56,986 Buena Park 168,246 45,730 S. Beach 164,986 46,335 Santa Ana 154,152 49,154 Placentia 151,561 46,022 Lake Forest 142,992 50,700 Tustin 157,764 34,846 Hunt Beach 173,368 18,381 Costa Mesa 102,819 75,438 RSM 151,764 22,688 NP Beach 135,481 37,882 L. Alamitos 138,000 33,173 S. Clemente 118,914 52,022 Dana Point 122,460 45,450 Cypress 126,804 39,660 L. Niguel 131,880 34,506 Fullerton 153,250 12,749 Brea 124,738 38,175 La Palma 115,155 43,538 Stanton 116,256 38,173 Aliso Viejo 123,861 29,546 SJ Capistrano 102,288 37,191 L. Woods 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 34 /2011 noitasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(f) Public Works Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 L. Beach 179,064 105,656 Irvine 185,203 71,270 Tustin 169,611 82,553 L. Hills 169,692 74,526 Hunt Beach 182,000 52,535 Anaheim 187,996 44,250 Orange 168,000 61,281 G. Grove 180,300 48,024 SJ Capistrano 153,336 71,083 Costa Mesa 146,377 73,537 Buena Park 168,246 47,909 S. Clemente 148,075 67,407 Dana Point 158,292 56,572 S. Beach 167,921 46,911 NP Beach 170,768 43,614 F. Valley 172,608 39,593 Lake Forest 150,159 56,228 L. Niguel 152,460 50,135 M. Viejo 140,774 56,525 Brea 144,352 49,518 Fullerton 152,872 30,784 Placentia 137,788 42,684 Santa Ana 165,996 5,766 RSM 144,996 21,794 La Habra 154,513 11,088 La Palma 118,027 46,709 Cypress 107,052 32,857 Westminster 104,052 33,659 Aliso Viejo00 Y. Linda00 Stanton00 L. Woods 00 L. Alamitos 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 35 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(g) Parks and Recreation Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 Buena Park 168,246 57,297 Orange 154,344 67,633 NP Beach 154,658 55,698 S. Clemente 144,539 65,510 Irvine 149,587 59,621 M. Viejo 146,786 58,793 Santa Ana 150,396 50,639 Stanton 134,580 51,702 Lake Forest 130,154 53,804 Tustin 131,148 45,909 Cypress 134,376 41,332 Anaheim 143,064 26,100 Fullerton 136,396 32,340 Hunt Beach 118,331 46,708 Y. Linda 111,168 53,651 Dana Point 120,060 44,694 La Palma 120,860 42,154 Costa Mesa 112,781 49,679 S. Beach 118,799 40,099 L. Alamitos 122,990 29,908 Placentia 120,506 21,541 Aliso Viejo00 G. Grove00 Westminster00 L. Niguel 00 La Habra00 F. Valley 00 RSM00 Brea00 SJ Capistrano00 L. Hills 00 L. Beach00 L. Woods 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 36 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(h) Community Development Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 Anaheim 206,827 47,531 Irvine 185,203 61,717 L. Hills 162,552 81,259 L. Niguel 146,700 90,374 S. Clemente 151,778 80,768 L. Beach 163,002 64,195 G. Grove 180,300 46,138 Lake Forest 150,159 70,658 Orange 158,244 62,331 S. Beach 125,753 94,086 Dana Point 158,274 60,606 Buena Park 168,246 45,099 Costa Mesa 149,244 61,411 M. Viejo 146,786 60,847 Cypress 157,056 50,496 SJ Capistrano 149,604 56,508 Brea 153,254 47,448 Tustin 155,030 43,814 NP Beach 154,665 43,079 Santa Ana 142,512 53,197 La Palma 138,057 54,589 La Habra 140,679 49,678 Westminster 143,820 40,641 Fullerton 161,463 15,677 RSM 142,776 32,828 Stanton 116,252 58,523 Placentia 127,204 43,892 Y. Linda 123,321 39,566 L. Alamitos 123,115 30,524 Hunt Beach 116,002 16,531 Aliso Viejo 105,528 14,626 F. Valley 00 L. Woods 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 37 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(i) Human Resources Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 Anaheim 183,220 44,857 Orange 154,344 57,229 G. Grove 170,200 40,597 Hunt Beach 151,736 54,734 NP Beach 153,785 50,097 Santa Ana 146,712 51,786 Irvine 142,002 52,811 Tustin 140,645 41,096 L. Beach 129,252 47,377 S. Clemente 121,888 49,925 Fullerton 135,875 34,651 Westminster 135,924 33,663 Lake Forest 117,094 47,706 F. Valley 133,583 30,102 SJ Capistrano 107,520 54,663 M. Viejo 114,608 40,743 Costa Mesa 109,245 38,329 Buena Park 110,166 30,992 Cypress 106,800 23,426 Y. Linda00 L. Niguel 00 La Habra00 RSM00 Placentia00 Aliso Viejo00 Brea00 Stanton00 Dana Point 00 L. Hills 00 S. Beach00 L. Woods 00 La Palma00 L. Alamitos 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 38 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(j) Information Technology Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 G. Grove 168,154 52,661 M. Viejo 146,786 56,871 Santa Ana 139,044 50,203 Irvine 132,642 46,603 S. Clemente 124,862 53,791 Costa Mesa 120,269 50,543 Y. Linda 115,963 41,482 NP Beach 121,274 34,731 Westminster 118,992 32,947 F. Valley 122,160 27,873 Anaheim 128,560 19,958 Cypress 120,000 27,077 Brea 106,621 35,592 Hunt Beach 111,467 24,096 Tustin 104,232 30,254 Fullerton 118,061 14,913 La Habra 108,270 6,622 Dana Point 00 Buena Park 00 Orange00 Lake Forest 00 L. Niguel 00 RSM00 Placentia00 Aliso Viejo00 Stanton00 SJ Capistrano00 L. Hills 00 S. Beach00 L. Beach00 L. Woods 00 La Palma00 L. Alamitos 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 39 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 2(k) Building Official Compensation $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 NP Beach 154,665 48,498 Costa Mesa 142,250 49,995 Santa Ana 150,396 41,568 S. Clemente 127,920 57,552 Orange 130,272 49,711 Irvine 127,338 51,256 L. Beach 129,252 42,181 Dana Point 131,879 38,833 Cypress 120,000 47,009 Brea 127,171 39,491 SJ Capistrano 107,520 57,316 Westminster 121,476 40,015 Tustin 126,643 32,942 Hunt Beach 120,120 31,675 Buena Park 111,658 36,528 Anaheim 115,801 28,346 Y. Linda 105,827 37,298 Fullerton 119,181 22,985 La Habra 104,091 32,501 L. Woods 00 G. Grove 00 M. Viejo 00 Lake Forest 00 L. Niguel 00 F. Valley 00 RSM 00 Placentia 00 Aliso Viejo 00 Stanton 00 L. Hills 00 S. Beach 00 La Palma 00 L. Alamitos 00 Villa Park 00 ________________________________________________________________________ 40 /2011 oitasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC For cities showing $0, the position was not covered in the study Base Salary Benefits Appendix 3a Number of City Positions Paying over $100 K No. Positions No.Positions City Population per 10,000 over $100K* population Anaheim 348,467 173 4.96 Irvine 212,793 106 4.98 Huntington Beach 202,480 90 4.44 Santa Ana 355,662 85 2.39 Newport Beach 86,252 60 6.96 Orange 141,634 39 2.75 Costa Mesa 116,479 33 2.83 Garden Grove 174,715 33 1.89 Fullerton 137,624 31 2.25 Tustin 74,825 28 3.74 San Clemente 68,316 25 3.66 Mission Viejo 100,242 23 2.29 Laguna Beach 25,208 22 8.73 Buena Park 83,385 21 2.52 San Juan Capistrano 36,870 18 4.88 Brea 40,176 17 4.23 Westminster 93,284 16 1.72 Cypress 49,647 15 3.02 Fountain Valley 58,309 15 2.57 Dana Point 37,082 14 3.78 La Habra 62,822 14 2.23 Yorba Linda 68,399 14 2.05 Lake Forest 78,344 12 1.53 Laguna Niguel 67,201 11 1.64 Seal Beach 25,913 9 3.47 Stanton 39,480 8 2.03 Placentia 51,932 8 1.54 Laguna Hills 33,434 7 2.09 Aliso Viejo 45,683 6 1.31 La Palma 16,205 5 3.09 Los Alamitos 12,217 4 3.27 Rancho Santa Margarita 49,704 4 0.80 Laguna Woods 18,477 2 1.08 Villa Park 6,276 1 1.59 Average 3.21 * Excludes Police, Fire, Great Park and Electric Utility positions Appendix 3b Laguna Beach Salaries over $100K * POSITION SALARY City Manager 238,453 Asst City Manager 179,064 Dir of Public Works 179,064 Dir Community Development 163,002 Dir of Finance and IT 157,506 Asst City Engineer 134,628 Finance Officer 133,120 Personnel Services Mgr 129,252 Planning Mgr 129,252 Building Official 129,252 Zoning Admin 129,252 Dpty Dir of Public Works 129,252 Building Official 129,252 Project Dir 129,252 City Clerk 115,656 Senior Plan Checker 114,053 CAD/RMS Project Mgr 110,676 Dir of Community Services 108,765 Computer Network Admin 108,623 Principal Planner 102,817 Principal Planner 102,817 Principal Planner 102,817 * Excludes Police, Fire, Great Park and Electric Utility Positions Appendix 3c Newport Beach Salaries over $100K * POSITION SALARY POSITION SALARY City Attorney 220,000 Civil Eng, Sr 118,851 City Mgr 190,747 Civil Eng Sr - Plan Check 118,837 Asst City Mgr 179,424 Civil Eng, Sr 117,149 Public Works Dir 170,768 Civil Eng, Sr 117,149 Gen Services Dir 166,433 Park & Tree Supt 116,875 Asst City Attorney 159,805 Civil Eng Sr - Plan Check 115,181 Dpty PW Dir/City Eng 159,224 Planning Mgr 115,138 Building Dir 154,665 GIS Supv 113,318 Planning Dir 154,665 IT Opers Supv 113,318 Rec & SR Service Dir 154,658 Human Resources Supv 112,060 Human Resources Dir 153,785 Civil Eng Sr - Plan Check 111,821 Dpty Admin Services Dir 145,964 Recreation Supt 111,738 Library Services Dir 145,195 Dpty City Attorney P/T 110,628 Dpty Bldg Official 142,272 Civil Eng, Principal 110,201 Dpty Gen Svcs Dir 138,923 Lifeguard Battalion Chief 108,493 City Traffic Eng 138,778 Apps Coord P.D. 108,056 Asst City Eng 138,778 Telecom/Network Coord 107,588 Asst City Eng 138,778 EMS Mgr 106,756 Revenue Mgr 135,481 PIO-Video 106,142 Finance Officer 135,481 Pers Comp/Network Coord 106,072 Civil Eng, Principal 132,132 Accountant, Principal 104,166 Risk Mgr 128,991 Planner, Principal 104,125 Human Resources Mgr 128,991 Sr Services Mgr 103,303 Public Infor Mgr 123,446 Civil Eng Assoc 5% 102,835 IT Apps Supv 121,274 Construction Inspec Supt 102,835 PW Finance/Admin Mgr 120,910 Civil Eng Assoc 5% 102,106 Civil Eng, Sr 118,851 Human Resources Analyst, Sr 101,650 Civil Eng Sr - Plan Check 118,851 Civil Eng Assoc 5% 101,376 Civil Eng, Sr 118,851 Field Maint Supt 100,581 Civil Eng Sr - Plan Check 118,851 Opers Support Supt 100,581 * Excludes Police, Fire, Great Park and Electric Utility Positions Appendix 4 Compensation Disclosure Model OTHER INSUR PENSION TOTAL POSITION SALARY PAY* PREMS COSTS COMP * Includes Fees, Deferred Compensation, Incentive Bonus, Auto Allowance and Pay in Lieu of Time Off.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Total per W-2 Box 5 per W-2 report Appendeix 2(a) City Council Compensation $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 Irvine 21,120 26,976 Anaheim 18,692 27,767 L. Hills 7,484 31,228 Tustin 11,374 26,319 NP Beach 20,259 16,584 Buena Park 14,219 18,896 Cypress 9,984 20,094 Santa Ana1,500 28,411 Orange 8,280 21,525 Costa Mesa 11,424 18,364 Fullerton 9,000 17,664 Westminster 10,926 13,777 G. Grove 5,833 18,642 Brea 8,168 14,897 Aliso Viejo 6,240 16,382 RSM 5,562 16,623 L. Niguel 4,800 16,004 Y. Linda 6,000 13,235 F. Valley 6,000 12,805 Placentia 2,610 16,148 SJ Capistrano 3,600 12,616 M. Viejo 12,000 3,538 Dana Point 8,620 5,024 Hunt Beach 2,101 10,714 Lake Forest 9,463 1,742 Stanton 10,200 959 S. Beach 7,410 575 L. Beach 6,720 1,198 La Habra 6,000 1,422 L. Alamitos 5,400 73 S. Clemente 4,800 270 La Palma 3,600 975 L. Woods 3,600 0 Villa Park00 ________________________________________________________________________ 30 /2011 itasnepmoC latoT yb deknaR seitiC Base Salary Benefits
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
District websites often do not provide easy public access to compensation and financial data of the district, if available at all.
F2:
District websites were sometimes not updated to reflect public meeting changes or cancellations. RECOMMENDATIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requires responses from the agencies affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based upon its Compensation Survey of Orange County Water and Sanitation Districts, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations:
F3:
Data from one hospital emergency room in Orange County showed significant annual increases in admissions for those 65 and older for prescription drug overdoses during the period examined.
F4:
Questions remain regarding the ultimate disposition of the large quantities of pain relievers being prescribed annually for County seniors. /2011 191 ADDiCTivE PREsCRiPTiON DRUGs AND ORANGE COUNTY sENiORs
F5:
Little systematic data collection is taking place regarding indicators of prescription drug misuse or abuse (e.g., overdose rates, signs of substance abuse) among the County’s seniors. RECOMMENDATIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requests responses from the agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of addictive prescription drugs and Orange County seniors, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury has five principal recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Provide in an easily accessible format on the district’s website, data on compensation for the board of directors and general manager, as well as current budget and financial reports.
R2:
Maintain and update agendas, minutes, meeting schedules and location on the district’s website. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such com- ment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: /2011 177 COMPENsATiON sURvEY Of ORANGE COUNTY wATER AND sANiTATiON DisTRiCTs (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implement- ed action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for dis- cussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not rea- sonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall ad- dress all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. 178 /2011 COMPENsATiON sURvEY Of ORANGE COUNTY wATER AND sANiTATiON DisTRiCTs Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are required from the Boards of Directors of the following agencies: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Costa Mesa Sanitary District East Orange County Water Dist. El Toro Water District Irvine Ranch Water District Laguna Beach County Water Dist. Mesa Consolidated Water District Midway Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Municipal Water District of O.C.
R3:
Promote or increase routine screening of elders for signs of prescription drug misuse or abuse at all County operated or contracted clinics and facilities.
R4:
Incorporate more systematic data collection and analysis during existing County outreach and intervention program efforts, such as by the County Health Care Agency’s Older Adult Services, Substance Abuse Resources Team.
R5:
Access and make better use of Orange County-specific prescription drug data from existing governmental databases, in particular California’s Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System, and the U.S. Drug Abuse Warning Network.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The quality and extent of compensation disclosure by the County of Orange on its Internet web- site is inadequate.
F2:
There is currently no reasonably accessible disclosure of written employment contracts on the County of Orange website. RECOMMENDATIONS: The 2010/2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requests a response from the County of Orange Executive Office to the recommendations presented in this sec- tion. The response is to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its review and evaluation of the compensation disclosure provided by the County of Orange, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations:
F3:
Compensation of individual high-level positions bears no significant relationship to city population.
F4:
Public disclosure of municipal compensation levels is widely inconsistent, ranging from good to non-existent.
F5:
With the exceptions of Laguna Beach and Newport Beach, the number of high-level positions in each city is generally commensurate with its population.
F6:
The compensation of the City Manager and Assistant City Manager/Finance Director in the City of Laguna Hills exceeds levels in other comparably sized cities both inside and outside of Orange County.
F7:
There is currently no disclosure of written employment contracts on the majority of cities’ websites. /2011 139 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY CiTiEs RECOMMENDATIONS: The 2010/2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requires responses from each city affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of the 34 cities in Orange County, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Compensation Disclosure – The County of Orange report compensation information to the public on the Internet in an easily accessible manner. The Compensation Disclosure Model (Appendix 2) provides a sample as to the items that are recommended to be includ- ed in determining total compensation.
R2:
Employment Contracts – The County of Orange reveal any individual employment con- tracts in an easily accessible manner. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such com- /2011 111 COUNTY Of ORANGE COMPENsATiON DisClOsURE ment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implement- ed action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for dis- cussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not rea- sonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall ad- dress all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are requested from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations The County of Orange F.1, F.2 R.1, R.2 Executive Office 112 /2011 COUNTY Of ORANGE COMPENsATiON DisClOsURE
R3:
Upper level Employees – The cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach conduct a review of their organizations to reconcile the necessity of maintaining a relatively large number of upper level positions in relation to their populations.
R4:
Compensation Levels – The City of Laguna Hills conduct a compensation review of top officials. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such com- ment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. 140 /2011 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY CiTiEs (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implement- ed action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for dis- cussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not rea- sonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall ad- dress all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are required from the city council of each of the following Orange County cities: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations All Orange County Cities F.4, F.7 R.1, R.2 Laguna Beach and Newport Beach F.5 R.3 Laguna Hills F.6 R.4 /2011 141 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY CiTiEs 142 /2011 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY /2011 143 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY CiTiEs 144 /2011 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY /2011 145 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY CiTiEs 146 /2011 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY /2011 147 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY CiTiEs 148 /2011 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY /2011 149 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY CiTiEs 150 /2011 COMPENsATiON sTUDY Of ORANGE COUNTY /2011 151
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
With respect to reported constraints on emergency planning and preparation, over half of schools and almost three quarters of districts identified either limited time or funds.
F2:
Six (of 17) school districts have managed to apply for and receive relatively large grants from gov- ernmental agencies to greatly enhance their emergency planning efforts, while others have not.
F3:
Some schools anticipate responding to only a few emergency situations (e.g., earthquake and fire), while others have developed plans to respond to over a dozen different threatening situa- tions.
F4:
School districts develop plans with respect to a number of different but overlapping regulations and standards, including those required by the county, state, and the federal government.
F5:
Some schools reported they have not adequately anticipated the needs of students taking pre- scription medications, or with specialized medical needs, in the event of some emergencies, such as an extended lockdown.
F6:
School districts are in communication with a variety of local and county departments, agencies, and systems to help them prepare for and respond to disasters or emergencies; not all districts ac- cess the same resources.
F7:
Few schools have plans or emergency preparation information available in languages other than English. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requests or requires responses from the agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its review of emergency preparedness in Orange County schools, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury makes the following five recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Continue to keep facilities in clean and good condition as well as keep inmate disruption at a minimum.
R2:
Collect and analyze data to evaluate the present financial impact of the ICE program on Orange County.
R3:
Develop a study to better understand the causes of the reduced inmate population that currently exist in Orange County detention facilities. /2011 7 REviEw Of ORANGE COUNTY DETENTiON fACiliTiEs
R4:
Continue to assess and present evidence-based data from the S.A.F.E. Division of the Or- ange County Sheriff’s Department to enhance transparency, provide effective law enforce- ment and reduce civil litigation. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Orange County Sheriff-Coroner F.1, F.2, F.3, F.4, F.5, F.6 R.1, R.2, R.3, R.4 Orange County Board Of Supervisors F.3, F.5, F.6 R.2, R.4 In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 the 2010-2011Grand Jury requests responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Orange County Probation Department F.3 R.3 REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such com- ment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. 8 /2011 REviEw Of ORANGE COUNTY DETENTiON fACiliTiEs (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implement- ed action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for dis- cussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not rea- sonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall ad- dress all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. /2011 9 REviEw Of ORANGE COUNTY DETENTiON fACiliTiEs 10 /2011 ORANGE COUNTY PUBliC sCHOOls: ARE THEY PREPARED fOR EMERGENCiEs? Orange County Public Schools: Are They Prepared for Emergencies? GRAND JURY /2011 11 ORANGE COUNTY PUBliC sCHOOls: ARE THEY PREPARED fOR EMERGENCiEs? 12 /2011 ORANGE COUNTY PUBliC sCHOOls: ARE THEY PREPARED fOR EMERGENCiEs? Orange County Public Schools: Are They Prepared for Emergencies? SUMMARY With this study, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury sought to provide answers to the basic ques- tion of whether public schools in the county are prepared for emergencies. It used a broad-based survey of all districts in the county, and a sample of the almost 600 schools within those districts. A survey return rate of 93% was augmented by visits to 17 individual campuses. The results demonstrate that, although Orange County public schools overall are well-prepared for an increasing number of emergency situations, there exists a considerable discrepancy between the readi- ness of schools in some districts compared to others. Although all schools in the sample were found to be adequately prepared, some are exceptionally well prepared and equipped. The main differentiating factor is districts’ ability to apply for and obtain large governmental grants that have become available in recent years. Schools in districts that have yet to access grants have had to turn more to local communities, including parents, for material support, and they struggle to find both time and money to address com- peting priorities of improving academic achievement at the same time they are preparing for the very real threat of emergencies. REASON FOR STUDY “How prepared are Orange County schools to deal with the threat of violence on campus?” This ques- tion was asked in The Orange County Register, ( , Local Section), January 24, 2011, after a spate of campus and near-campus shootings and lockdowns the previous week in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Not many weeks go by without news of a campus shooting or similar disaster somewhere in the state or nation. Indeed, the frequency of such events in the news keeps this question in the minds of most parents, teachers, and school administrators. According to the Orange County Department of Education, there are 27 public school districts1 in the county, encompassing 596 schools with a total enrollment of just over a half million students from kinder- garten through high school.2 This total includes 397 elementary schools, 83 intermediate / middle schools, 67 senior high schools, 38 continuation, alternative, or special education schools, and 11 charter schools. Because such large concentrations of children and adolescents can be found across the county most days of the week, emergency and disaster planning has necessarily become a high priority for district and school administrators, teachers, support staffs, and parents. At one time in the not too distant past, emergency planning mostly was for accidents and “natural” disasters, such as fires, earthquakes, or se- vere weather problems. Since the advent of high-profile shootings on campuses, however, by students or intruders, terrorist attacks on major cities, and outbreaks of potentially dangerous diseases, planning for a range of events has become an ongoing concern. Although all disasters can never completely be prevented or accurately predicted, public officials have a critical responsibility to prepare for their eventuality, in order to protect from harm the students placed in their care. There is one joint Orange/Los Angeles County district (Lowell); because its district headquarters is in LA County, it was not included in this study. 2 “Orange County Education at a Glance,” OCDE pamphlet, 2010. /2011 13 ORANGE COUNTY PUBliC sCHOOls: ARE THEY PREPARED fOR EMERGENCiEs? The last time the Orange County Grand Jury assessed emergency preparedness in public schools was four years ago, during the 2006-07 school year. At that time, the findings were generally critical; the report concluded “…few schools were found to have a well developed plan to assist them in coping with a major incident.” The past study primarily focused on a review of written plans requested of district offices and from a sample of individual schools. The plan reviews were augmented by visits to seven schools. Plans were evaluated and graded with respect to a single standard of preparedness, the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). SEMS Guidelines were developed by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to assist emergency management agencies, and became a part of California codes and regulations in 1994. In revisiting the topic, the 2010-11 Grand Jury sought to develop a broader picture of how individual schools and districts are preparing for emergencies. Rather than rely on a review of written plans, the current approach sought information regarding a range of operational aspects of emergency prepared- ness, such as what kinds of disasters are being anticipated, who receives training regarding emergencies, and how often does training occur? What kinds of supplies and equipment are kept on hand at schools, and in what ways do district offices contribute to preparing schools? Who reviews and approves plans? What specific constraints do schools face, and how well have various schools and districts overcome those constraints? Therefore, and also because of the large number of schools involved (potentially 596), it was decided to use a broad-based survey approach, augmented by a limited number of site-visits. The primary purposes of the study were: • To assess how well Orange County public schools are conducting preparations for school-wide emergencies or disasters, especially during times of difficult economic conditions. • To provide districts, boards, and parents with information to improve planning and preparation for emergencies, and to share information regarding possibly under-used resources and problem- solving strategies being utilized in some areas but not others. • To determine possible disparities or inequities between districts, if any, and determine their causes and effects. • To develop recommendations with the potential to be truly helpful to schools.
R5:
Districts survey their campuses with respect to the needs of non- or limited-English-speak- ing parents and guardians, and develop outlines or summaries of critical emergency plan- ning information in Spanish, Vietnamese, and other threshold languages prevalent in their local communities. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: Comments to the Presiding Judge of Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code Section 933.05 are required as follows: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such com- ment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. /2011 27
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Experienced Sheriff Deputies are a primary element of the booking and assessment process.
F2:
Former inmates are identified as “clients” upon entry into to Great Escape Program.
F3:
Twenty former Orange County jail inmates participated in the Great Escape Program and were recognized for staying sober and not re-offending for at least a year.
F4:
Resources (housing and employment) are barriers to successful completion of the Inmate Re- Entry Program.
F5:
The Inmate Re-Entry Unit has contributed to reduced recidivism rates.
F6:
Greater public awareness of Orange County Sheriff’s Department Inmate Re-Entry Program would provide a realistic view of recidivism.
F7:
The Orange County Sheriff’s Department Inmate Re-Entry Unit Program was identified as a model by the National Institute of Corrections. RECOMMENDATIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requires or requests responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Orange County Sheriff’s Department Inmate Re-Entry Unit in Orange County, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at two principal recommendations, as follows:
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Continue to seek funding to support the Re-Entry Program.
R2:
Increase public awareness of the value of programs responsible for recidivism reduction. 58 /2011 ORANGE COUNTY sHERiff’s DEPARTMENT iNMATE RE-ENTRY UNiT REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such com- ment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implement- ed action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for dis- cussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not rea- sonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall ad- dress all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. /2011 59 ORANGE COUNTY sHERiff’s DEPARTMENT iNMATE RE-ENTRY UNiT Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Orange County Board F.4 R.1, R.2 Of Supervisors Orange County Sheriff F.4, F.6 R.1, R.2 Coroner Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are requested from the: Orange County CEO F.6 R.2 Orange County Public F.6 R.2 Information Office Orange County Social F.6 R.2 Service Agency Orange County F.6 R.2 Probation Department 60 /2011 ORANGE COUNTY sHERiff’s DEPARTMENT iNMATE RE-ENTRY /2011 61 ORANGE COUNTY sHERiff’s DEPARTMENT iNMATE RE-ENTRY UNiT 62 /2011 REviEw Of THE sHERiff’s AviATiON sUPPORT UNiT Review of the Sheriff ’s Aviation Support Unit GRAND JURY /2011 63 REviEw Of THE sHERiff’s AviATiON sUPPORT UNiT 64 /2011 REviEw Of THE sHERiff’s AviATiON sUPPORT UNiT Review of the Sheriff’s Aviation Support Unit
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Average annual increases in the amount of potentially addictive medications being prescribed for Orange County seniors significantly outpaced population growth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
A comprehensive study of this topic, similar to the one conducted in 2009 by the County Health Care Agency regarding youth and young adults, to focus on County seniors.
F2:
By 2010, large quantities of narcotic pain relievers and benzodiazepine tranquilizers were being prescribed for County seniors. Prescribing trends for these drugs indicate even higher numbers in coming years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Investigate the possibility of grant money for further study and research, including from major pharmaceutical corporations.
F3:
Data from one hospital emergency room in Orange County showed significant annual increases in admissions for those 65 and older for prescription drug overdoses during the period examined.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Promote or increase routine screening of elders for signs of prescription drug misuse or abuse at all County operated or contracted clinics and facilities.
F4:
Questions remain regarding the ultimate disposition of the large quantities of pain relievers being prescribed annually for County seniors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Incorporate more systematic data collection and analysis during existing County outreach and intervention program efforts, such as by the County Health Care Agency’s Older Adult Services, Substance Abuse Resources Team.
F5:
Little systematic data collection is taking place regarding indicators of prescription drug misuse or abuse (e.g., overdose rates, signs of substance abuse) among the County’s seniors. RECOMMENDATIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requests responses from the agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of addictive prescription drugs and Orange County seniors, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury has five principal recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Access and make better use of Orange County-specific prescription drug data from existing governmental databases, in particular California’s Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System, and the U.S. Drug Abuse Warning Network.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
District websites often do not provide easy public access to compensation and financial data of the district, if available at all.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Provide in an easily accessible format on the district’s website, data on compensation for the board of directors and general manager, as well as current budget and financial reports.
F2:
District websites were sometimes not updated to reflect public meeting changes or cancellations. RECOMMENDATIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requires responses from the agencies affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based upon its Compensation Survey of Orange County Water and Sanitation Districts, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Maintain and update agendas, minutes, meeting schedules and location on the district’s website. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are required from the Boards of Directors of the following agencies: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Costa Mesa Sanitary District East Orange County Water Dist. El Toro Water District Irvine Ranch Water District Laguna Beach County Water Dist. Mesa Consolidated Water District Midway Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Municipal Water District of O.C. Orange County Sanitation District F.1 and F.2 R.1 and R.2 Orange County Water District Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area S.D. Santa Margarita Water District Serrano Water District South Coast Water District Sunset Beach Sanitary District Trabuco Canyon Water District Yorba Linda Water District
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The quality and extent of compensation disclosure by the County of Orange on its Internet website is inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Compensation Disclosure – The County of Orange report compensation information to the public on the Internet in an easily accessible manner. The Compensation Disclosure Model (Appendix 2) provides a sample as to the items that are recommended to be included in determining total compensation.
F2:
There is currently no reasonably accessible disclosure of written employment contracts on the County of Orange website. RECOMMENDATIONS: The 2010/2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requests a response from the County of Orange Executive Office to the recommendations presented in this section. The response is to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its review and evaluation of the compensation disclosure provided by the County of Orange, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Employment Contracts – The County of Orange reveal any individual employment contracts in an easily accessible manner. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are requested from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations The County of Orange F.1, F.2 R.1, R.2 Executive Office
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The primary way the YLA responded to the need to significantly reduce overall budget expenditures was to idle one of two units; therefore the program is operating at approximately half capacity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Recast program goals into measurable objectives (e.g., recidivism rates for YLA graduates) in order to facilitate the quantification of results.
F2:
New management has successfully implemented changes in how residents are regarded and treated, and has instituted evidence-based programming.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Develop efficient ways to track the progress of YLA graduates in order to better measure rates of recidivism; use this information to demonstrate program effectiveness over time.
F3:
The YLA has just undergone another change of leadership (March 2011); so far, changes that were implemented are expected to continue for the foreseeable future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Continue to search for research and training grants, including private foundation and professional association grants.
F4:
The YLA has been successful in improving overall security and safety, as indicated by the near elimination of serious problem behaviors on the unit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Develop collaborative ties to a criminology department at a local university or college; encourage graduate students working on master’s theses and doctoral dissertations to study YLA programs and outcomes.
F5:
Although the program has been successful with adopting evidence-based practices, more work needs to be done to measure outcomes, including progress toward reducing recidivism.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Improve the utility of current quarterly statistical reports by incorporating short empirical studies, surveys, and analyses of data already being collected.
F6:
The program has developed effective links to the community to facilitate the successful transition of residents back into their neighborhoods.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
When using specific Evidence-Based Programs, maintain fidelity to the model’s procedures and interventions, so that YLA results will be empirically supported. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Sections 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are requested from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Chief Probation Officer, Orange Co. Probation Dept. F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 Commendation: The Probation Department and Youth Leadership Academy are commended for employing research-tested programs and techniques to effect rehabilitation efforts.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Orange County Sheriff operates the smallest fleet of helicopters of any county in the southern part of the State.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
As budgetary constraints allow, add a third helicopter to the Aviation Support Unit, with hoist capability.
F2:
Orange County is the only county in the southern part of the State whose Sheriff’s helicopters lack hoisting capability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
As budgetary constraints allow, replace the two existing helicopters with hoist capable models.
F3:
Budgeted amounts to maintain the unit are reasonable and have reflected prudent management in view of the economic downturn.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Conduct a study of Pilot and Tactical Flight Officer career paths to improve retention and staff longevity within the Aviation Support Unit.
F4:
The current facilities of the Aviation Support Unit are overcrowded and inadequate to house all aircraft.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Develop and implement a plan for reimbursement from non- contract city operations, within the framework of mutual aid agreements.
F5:
Law enforcement pilot compensation varies considerably between agencies and lacks standardization.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Conduct a study for regionalization of the Sheriff’s helicopter program to equitably distribute costs and coverage to all citizens of Orange County.
F6:
No reimbursement program exists to compensate the Orange County Sheriff when county helicopters are operated in support of agencies outside the Sheriff’s jurisdiction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Develop and maintain a long term plan for the Aviation Support Unit for acquisition of significant capital items and improvement or relocation of existing operating facilities. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Sections 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Orange County F.1, F.2, F.3, R.1, R.2, R.3, Sheriff-Coroner F.4, F.5, F.6, R.4, R.5, R.6
F7:
The Sheriff’s Aviation Support Unit lacks a long term plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010- 2011 Grand Jury requires responses from the agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based upon its review of the Sheriff’s Aviation Support Unit, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following six recommendations:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F3:
R.3 Probation Department REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Develop a study to better understand the causes of the reduced inmate population that currently exist in Orange County detention facilities.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Continue to keep facilities in clean and good condition as well as keep inmate disruption at a minimum.
R2:
Collect and analyze data to evaluate the present financial impact of the ICE program on Orange County.
R4:
Continue to assess and present evidence-based data from the S.A.F.E. Division of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to enhance transparency, provide effective law enforcement and reduce civil litigation. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Orange County Sheriff-Coroner F.1, F.2, F.3, F.4, F.5, F.6 R.1, R.2, R.3, R.4 Orange County Board Of Supervisors F.3, F.5, F.6 R.2, R.4 In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 the 2010-2011Grand Jury requests responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Orange County Probation Department F.3 R.3 REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
With respect to reported constraints on emergency planning and preparation, over half of schools and almost three quarters of districts identified either limited time or funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Those districts which have yet to identify disaster grant opportunities, especially from governmental agencies, investigate the availability of potential resources. Forming inter-district collaboratives, learning from districts in the county that have been successful, pooling resources, and asking for consultation from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools/OCDE may help in these efforts.
F2:
Six (of 17) school districts have managed to apply for and receive relatively large grants from governmental agencies to greatly enhance their emergency planning efforts, while others have not.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Districts review their plans, and the plans specific to each of their campuses, with respect to emergencies or possible disaster situations they have not anticipated.
F3:
Some schools anticipate responding to only a few emergency situations (e.g., earthquake and fire), while others have developed plans to respond to over a dozen different threatening situations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Districts review their level of compliance with various existing codes, regulations, and liability insurance issues that pertain to emergency preparedness in public schools.
F4:
School districts develop plans with respect to a number of different but overlapping regulations and standards, including those required by the county, state, and the federal government.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Districts review their plans, and the plans specific to each of their campuses, to ascertain whether the special medical and / or prescription medication needs of all students are adequately anticipated, especially during an extended disaster situation.
F5:
Some schools reported they have not adequately anticipated the needs of students taking prescription medications, or with specialized medical needs, in the event of some emergencies, such as an extended lockdown.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Districts survey their campuses with respect to the needs of non- or limited-English-speaking parents and guardians, and develop outlines or summaries of critical emergency planning information in Spanish, Vietnamese, and other threshold languages prevalent in their local communities. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: Comments to the Presiding Judge of Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code Section 933.05 are required as follows: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are requested or required from the: Responding Agency Finding Recommendation Superintendent of each OC school district (27) F1 through F7 R1 through R5 Orange Co Superintendent of Schools (OCDE) F2, F4 R1, R3
F6:
School districts are in communication with a variety of local and county departments, agencies, and systems to help them prepare for and respond to disasters or emergencies; not all districts access the same resources.
F7:
Few schools have plans or emergency preparation information available in languages other than English. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010- 2011 Grand Jury requests or requires responses from the agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its review of emergency preparedness in Orange County schools, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury makes the following five recommendations:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The enhanced online training for poll workers is effective and complete.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Registrar and his office are urged to maintain the excellent work acknowledged in this report and to continue delivering outstanding service to the public.
F2:
The ROV was well prepared for the voter turnout at the 1,210 precincts and the VBM volume.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Registrar and his office are urged to maintain the excellent work acknowledged in this report and to continue delivering outstanding service to the public.
F3:
The support staff - Coordinators and RDT - were well trained and handled problem areas in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Registrar and his office are urged to maintain the excellent work acknowledged in this report and to continue delivering outstanding service to the public.
F4:
Security at both the collection centers and at the ROV was effective and no significant incidents occurred.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Registrar and his office are urged to maintain the excellent work acknowledged in this report and to continue delivering outstanding service to the public.
F5:
The VBM process was secure and no incidents or allegations of impropriety occurred to the Grand Jury’s knowledge.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Registrar and his office are urged to maintain the excellent work acknowledged in this report and to continue delivering outstanding service to the public.
F6:
Increased automation and storage requirements have created a need for additional floor space at the Registrar of Voters headquarters.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Study consolidation of more operations at ROV headquarters and possibilities of increasing available space.
F7:
The Electronic Voter Rosters being tested appear to offer increased efficiency and reduction in errors. RECOMMENDATIONS: The 2010/2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requests responses from the agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its review of the election process in Orange County, the 2010- 2011 Grand Jury makes the following three recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
As budget constraints allow, explore implementation of Electronic Voter Rosters for all polling sites. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Sections 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are requested from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Registrar of Voters F.1, F.2, F.3, R.1, R.2, R.3