Gran Jurado del Condado de Orange
2011-2012
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (18)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
The placement of male and female detainees in a coed unit at Central Juvenile Hall at Central Juvenile Hall resulted in a boy and girl being together, in the female’s room for an extended period of time possibly engaging in sexual conduct without staff’s knowledge or consent.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The Probation Department should review and possibly reconsider the placement of male and female juveniles in the same living unit. (See F1).
R2:
Probation Department management should review and revise policies and procedures, training and performance of staff responsible for supervision and security in the unit where the alleged sexual misconduct occurred. (See F1).
F2:
Maintenance in Unit I at Central Juvenile Hall needs attention with respect to the condition of the painted surfaces and general cleanliness of the unit.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Probation Department management should conduct a thorough inspection of Unit I and other units to determine the condition of painted surfaces, cleanliness of vents and other maintenance problems and issue work orders to take corrective action where indicated. (See F2).
F3:
Improvements are needed in the CJH visiting area including modification to the trailer to improve the general appearance (new carpeting), comfort (upgrade air conditioning), improve signage, and provide outdoor seating at the visitor’s entrance for early arrivals.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Probation Department management should budget for replacement of the carpeting and improvement of the air conditioning in the visitation trailer. (See F3).
F4:
The runaway rate at the Joplin Youth Center exceeded the norm during the past year. This is most likely because of the failure to screen minors with high runaway potential at the intake process.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
During the intake process, minors should be thoroughly screened for high runaway potential and those who have such potential should not be placed at Joplin Youth Center, an open camp with little security. (See F4)
F5:
The brief length of stay at the Joplin Youth Center results in a high rate of turnover of students creating a difficult situation for the school teaching staff and minimizes the lasting effects of a positive rehabilitative experience.
F6:
The risk management aspects of operating juvenile detention and correctional facilities could benefit from the availability of the Office of Independent Review to follow-up on serious behavioral incidents and assist in investigating allegations of staff misconduct.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R6:
A bench should be installed near the entrance to the visitation trailer for early arrivals. (See
R8:
The Board of Supervisors should expand the scope of work for the Office of Independent Review to include reviews of the Probation Department Juvenile facilities operations. (See F6). REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 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
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R7:
Probation Department Management should review the need for limiting the Joplin Youth Center Program average length of stay. Any time less than 90 days does not appear to be an effective use of facility resources.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
15 hallazgos
F1:
Most Orange County special districts, with or without the assistance of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), have been incapable or unwilling to consolidate, absorb, or eliminate these outmoded and/or redundant agencies. LAFCO typically addresses larger issues such as merging of cities and elimination of “islands” within the county. The special districts themselves have not worked seriously toward their consolidation or demise. In this regard, the enterprise special districts and the non-enterprise special districts require independent evaluation and handling.
F2:
Special districts have made very little progress in complying with the recommendations made by various governmental agencies. To ensure recommendations are followed, more coor- dination and cooperation is needed from the city and county agencies.
F3:
Most non-enterprise special districts in Orange County have outlived their purpose and usefulness. Services that they once only available through the special district are now being pro- vided by the surrounding cities and the expanding county.
F4:
The eleven non-enterprise special districts of Orange County founded before 1965 have not reflected the growth of the cities and county. The services that were unavailable from cities or the county have long since been made available as both the cities and county grew. Some of these special districts could be removed from the county tax rolls, and their services funded and absorbed by the county, surrounding cities or homeowners associations wherein they abide. 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
F5:
The sixteen enterprise districts typically started as local agricultural irrigation providers and sanitation providers for local communities. These special districts have transitioned into providers of potable water and sewerage disposal for the cities that blossomed around them after 1950. These districts grew until their boundaries met a neighboring special district that was also growing. Some of these local smaller providers have already been absorbed by larger districts under one management.
F6:
The sixteen enterprise special districts of Orange County founded between 1919 and 1964 have grown with the urbanization of the county. Thirteen of these special districts rely up- on taxes collected by the county while three rely on fees and other sources for their revenue. This suggests that all of these enterprise special districts could wean themselves from tax subsi- dies and rely on fees for their revenue. Severance from the tax subsidies would enable financial transparency and let the customers see the true cost of the services provided.
F7:
The unrestricted reserves of the special districts are available to the governing boards to spend as they please. Local citizens are not openly informed of this wealth when agencies ask for fee increases, special assessments, or bond measures. Most of the special districts do not ap- pear to have specific criteria for amassing these reserves nor do they have published long-range plans for their constructive use.
F8:
The twenty-seven special districts in Orange County have amassed unrestricted reserves of over $866,000,000. That is enough money to fund all of these special districts for more than year without taxes, fees, interest, or other sources of revenue. The boards of directors have the sole discretion to spend these unrestricted reserves.
F9:
The Orange County Auditor-Controller allocated nearly $35,000,000 to four enterprise special districts (Costa Mesa Sanitary District, South Coast Water District, Trabuco Canyon Wa- ter District, and Yorba Linda Water District) that did not show this revenue in their budgets pro- vided to the Grand Jury. What happened to that money is not clearly recorded. Budgeting with- out the allocated taxes indicates that, along with the three other enterprise special districts that do not rely on tax revenue, these enterprise special districts could function without tax revenues.
F10:
The enterprise special districts could save millions of dollars in administration costs by consolidation into regional special districts. Five or six such enterprise special districts within Orange County could save at least $500,000 per year for each special district absorbed.
F11:
The Buena Park Library and the Placentia Library (the oldest special districts in Orange County) have long outlived their original intent of providing reading materials for their original isolated communities with an electorate of about 100 people. They could readily be absorbed into the County Library System or the cities.
F12:
The community services that the original non-enterprise special districts provided can be provided by the surrounding cities and the county that have engulfed these districts. Continuing 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA to collect taxes for these special duplicative services is a disservice to both the community they serve and the surrounding communities that provide the same or similar services.
F13:
The Surfside Colony Storm Water Protection District was formed in 1941 to protect the community from ocean swells during storms and high tide. Since then the community has changed and the local governments have grown to where these services can be performed by other county or city services, resources and equipment.
F14:
The true cost of water and sanitary sewers in the enterprise special districts is hidden when both taxes and fees fund these districts. Only when the monthly service bills to the cus- tomers include all the costs for these services without the tax subsidy will the public understand the true cost of these services and achieve financial transparency.
F15:
Only one of the special districts, The South Coast Water District, has had recent perfor- mance audits. The lack of performance audits for the remaining special districts leaves the po- tential for inefficiencies, poor practices, outmoded operations, etc. hidden from the governing boards and the communities they serve. The lack of published performance audits has contribut- ed to the public‟s ignorance of these districts.
Recomendaciones adicionales
23
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
All special districts (except the Vector Control District and the County Cemetery District) should be eliminated from the county tax rolls and should rely solely on fees or the services of surrounding governments. (See F2, F3, F4, F5, & F6.)
R2:
Community service districts should be absorbed either in the cities surrounding them or into surrounding private homeowners associations. Each community service district should meet with LAFCO and with the appropriate city or homeowner‟s association to develop plans and schedules for the future of these special districts. This meeting should be take place before Sep- tember 30, 2012. (See F3, F4, & F12.)
R3:
Library districts should be absorbed into the County Library System. Both the Buena Park and the Placentia Libraries should meet with LAFCO and their cities or County Library System before September 30, 2012 to develop plans and schedules for consolidation and removal from the tax rolls. (See F11.) 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
R4:
Water and sewer districts should be consolidated into no more than six regional districts. Consideration should be given to including the city water agencies in the consolidation. LAFCO should meet with the water and sewer districts before October 31, 2012 to develop plans and schedules for consolidation. (See F5, F6 & F9.)
R5:
Water and sewer districts should be removed from the tax rolls and operate solely on fees and other revenues for their services. Consideration should be given to forming non-profit agen- cies with ownership shared by the constituents. These districts should meet with county officials before October 31, 2012 to prepare plans and schedules to remove themselves from the county tax rolls. (See F2, F5, & F6.)
R6:
Special districts should adopt “board of director‟s practices” for all their reserves, re- stricted and unrestricted. All reserves should be classified in their 2013-2014 budgets according to GASB Standard No. 54. LAFCO should work with the special districts to prepare standard criteria for accumulating reserves according to the new classifications by December 15, 2012. These standards should be used in preparing the 2013-2014 budgets. (See F7 & F9.)
R7:
Excessive unrestricted reserves should be used to reduce existing debts. Future revenues should be reduced to avoid the accumulation of unallocated revenue that does not meet the adopted new standards. (See F7 & F8.)
R8:
Each special district should have an independent performance audit at least every three years. The executive summary of the performance audit should be distributed to all the taxpay- ers of each special district. Each of the special districts that has not had a performance audit within the last five years should contract with an independent outside consultant to conduct such an audit during 2012. These audits should be repeated at least every three years. (See F15.)
R9:
Each special district should contribute 1% of its unrestricted reserve fund to LAFCO to help finance preparing and directing the consolidation, absorption, or elimination, and the setting of standards for reserves for the special districts. These funds should be included in LAFCO‟s future programs and budgets until the consolidation, absorption or elimination of each special district is achieved. With these additional funds, LAFCO should begin meeting with each special district before the 2014 fiscal year is budgeted for consolidation, absorption and/or elimination of these districts. (See F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, & F6.)
R10:
The Orange County Tax Collector should obtain all the specific allocations for the 1% property tax from the County Auditor-Controller and show them on the tax bill (not just the cur- rent generalized summary) sent to each property owner so that the taxpayers are informed of how much each service is costing them. (See F14.) ******* 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
R11:
Three of the enterprise special districts receive no allocation of taxes from the Auditor- Controller. They fund their services by assessments, fees, interest on investments and other fund sources. These are: Mesa Consolidated Water District. Municipal Water District of Orange County. Serrano Water District. .
R12:
Four other enterprise special districts have allocations of taxes from the Auditor- Controller but did not reflect them in their budgets provided to the Grand Jury. They are: 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Costa Mesa Sanitary District; South Coast Water District; Trabuco Canyon Water District; Yorba Linda Water District. Explanations for this difference include uncertainty of the State‟s financial condition.
R13:
Only two special districts are countywide, The Orange County Vector Control District and the Orange County Cemetery District. The former is funded by an allocation from the 1% property tax and a parcel tax assessment, and the latter is funded by an allocation from the 1% property tax and fees.
R14:
The special districts in Orange County have amassed more than $866,000,000 in unre- stricted reserves. These reserves that can be used at the agencies‟ discretion exceed the com- bined budgets of the special districts by over $149,000,000. The reason for accumulating these reserves is not documented nor is the intended use for these funds clearly identified.
R15:
Sixteen Orange County special districts have unrestricted reserves exceeding their annual budgets. These special districts are: East Orange County Sanitary District. Irvine Ranch Water District. Midway City Sanitary District. Moulton Niguel Water District. Orange County Water District. Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District. Santa Margarita Water District. South Coast Water District. Sunset Beach Sanitary District. Trabuco Canyon Water District. Emerald Bay Service District. Orange County Cemetery District. Rossmoor Community Service District. Surfside Colony Community Service Tax District. Surfside Colony Storm Water Protection District. Three Arch Bay Community Service District.
R16:
Special districts collect more than $182,000,000 each year in property taxes. The differ- ence between this revenue and the total budgets of $718,000,000 for all the special districts, ($674,000,000) is made up of fees for services, bond income, interest on investments, and other income. The county charges the special districts more than $933,000 to collect and distribute their taxes each year. 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
R17:
All special districts have annual financial audits that are required by State law. Only one, the South Coast Water District, has had performance audits that described the operations and recommended improvements.
R18:
All special districts have web sites except four: Surfside Colony Community Service Tax District, Surfside Colony Storm Water Protection District, and Emerald Bay Service District.
R19:
The 1% property tax on the annual secured tax bill to property owners does not provide details of the agencies‟ portion. This hides from the taxpayer the allocation made to the various county funds and the special districts.
R30-39:
69 69 71 59 50 29 4 31 56 75 3 30 15 119 9 5
R40-49:
45 146 103 82 61 61 6 64 112 72 10 45 26 161 19 15
R50-59:
45 182 126 92 82 74 7 82 145 72 25 45 53 167 40 17
R60-69:
13 116 80 45 42 50 9 47 83 36 22 27 34 86 27 11 70+ 7 23 16 14 10 9 0 9 21 8 6 6 7 21 5 2 Not indicated 3 8 6 5 4 5 2 3 5 5 2 3 3 7 1 1 Total Counts 269 582 480 350 304 254 32 262 469 346 69 170 140 686 169 55 Percentages 32% 68% 58% 42% 54% 46% 11% 89% 58% 42% 29% 71% 17% 83% 75% 25% GRAND JURY RIDE-ALONGS Members of the 2011-2012 Grand Jury rode with inspectors on their daily rounds.8 They observed how the inspectors prepare for work at the OCVCD yard, and how they organize their daily tasks. Riders traveling with inspectors observed their treatment of open drains, storm channels, standing water, ponds, and unattended swimming pools. Such pools can be treated every three months for up to three years. Inspectors were typically welcomed by the residents. Where rats have been reported the inspectors checked property and homes for signs of infestation. Inspectors go through the property with the occupant, pointing out possible entry areas and food sources. They also educate residents on how to alleviate problems. In some cases the inspectors leave traps with detailed instructions for their use. Inspectors are assigned wide geographical areas. They perform their work with diligence and dedication. Ride-along observers indicated that inspectors are well-trained and more than willing to show and explain their services to residents. The ride-alongs also gave insight into the difficulty inspector’s encounter in recording information. Tasks that have proven cumbersome are separate computer programs used for documenting work orders, unattended pools, mosquito treatment, and rat infestation. These are 7 Figure 1, August 2011 Public Survey 8 Ride-along interviews; October 20, 26, & 27, 2011 Orange County 2011-2012 Grand Jury
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
F2 F3 F4 F5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 County County of Orange X X X X X X Cities Aliso Viejo X X X X X X X X Anaheim X X X X X X X X Brea X X X X X X X X Buena Park X X X X Costa Mesa X X X X Cypress X X X X X X X X X X Dana Point X X X X X X Fountain Valley X X X X X X X X X X Fullerton X X X X X X X X Garden Grove X X X X X X X X Huntington Beach X X X X X X X X X X Irvine X X X X X X La Habra X X X X X X La Palma X X X X X X X X Laguna Beach X X X X X X X X Laguna Hills X X X X X X X X Laguna Niguel X X X X X X X X X X Laguna Woods X X X X Lake Forest X X X X X X X X Los Alamitos X X X X X X X X X X Mission Viejo X X X X X X X X Newport Beach X X X X X X X X Orange X X X X X X X X Placentia X X X X Rancho Santa Margarita X X X X X X San Clemente X X X X X X San Juan Capistrano X X X X X X Santa Ana X X X X X X X X X X Seal Beach X X X X X X X X Stanton X X X X X X Tustin X X X X X X X X Villa Park X X X X X X X X Westminster X X X X X X X X X X Yorba Linda X X X X 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury COMPENSATION COST TRANSPARENCY TABLE 3 – Special Districts/JPAs/OCERS Responses Required for Findings (F) & Recommendations (R)
F2:
– Content & Clarity Ratings for EXECUTIVE Compensation Cost Content and Clarity for the OC cities elected officials and executives over $100,000 in base salary is improving in this 2nd year of ratings. On the other hand, there is understandably even more potential improvement possible for the Special Districts and joint power authority, which are in their 1st year of ratings. o County: The County of Orange went from a nonexistent Executive Compensation Page in 2011 to one rated excellent in 2012 for Content and Clarity. o Cities: This year in 2012, fourteen of thirty-four cities (41%) were rated excellent for Executive CCT Content and Clarity, while none were rated excellent in 2011. 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury COMPENSATION COST TRANSPARENCY However, twenty of the thirty-four cities were rated good, average, poor and nonexistent for Executive Compensation Cost Content and Clarity, all of whom could improve to excellent. o Special Districts and Joint Power Authority (JPA): Only three of twenty-three special districts/JPA (13%) were rated excellent for Executive Compensation Cost Content and Clarity. Nineteen of twenty-three special districts/JPA who received ratings of good, average, poor and nonexistent for Executive Compensation Cost can improve to achieve an excellent rating.26
F3:
- Content & Clarity for EMPLOYEE Compensation Cost Ratings There is the most opportunity for more transparent reporting in the Content and Clarity of Employee Compensation Cost reporting on local government websites. o County: The County of Orange was rated excellent above for their Executive Compensation Page Content and Clarity. However, the County of Orange was only rated average for Employee Compensation Cost Content and Clarity and could improve to achieve an excellent rating. o Cities: Only five of thirty-four cities (15%) were rated excellent for Employee Compensation Cost Content and Clarity. Twenty-nine of the thirty-four cities were rated good, average, poor and nonexistent for Employee Compensation Cost Content and Clarity, all of whom could improve to excellent. o Special Districts and Joint Power Authority (JPA) Only four of twenty-three special districts and joint power authority (17%) were rated excellent for Employee Compensation Cost Content and Clarity. Nineteen of the twenty-three special districts/JPA were rated good, average, poor and nonexistent for Employee Compensation Cost Content and Clarity, all of whom could improve to excellent. One of the 23 special districts/JPAs was rated “Not Applicable” due to their volunteer executive board and no paid executives. (3+19+1=23). 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury COMPENSATION COST TRANSPARENCY
F4:
– Transparency of Employer Pension Contribution Rates Many Orange County local government web sites do not generally post their employer pension annual contribution rates prominently to their web sites as part of their compensation cost disclosure for public disclosure. Specifically, these employer contribution percentages refer to the annual percentages of employee salary that CalPERS (California Public Employees Retirement System) or OCERS (Orange County Employee Retirement System) requires of Orange County local governments to fund their employee guaranteed pension plans. OCERS has the employer pension contribution rates buried in detailed actuarial reports and presentations on the OCERS website or requires member passwords to access these annual governmental funding rates. Thus, there is limited transparency for the public of these governmental pension contribution rates.
Recomendaciones adicionales
5
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
- Access for Compensation Costs Transparency - The Grand Jury recommends that each of the sixteen Orange County cities, districts and joint power authority that were rated less than excellent for Accessibility upgrade their access to compensation costs. The access should be intuitive, readily identifiable on the web site home page and provide easy navigation within one or very few “clicks.”
R2:
- Content & Clarity of EXECUTIVE Compensation Costs - The Grand Jury recommends that each of the forty-one of the fifty-seven Orange County cities, districts and joint power authority that were rated less than excellent for their Content and Clarity for their Executive and Elected Officials compensation costs page upgrade their Executive Compensation page. See
R3:
- Content & Clarity of EMPLOYEE Compensation Costs - The Grand Jury recommends that the County of Orange and all Orange County cities, districts and joint power authority that were rated less than Excellent for Content and Clarity for their Employee compensation costs pages upgrade their Employee pages. See
R4:
- Transparency of Employer Pension Contribution Rates - The Grand Jury recommends that all Orange County cities, districts and joint power authority, as well as the County of Orange, post their employer pension annual contribution rates prominently and transparently on their web sites. Current and recent rates would be instructive and informative. It is recognized that some already do. The Grand Jury recommends that OCERS display their member organizations annual contribution rates in a transparent way to the general public without password access on their web site. For a suggested model, see http://calpers.ca.gov and enter “public agency employer contribution search.”
R5:
- Transparency of Overtime Pay and On-Call Pay in Employee Compensation Cost Reporting – The Grand Jury recommends that all Orange County cities, districts and joint power authority, as well as the County of Orange, include overtime pay and on-call pay in compensation cost reporting on their employees’ compensation pages. 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury COMPENSATION COST TRANSPARENCY See
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
27 hallazgos
F1:
Elder abuse reporting has been rising and will probably increase because of a projected expansion in the population partially due to an influx of baby boomers.
F2:
Increased oversight would improve coordination and communication among county agencies and departments.
F3:
Reviewing procedures in law enforcement agencies, law enforcement academies under Orange County government jurisdiction and the District Attorney’s office could improve recognition of elder abuse
F4:
The computer system in the Public Guardian’s Office has been “inadequate for its intended use”17 for many years impacting the ability of the Public Guardian to provide documentation in areas of elder abuse.
F5:
A more definitive study is necessary to address four specific concerns within the area of elder abuse: A. Oversight over coordination and communication between agencies; B. Outreach and communication to the general public; C. Review of law enforcement and prosecution; D. Effective Information Technology to manage data flow.
F6:
A Consent Order and Decree was issued in 2003 by the State DTSC through which seven companies agreed to take on the task and expense of reclaiming the site;
F7:
DTSC-driven ―clean-up‖ began in 2003; 35 1999-2000 Grand Jury Final Report, ET-1 36 Ibid, ET-5. ―[t]he City of Huntington Beach does not assume the degree of responsibility for monitoring the Nesi/Ascon site that seems prudent to the Grand Jury.‖ 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury NESI/ASCON STUDY
F8:
Final remediation has still not been attained but is expected to be completed in 2015;
F9:
―Clean-up‖ is taking an extraordinarily long time to achieve, far longer than originally contemplated.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
The Sheriff should explore the use of video visiting within the various facilities as a way of improving security and reducing staff time to move and supervise inmates. (See F9). 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Detention Facilities Report – Part I - Adult
F10:
Some neighbors claim that there have been abnormally high numbers of physical and neurological illnesses in nearby housing owing to the toxicity of the site, although Public Health Agency statistics do not appear to bear this out. Such public health statistics have not calmed he fears of some local residents. Responses to Findings 1 through 10 are requested from the City Council of Huntington Beach.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
The study of the Inmate Re-Entry program, currently under way, is scheduled to be completed in 2012. This study should be published, when complete, with a copy to the Grand Jury. (See F10). REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 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
F11:
How are the results of these surveys used and who reviews them?
F12:
What training programs have been presented to the administration and teachers each school year?
F13:
Does your district or your school decide which training programs are recommended for use?
F14:
Who decides the actual implementation of these training programs?
F15:
Are teacher training programs assessed or evaluated for appropriateness and effectiveness, and if so, by whom and how are the results used?
F16:
Did bullying or harassment incidents reports increase or decrease after programs were presented to the students?
F17:
Have anti-bullying/anti-harassment incident reports increased or decreased after training programs were completed by the administration and teachers?
F18:
What is your school/district‘s protocol for student/teacher incident report entries?
F19:
How does your school and/or district determine if a bullying/harassment incident will be included in the formal incident reports? 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Anti-Bullying Programs in Orange Schools County
F20:
What additional efforts have the administration and/or teachers implemented on campus or in classrooms to help create an anti- bullying/anti-harassment atmosphere?
F21:
If your district suggests the use of anti-bullying/anti-harassment programs how, if at all, are the schools tracked or monitored for program implementation?
F22:
Please indicate the person, and/or committee, and/or department that would monitor program implementation.
F23:
Mandatory Postings (AB354, Ed Code 234.1 (D) Do you have any anti-bullying/anti-harassment policies posted and where are they? (Office, staff lounge, student gov‘t room, etc.)
F24:
Please provide copies of any materials available for students and staff regarding anti-bullying programs. Appendix: C Following is a list of O.C. districts surveyed by mail requesting all anti-bullying/anti- harassment programs/clubs recommended to schools in the district.
F25:
Savanna School District
F26:
Tustin Unified School District
F27:
Westminster School District
Recomendaciones adicionales
26
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
By October 1, 2012, the Board of Supervisors should establish a one-year independent, volunteer commission, consisting of private citizens (including members of various oversight committees), to conduct a comprehensive study of the effectiveness of elder abuse resources in Orange County focusing on the following: A. The prevalence of elder abuse and the probable increase in the future; B. The efficacy of individual county agencies and departments; C. Interactions with Orange County agencies/departments and non-profit organizations that provide senior resources; D. The availability of outreach and communication to citizens concerning elder abuse; E. The procedures of law enforcement agencies to investigate reports of abuse; and F. The procedures used by the District Attorney’s office to determine prosecution.
R2:
By October 1, 2012, the Board of Supervisors should direct the Office of the Performance Audit Director to evaluate Adult Protective Services, The Office on Aging, Adult Mental Health Services and The Public Guardian. The evaluation would determine their individual effectiveness; assess their coordination and communication; and discover any overlap in services among them.
R3:
By October 1, 2012, the County Executive Officer should direct the Information Technology Department to evaluate the computer system of The Public Administrator/Public Guardian to insure that this agency has a full capacity to report, coordinate and monitor elder abuse.
R4:
By December 31, 2012, the County Executive Officer should review agencies and departments within his purview to determine if they provide an effective response to elder abuse without any duplication of responsibilities.
R5:
By December 31, 2012, the Sheriff’s Department and city police departments should evaluate and update their programs on responding to elder abuse cases.
R6:
By December 31, 2012, the District Attorney should direct staff to review all procedures for prosecution of elder abuse cases.
R7:
By December 31, 2012, the District Attorney should direct staff to review current information available throughout the country concerning elder abuse in order to design an updated program for prosecution. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Findings/Conclusions and Recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Elder Abuse in Orange County “Not later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section §914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. (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 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 / 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Elder Abuse in Orange County or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d.) The Board of Supervisors, District Attorney and Sheriff-Coroner are required to respond to findings and recommendations. All other agencies set forth in the matrix are requested to respond. 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Elder Abuse in Orange County Table No. 1 – FINDINGS – RESPONSE MATRIX NAME OF ENTITY F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 COUNTY Adult Mental Health Services: Health Care Agency X X Adult Protective Services: Social Services Agency X X Board of Supervisors X X X County Executive Officer X X X X District Attorney X Office on Aging: OC Community Resources X X Public Guardian: Public Administrator/Public Guardian X LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: OC Sheriff’s Department: County & Contract Cities X Anaheim Police Department X Brea Police Department X Buena Park Department X Costa Mesa Police Department X Cypress Police Department X Dana Point Police Department X Fountain Valley Police Department X Fullerton Police Department X Garden Grove Police Department X Huntington Beach Police Department X Irvine Police Department X La Habra Police Department X La Palma Police Department X Laguna Beach Police Department X Los Alamitos Police Department X Newport Beach Police Department X Orange Police Department X Placentia Police Department X Santa Ana Police Department X Seal Beach Police Department X Tustin Police Department X Westminster Police Department X 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Elder Abuse in Orange County Table No. 2 – RECOMMENDATIONS – RESPONSE MATRIX NAME OF ENTITY R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 COUNTY Board of Supervisors X X County Executive Officer X X District Attorney X X LAW ENFORCEMENT OC Sheriff’s Department: County & Contract Cities X Anaheim Police Department X Brea Police Department X Buena Park Department X Costa Mesa Police Department X Cypress Police Department X Dana Point Police Department X Fountain Valley Police Department X Fullerton Police Department X Garden Grove Police Department X Huntington Beach Police Department X Irvine Police Department X La Habra Police Department X La Palma Police Department X Laguna Beach Police Department X Los Alamitos Police Department X Newport Beach Police Department X Orange Police Department X Placentia Police Department X Santa Ana Police Department X Seal Beach Police Department X Tustin Police Department X Westminster Police Department X 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Elder Abuse in Orange County
R10:
Are your students surveyed following these programs? If so, how is this done?
R11:
How are the results of these surveys used and who reviews them?
R12:
What training programs have been presented to the administration and teachers each school year?
R13:
Does your district or your school decide which training programs are recommended for use?
R14:
Who decides the actual implementation of these training programs?
R15:
Are teacher training programs assessed or evaluated for appropriateness and effectiveness, and if so, by whom and how are the results used?
R16:
Did bullying or harassment incidents reports increase or decrease after programs were presented to the students?
R17:
Have anti-bullying/anti-harassment incident reports increased or decreased after training programs were completed by the administration and teachers?
R18:
What is your school/district‘s protocol for student/teacher incident report entries?
R19:
How does your school and/or district determine if a bullying/harassment incident will be included in the formal incident reports? 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Anti-Bullying Programs in Orange Schools County
R20:
What additional efforts have the administration and/or teachers implemented on campus or in classrooms to help create an anti- bullying/anti-harassment atmosphere?
R21:
If your district suggests the use of anti-bullying/anti-harassment programs how, if at all, are the schools tracked or monitored for program implementation?
R22:
Please indicate the person, and/or committee, and/or department that would monitor program implementation.
R23:
Mandatory Postings (AB354, Ed Code 234.1 (D) Do you have any anti-bullying/anti-harassment policies posted and where are they? (Office, staff lounge, student gov‘t room, etc.)
R24:
Please provide copies of any materials available for students and staff regarding anti-bullying programs.
R25:
Savanna School District
R26:
Tustin Unified School District
R27:
Westminster School District
R40:
c n I 20 0 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 US Bureau of Labor Statistics; CPI Detailed Report; March 2012 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Findings/Conclusions presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its study of the Orange County Fire Authority, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following Findings/Conclusions: F1. The costs of labor of the OCFA, excluding benefits, are growing annually almost ten times faster than the increase of personnel and 3.5 faster than the Consumer Price Index-U. F2. Labor agreements of the past have included salary increases of 3 and 4 percent per year while the cost of living represented by the Consumer Price Index-Urban have averaged slightly more than 2.3 percent per year. Future wage increases are based on a “trigger formula” that is tied to the “secured property tax dollar amount” and any “General Fund Surplus/Deficit,” and the average of the top quarter of neighboring non-Authority fire departments. F3. Basing firefighter‟s salaries to the “secured property tax” that are founded primarily on the assessed value of the property served may not be the most economically responsive (or seemly rational to the public) method of calculating wages from a taxpayer perspective. This method produces salaries that do not appear to be compatible with actual wages within the communities they serve. Furthermore, basing salaries on those of neighboring firefighters can result in “spiraling” increases if those agencies base their wages on those of OCFA. F4. Labor agreements for the firefighters that do not appear to reflect the overall economy and finances of the taxpayers and cities they serve may show a deficiency of civic duty of the Directors in making the tough choices and balancing the needs of the citizens that they serve. F5. The terms of office of the Board of Directors (some of which are only a year) appear to be too short for directors to become thoroughly acquainted with the complex operations and finances of this large agency. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires 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 study of the Orange County Fire Authority, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY R1. The OCFA should state on their website how firefighter‟s salaries are based in the past on the OCFA revenue, and currently on the OCFA general fund surplus/deficit rather than on the living costs and financial conditions of the cities and citizens they serve. R2. Prior to entering into or negotiating any labor agreements, the OCFA Board of Directors should ensure that the law of supply and demand or the overall economic health of the communities that they serve is reflected in the salaries and benefits packages. Preferably, methods in determining salaries and benefits, among others, might include: Relating salaries and benefits to what the market will bear, i.e., high applications numbers for a job would usually lead to offering lower salaries and benefits; Tying salaries and benefits to local economic indexes that reflect the economies of the community served. R3. OCFA salaries should be renegotiated annually to reflect the actual economic trends of those citizens they serve as opposed to entering into labor agreement that project salary and benefit increases too far in the future with set increases that do not reflect the unreliable economic volatile future. R4. The OCFA Board of Directors should clarify and explain which part of the current Memorandum of Understanding controls: Article XXIV that sets annual increases through 2015, or the requirement of Article XXIX that requires compatibility with neighboring non-Authority fire departments, and explain the reasoning for that rationale. This should be included on OCFA‟s website under the Memorandum of Understanding. R5. The OCFA Board of Directors should provide and make public both a short-term and long-term plan that brings the labor agreements in line with the living cost of the citizens they serve rather than solely upon the revenues derived from secured property tax of the property and city fees in their realm. R6. If the growth of firefighter‟s salaries is reduced to reflect the economy of the citizens they serve, the OCFA should consider reducing the fees that they charge their contract cities to reflect the change and to be responsive to the financial realities of the cities. R7. The OCFA should consider requiring the terms of office of the directors to be at least two years to provide longer time for continuity of the leadership. REQUIRED RESPONSES In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from the OCFA and the OCFA Board of Directors to the Findings/Conclusions and Recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY “Not later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section §914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and commendations…” The Penal Code lists the following response choices for a responding entity: Responses to Findings 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 in dispute and shall include an explanation of the reason. Responses to Recommendations 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. 3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope and parameters of that analysis and timeframe. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation. All responses should be received no later than October 1 (unless the agency or department has requested in writing an additional extension). Follow-up is the responsibility of the sitting Grand Jury. 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
27 hallazgos
F1:
Not all Orange County schools use the same technology, procedures and codes to record bullying or harassment incidents.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Recommend a county wide compatible information system for reporting incidents of bullying be explored by all school districts.
F2:
New legislation AB1156 takes effect July 1, 2012, and broadens the definition of “Bullying.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Recommend all countywide schools agree upon the same definition of bullying.
F3:
Education Code 234.1 requiring posting of anti-bullying/anti-harassment policies in prescribed areas was not evident in all schools visited.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Each district review standardized procedures to protect a bully victim and bystanders’ confidentiality as stated in Education Code 234.1
F4:
Based on witness testimony, confidentiality was not maintained in a bullying incident as prescribed in California Education Code section 234.1.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
By January 2013, Orange County Superintendent of Schools creates an oversight committee to monitor the mandates and implementation contained in Assembly Bills, AB1156, AB9, and AB746.
F5:
Are you familiar with the programs GLISEN, BRIDGES, and PBIS? If so, please explain your understanding or knowledge of these programs and their implementation, if any, at your school.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
Recommend Orange County Superintendent of Schools create a committee for the purpose of standardizing a definition of bullying to be used by all schools county wide when recording a bullying incident.
F6:
Does your district or your school decide what anti-bullying/anti-harassment student programs will be offered?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
Recommend each district explore the development of a county wide standard information system for recording incidents of bullying.
F7:
Who decides on the implementation of these programs?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
All schools post anti-bullying/anti-harassment policy in offices, staff lounges and student government meeting areas as prescribed in Education Code 234.1. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2011-2012 Grand Jury requires 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. 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 re commendations 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 manners 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 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 School Districts F1, F2, F3, F4, R1, R2, R3, R6, R7 Orange County Superintendent of Schools R4, R5, Appendix: A School Programs: The 2011-2012 Grand Jury completed interviews at elementary, middle and high school level with administration officials. From those interviews, it became apparent that various programs/clubs are in place to help students deal with bullying situations and to support student growth in problem solving behavior issues. The following are brief summaries of programs that were brought to the attention of this Grand Jury. This is a sampling of programs and not a complete list. Rachel‘s Challenge: “Start a Chain Reaction” In memory of Rachel Scott—a victim of the Columbine High School Shootings Rachel’s Challenge is a program that is designed to inspire, equip and empower students K-12 to make a positive difference in their world. A powerful partnership can replace bullying and violent behavior on a school campus with kindness and compassion so students can learn in a safer, more respectful environment. Rachael’s Challenge objectives for schools are: Create a safe learning environment for all students by re-establishing civility and delivering proactive antidotes to school violence and bullying. Improve academic achievement by engaging students’ hearts, heads and hands in the learning process. Provide students with social/emotional education that is both colorblind and culturally relevant. Train adults to inspire, equip and empower students to affect permanent positive change. Cyber Saavy Safety Week: High school students participate in a school-wide program to encourage safe use of the internet. Each grade level takes part in a specific lesson facilitated by their teacher. Lessons included in the program are as follows: 9th grade—Social Networks and Cyber Bullying 10th grade—Social Networks and On line Predators 11th grade—Passwords and Phishing 12th grade—Digital Footprint and Online Reputation Too Good For Violence/Drugs: “Too Good For Drugs/Violence” is a supplemental curriculum taught to 4th-8th graders. The program consists of 10 lessons teaching strategies for dealing with peer pressure and how to make good decisions. The four focus strands are: (1) conflict resolution, (2) anger management, (3) respect for self and others and (4) effective communication. Parents are invited to participate in completing lessons at home. Web Days-Welcome Everybody: WEB “Welcome Every Body” is a middle school program designed to help incoming students succeed socially and academically as they transition from elementary school. Setting foot for the first time in a middle school can be intimidating. WEB is built on the belief that students can help students succeed. WEB leaders are positive role models motivating leading and teaching incoming students about the school. Activities include orientation, picnics, scavenger hunts, movie afternoons and WEB focus days. Pal-Peer Assistance Leadership: The PAL “Peer Assistance Leadership Program” is a school-based peer-to-peer youth development program for students in grades 4-12 built upon a philosophy of students helping students. Established in 1980 by the Orange County Department of Education, the PAL program addresses the underlying causes of violence, tobacco, alcohol and drug use by youth. The program encourages PAL students and their peers to make healthy life decisions and provides opportunities to create a supportive and safe school environment. PAL supports students healthy lifestyles by building resiliency and assets through youth leadership, mentoring, conflict resolution, cross-age teaching, peer helping, service learning and prevention activities. The PAL program can enhance and support all student leadership programs in schools. PBIS—Positive Behavior Intervention and Support: This nationwide program is widely used. PBIS is a system change method that promotes positive student behaviors through strategies incorporated into the classroom. This is a four year training program that works with teachers to increase their behavioral skills to change teacher behavior in order to change student behavior. PBIS is designed to positively affect not only the student behavior but student quality of life. BRIDGES—Building Bridges To Understanding: The BRIDGES program has partnered with Orange County schools that have demonstrated a commitment to this mission and to creating a campus that is safe, welcoming and equitable. BRIDGES is a multi-year program designed to improve inter-group relations by partnering with schools and communities to create, advocate and sustain a safe, inclusive climate that respects society’s diversity. BRIDGES trains teams of people to help create a safe environment free of anti-harassment/bullying. Gay-Straight Alliance: Gay-straight alliances are student organizations found in high schools that are intended to provide a safe and supportive environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth and their straight allies. The goal of gay-straight alliances is to make their school community safe and welcoming to all students regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. They participate in national campaigns to raise awareness such as the Day of Silence, National Coming out Day, and No Name Calling Week. Appendix: B Sample of Survey Questions used during interviews with site administrators entitled, ‗Anti- Bullying/Anti-Harassment Survey‘ are as follows: 1. May we see/have redacted bullying/harassment incident reports for 2010-2012 and so far this year? 2. How many bullying or harassment incidents were reported and recorded in your incident reports for school year 2010-2011? 3. How many so far for the current school year? 4. What anti-bullying/anti-harassment student programs and clubs have been made available to your school this year and last? 5. Are you familiar with the programs GLISEN, BRIDGES, and PBIS? If so, please explain your understanding or knowledge of these programs and their implementation, if any, at your school. 6. Does your district or your school decide what anti-bullying/anti-harassment student programs will be offered? 7. Who decides on the implementation of these programs? 8. What is the frequency of the programs? 9. For how many years has your school been offering these programs? 10. Are your students surveyed following these programs? If so, how is this done? 11. How are the results of these surveys used and who reviews them? 12. What training programs have been presented to the administration and teachers each school year? 13. Does your district or your school decide which training programs are recommended for use? 14. Who decides the actual implementation of these training programs? 15. Are teacher training programs assessed or evaluated for appropriateness and effectiveness, and if so, by whom and how are the results used? 16. Did bullying or harassment incidents reports increase or decrease after programs were presented to the students? 17. Have anti-bullying/anti-harassment incident reports increased or decreased after training programs were completed by the administration and teachers? 18. What is your school/district‘s protocol for student/teacher incident report entries? 19. How does your school and/or district determine if a bullying/harassment incident will be included in the formal incident reports? 20. What additional efforts have the administration and/or teachers implemented on campus or in classrooms to help create an anti- bullying/anti-harassment atmosphere? 21. If your district suggests the use of anti-bullying/anti-harassment programs how, if at all, are the schools tracked or monitored for program implementation? 22. Please indicate the person, and/or committee, and/or department that would monitor program implementation. 23. Mandatory Postings (AB354, Ed Code 234.1 (D) Do you have any anti-bullying/anti-harassment policies posted and where are they? (Office, staff lounge, student gov‘t room, etc.) 24. Please provide copies of any materials available for students and staff regarding anti-bullying programs. Appendix: C Following is a list of O.C. districts surveyed by mail requesting all anti-bullying/anti- harassment programs/clubs recommended to schools in the district. 1. Anaheim School District 2. Anaheim Union High School District 3. Brea Olinda Unified School District 4. Buena Park School District 5. Capistrano Unified School District 6. Centralia School District 7. Cypress School District 8. Fountain Valley School District 9. Fullerton Joint Union High School District 10. Fullerton School District 11. Garden Grove Unified School District 12. Huntington Beach City School District 13. Huntington Beach Union High School District 14. Irvine Unified School District 15. La Habra City School District 16. Los Alamitos Unified School District 17. Lowell Joint School District 18. Magnolia School District 19. Newport-Mesa Unified School District 20. Ocean View School District 21. Orange Unified School District 22. Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District 23. Saddleback Valley Unified School District 24. Santa Ana Unified School District 25. Savanna School District 26. Tustin Unified School District 27. Westminster School District
F8:
What is the frequency of the programs?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
What is the frequency of the programs?
F9:
For how many years has your school been offering these programs?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
For how many years has your school been offering these programs?
F10:
Are your students surveyed following these programs? If so, how is this done?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Are your students surveyed following these programs? If so, how is this done?
F11:
How are the results of these surveys used and who reviews them?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
How are the results of these surveys used and who reviews them?
F12:
What training programs have been presented to the administration and teachers each school year?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R12:
What training programs have been presented to the administration and teachers each school year?
F13:
Does your district or your school decide which training programs are recommended for use?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R13:
Does your district or your school decide which training programs are recommended for use?
F14:
Who decides the actual implementation of these training programs?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R14:
Who decides the actual implementation of these training programs?
F15:
Are teacher training programs assessed or evaluated for appropriateness and effectiveness, and if so, by whom and how are the results used?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R15:
Are teacher training programs assessed or evaluated for appropriateness and effectiveness, and if so, by whom and how are the results used?
F16:
Did bullying or harassment incidents reports increase or decrease after programs were presented to the students?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R16:
Did bullying or harassment incidents reports increase or decrease after programs were presented to the students?
F17:
Have anti-bullying/anti-harassment incident reports increased or decreased after training programs were completed by the administration and teachers?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R17:
Have anti-bullying/anti-harassment incident reports increased or decreased after training programs were completed by the administration and teachers?
F18:
What is your school/district‘s protocol for student/teacher incident report entries?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R18:
What is your school/district‘s protocol for student/teacher incident report entries?
F19:
How does your school and/or district determine if a bullying/harassment incident will be included in the formal incident reports?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R19:
How does your school and/or district determine if a bullying/harassment incident will be included in the formal incident reports?
F20:
What additional efforts have the administration and/or teachers implemented on campus or in classrooms to help create an anti- bullying/anti-harassment atmosphere?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R20:
What additional efforts have the administration and/or teachers implemented on campus or in classrooms to help create an anti- bullying/anti-harassment atmosphere?
F21:
If your district suggests the use of anti-bullying/anti-harassment programs how, if at all, are the schools tracked or monitored for program implementation?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R21:
If your district suggests the use of anti-bullying/anti-harassment programs how, if at all, are the schools tracked or monitored for program implementation?
F22:
Please indicate the person, and/or committee, and/or department that would monitor program implementation.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R22:
Please indicate the person, and/or committee, and/or department that would monitor program implementation.
F23:
Mandatory Postings (AB354, Ed Code 234.1 (D) Do you have any anti-bullying/anti-harassment policies posted and where are they? (Office, staff lounge, student gov‘t room, etc.)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R23:
Mandatory Postings (AB354, Ed Code 234.1 (D) Do you have any anti-bullying/anti-harassment policies posted and where are they? (Office, staff lounge, student gov‘t room, etc.)
F24:
Please provide copies of any materials available for students and staff regarding anti-bullying programs. Appendix: C Following is a list of O.C. districts surveyed by mail requesting all anti-bullying/anti- harassment programs/clubs recommended to schools in the district.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R24:
Please provide copies of any materials available for students and staff regarding anti-bullying programs.
F25:
Savanna School District
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R25:
Savanna School District
F26:
Tustin Unified School District
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R26:
Tustin Unified School District
F27:
Westminster School District
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R27:
Westminster School District
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
F1:
The Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) appears to be adequately funded by federal and state grants and local Proposition M2 taxes, and when constructed, will be a state of the art intermodal transportation hub. OCTA, Board Committee Transmittal, dated February 2011 10 Articinfo.com, Funding Sources, 10/28/11 11 Articinfo.com, Funding Sources, 10/28/11
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The OCTA Board of Directors should inform the public how the authority revised the wording that changed the guidelines of the voter approved Measure M2 – Project T. Responses “In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2011-2012 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Findings and Recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. “ Not later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section §914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations…” Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal code Section 933.05 are requested or required as shown below: OCTA OCTA
F2:
The foresight of the OCTA Board of Directors was shown when they were able to change their stated guidelines for M2-T, Despite the fact that high speed rail maybe delayed for 20 years, they changed the criteria for expenditures from “for connect to existing structures” to “relocating” to another site, and from intending for “high speed rail” to “for planned high speed rail”, which allowed the project to continue.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
The costs of labor of the OCFA, excluding benefits, are growing annually almost ten times faster than the increase of personnel and 3.5 faster than the Consumer Price Index-U.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The OCFA should state on their website how firefighter‟s salaries are based in the past on the OCFA revenue, and currently on the OCFA general fund surplus/deficit rather than on the living costs and financial conditions of the cities and citizens they serve.
F2:
Labor agreements of the past have included salary increases of 3 and 4 percent per year while the cost of living represented by the Consumer Price Index-Urban have averaged slightly more than 2.3 percent per year. Future wage increases are based on a “trigger formula” that is tied to the “secured property tax dollar amount” and any “General Fund Surplus/Deficit,” and the average of the top quarter of neighboring non-Authority fire departments.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Prior to entering into or negotiating any labor agreements, the OCFA Board of Directors should ensure that the law of supply and demand or the overall economic health of the communities that they serve is reflected in the salaries and benefits packages. Preferably, methods in determining salaries and benefits, among others, might include: Relating salaries and benefits to what the market will bear, i.e., high applications numbers for a job would usually lead to offering lower salaries and benefits; Tying salaries and benefits to local economic indexes that reflect the economies of the community served.
F3:
Basing firefighter‟s salaries to the “secured property tax” that are founded primarily on the assessed value of the property served may not be the most economically responsive (or seemly rational to the public) method of calculating wages from a taxpayer perspective. This method produces salaries that do not appear to be compatible with actual wages within the communities they serve. Furthermore, basing salaries on those of neighboring firefighters can result in “spiraling” increases if those agencies base their wages on those of OCFA.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
OCFA salaries should be renegotiated annually to reflect the actual economic trends of those citizens they serve as opposed to entering into labor agreement that project salary and benefit increases too far in the future with set increases that do not reflect the unreliable economic volatile future.
F4:
Labor agreements for the firefighters that do not appear to reflect the overall economy and finances of the taxpayers and cities they serve may show a deficiency of civic duty of the Directors in making the tough choices and balancing the needs of the citizens that they serve.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The OCFA Board of Directors should clarify and explain which part of the current Memorandum of Understanding controls: Article XXIV that sets annual increases through 2015, or the requirement of Article XXIX that requires compatibility with neighboring non-Authority fire departments, and explain the reasoning for that rationale. This should be included on OCFA‟s website under the Memorandum of Understanding.
F5:
The terms of office of the Board of Directors (some of which are only a year) appear to be too short for directors to become thoroughly acquainted with the complex operations and finances of this large agency.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The OCFA Board of Directors should provide and make public both a short-term and long-term plan that brings the labor agreements in line with the living cost of the citizens they serve rather than solely upon the revenues derived from secured property tax of the property and city fees in their realm.
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R6:
If the growth of firefighter‟s salaries is reduced to reflect the economy of the citizens they serve, the OCFA should consider reducing the fees that they charge their contract cities to reflect the change and to be responsive to the financial realities of the cities.
R7:
The OCFA should consider requiring the terms of office of the directors to be at least two years to provide longer time for continuity of the leadership.
R40:
c n I 20 0 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 US Bureau of Labor Statistics; CPI Detailed Report; March 2012 FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Findings/Conclusions presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its study of the Orange County Fire Authority, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following Findings/Conclusions: F1. The costs of labor of the OCFA, excluding benefits, are growing annually almost ten times faster than the increase of personnel and 3.5 faster than the Consumer Price Index-U. F2. Labor agreements of the past have included salary increases of 3 and 4 percent per year while the cost of living represented by the Consumer Price Index-Urban have averaged slightly more than 2.3 percent per year. Future wage increases are based on a “trigger formula” that is tied to the “secured property tax dollar amount” and any “General Fund Surplus/Deficit,” and the average of the top quarter of neighboring non-Authority fire departments. F3. Basing firefighter‟s salaries to the “secured property tax” that are founded primarily on the assessed value of the property served may not be the most economically responsive (or seemly rational to the public) method of calculating wages from a taxpayer perspective. This method produces salaries that do not appear to be compatible with actual wages within the communities they serve. Furthermore, basing salaries on those of neighboring firefighters can result in “spiraling” increases if those agencies base their wages on those of OCFA. F4. Labor agreements for the firefighters that do not appear to reflect the overall economy and finances of the taxpayers and cities they serve may show a deficiency of civic duty of the Directors in making the tough choices and balancing the needs of the citizens that they serve. F5. The terms of office of the Board of Directors (some of which are only a year) appear to be too short for directors to become thoroughly acquainted with the complex operations and finances of this large agency. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires 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 study of the Orange County Fire Authority, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: R1. The OCFA should state on their website how firefighter‟s salaries are based in the past on the OCFA revenue, and currently on the OCFA general fund surplus/deficit rather than on the living costs and financial conditions of the cities and citizens they serve. R2. Prior to entering into or negotiating any labor agreements, the OCFA Board of Directors should ensure that the law of supply and demand or the overall economic health of the communities that they serve is reflected in the salaries and benefits packages. Preferably, methods in determining salaries and benefits, among others, might include: Relating salaries and benefits to what the market will bear, i.e., high applications numbers for a job would usually lead to offering lower salaries and benefits; Tying salaries and benefits to local economic indexes that reflect the economies of the community served. R3. OCFA salaries should be renegotiated annually to reflect the actual economic trends of those citizens they serve as opposed to entering into labor agreement that project salary and benefit increases too far in the future with set increases that do not reflect the unreliable economic volatile future. R4. The OCFA Board of Directors should clarify and explain which part of the current Memorandum of Understanding controls: Article XXIV that sets annual increases through 2015, or the requirement of Article XXIX that requires compatibility with neighboring non-Authority fire departments, and explain the reasoning for that rationale. This should be included on OCFA‟s website under the Memorandum of Understanding. R5. The OCFA Board of Directors should provide and make public both a short-term and long-term plan that brings the labor agreements in line with the living cost of the citizens they serve rather than solely upon the revenues derived from secured property tax of the property and city fees in their realm. R6. If the growth of firefighter‟s salaries is reduced to reflect the economy of the citizens they serve, the OCFA should consider reducing the fees that they charge their contract cities to reflect the change and to be responsive to the financial realities of the cities. R7. The OCFA should consider requiring the terms of office of the directors to be at least two years to provide longer time for continuity of the leadership. REQUIRED RESPONSES In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from the OCFA and the OCFA Board of Directors to the Findings/Conclusions and Recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. “Not later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section §914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and commendations…” The Penal Code lists the following response choices for a responding entity: Responses to Findings 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 in dispute and shall include an explanation of the reason. Responses to Recommendations 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. 3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope and parameters of that analysis and timeframe. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation. All responses should be received no later than October 1 (unless the agency or department has requested in writing an additional extension). Follow-up is the responsibility of the sitting Grand Jury.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
The subject area is a former dumpsite where industrial and oil field wastes were disposed of into surface impoundments;
F2:
Numbers of unsuccessful efforts to clean up the site had been made from the early 1980‘s;
F3:
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), an agency under the California Environmental Protection Agency, became lead clean-up agency in 1989;
F4:
The 1999-2000 Grand Jury studied the problems of potential dangers to the health and safety of the community and recommended that the City of Huntington Beach pursue a more stringent policy of safety enforcement of the appropriate regulations and rules pertinent to the toxic dangers facing the City;
F5:
The 1999-2000 Grand Jury found that the City of Huntington Beach did not assume the degree of responsibility for monitoring the Nesi/Ascon site that seemed prudent to that Grand Jury;
F6:
A Consent Order and Decree was issued in 2003 by the State DTSC through which seven companies agreed to take on the task and expense of reclaiming the site;
F7:
DTSC-driven ―clean-up‖ began in 2003; 35 1999-2000 Grand Jury Final Report, ET-1 36 Ibid, ET-5. ―[t]he City of Huntington Beach does not assume the degree of responsibility for monitoring the Nesi/Ascon site that seems prudent to the Grand Jury.‖
F8:
Final remediation has still not been attained but is expected to be completed in 2015;
F9:
―Clean-up‖ is taking an extraordinarily long time to achieve, far longer than originally contemplated.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Huntington Beach City Council should give the Nesi/Ascon site (now called the Ascon Landfill) a high priority and use their positions to bring pressure on the appropriate entities to hasten (in accordance with State law) the final effective reclamation of this site. [See F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F8, F9]
F10:
Some neighbors claim that there have been abnormally high numbers of physical and neurological illnesses in nearby housing owing to the toxicity of the site, although Public Health Agency statistics do not appear to bear this out. Such public health statistics have not calmed he fears of some local residents. Responses to Findings 1 through 10 are requested from the City Council of Huntington Beach.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The Huntington Beach City Council in conjunction with the Orange County Health Agency (Public Health) should inquire into the possibility that health issues in the neighborhood of the dumpsite were caused or exacerbated by proximity to the site. [See F1, F3, F4, F5, F7, F9, F10] Responses to Recommendations 1 and 2 are required from the City Council of Huntington Beach, and a response to Recommendation 2 is requested from Orange County Health Agency (Public Health).
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R3:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation. All responses should be received no later than October 1 (unless the agency or department has requested in writing an additional extension). Follow-up is the responsibility of the sitting Grand Jury.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
9 hallazgos
F1:
Video surveillance systems in many of the county facilities are antiquated analog type systems offering poor quality and performance. Each facility relies on these video recording devices for staff and inmate safety.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Sheriff should place a high priority on upgrading video surveillance systems in the county jail system so that all units are protected by high quality digital monitoring systems providing maximum area coverage to improve the safety of inmates, staff, and visitors. (See F1).
F2:
The practice of permitting unmonitored non-collect calls between selected inmates and attorneys, as authorized by court order, has a high potential to contribute to the risk of inmate- orchestrated incidents within and outside of the jail system.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
While the Grand Jury is aware that reduction of court-ordered non-collect calls lies within the sole discretion of the Court, the Grand Jury suggests that the Sheriff initiate a discussion with the Presiding Judge, the District Attorney, and the Public Defender to explore ways to reduce the frequency of ordered authorization to make non-collect telephone calls or find a way to control the placement of calls to reduce incidents of misuse. (See F2).
F3:
The courtroom (CJ1) at Men’s Central Jail handles approximately 25 to 70 cases per day, thereby reducing transportation costs and inter-action between inmates. A second courtroom, perhaps at Theo Lacy, would provide a similar benefit.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Sheriff should initiate a discussion with the Presiding Judge as to the possibility of locating a courtroom at Theo Lacy to reduce transportation costs and risks. (See F3).
F4:
New hires for Deputy Sheriff positions face the probability of working several years in the custody division before transfer opportunities to patrol become available. Given their qualifications and training, this may not be the most effective use of personnel.
F5:
The department’s policy to provide an “Escort Deputy” to attend paramedics transporting an inmate to the hospital was not followed on July 1, 2011, when a female inmate required hospitalization.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The Sheriff should give serious study and consideration to establishing a parallel career path for custody staff that would more fully utilize non-sworn employees within the custody division and replace a higher number of sworn staff so that they might be reassigned to patrol duties. (See F5).
F6:
The Office of Independent Review provides a valuable risk management service to the county but may be improperly assigned and underutilized. Direct reporting to the Board of Supervisors results in inconsistent expectations, direction, and evaluations. Additionally, there is a perception that the operation is unduly influenced by the Sheriff’s Department. This is reinforced by the physical location of the OIR office in the OCSD headquarters.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The Sheriff should review and clarify the OCSD policy related to the requirement of an “Escort Deputy” being immediately available at the IRC when an inmate is to be transferred to a medical facility. (See F6).
F7:
The expected increase in jail population resulting from AB 109, Prison Realignment, has the potential to overwhelm existing jail facilities unless the County is able to quickly expand jail capacity. The Central Women’s Jail was opened in early April 2012 with a capacity of 370. The population on the date of inspection was 354.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should review the role and responsibilities of the Office of Independent Review with a view toward expanding the scope of work to include the Probation Department facilities and reassign management control to the Chief Executive Officer as part of the County Risk Management operation. The OIR office should be relocated to the Hall of Administration. (See F7).
F8:
Video visiting technology is currently not in use at any of the county’s jail facilities. This technology could provide better inmate visiting, reduce staff time required to move inmates, and ultimately enhance jail safety and security.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
The Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors should aggressively pursue the jail expansion project at the James Musick facility to meet the expected population increase that will occur over the next three years. (See F8).
F9:
The Inmate Re-Entry program is a positive example of efforts to rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism. This program, in addition to the Collaborative Courts, provides innovative approaches to assisting inmates and others to make significant life changes.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
The Sheriff should explore the use of video visiting within the various facilities as a way of improving security and reducing staff time to move and supervise inmates. (See F9).
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
Elder abuse reporting has been rising and will probably increase because of a projected expansion in the population partially due to an influx of baby boomers.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
By October 1, 2012, the Board of Supervisors should establish a one-year independent, volunteer commission, consisting of private citizens (including members of various oversight committees), to conduct a comprehensive study of the effectiveness of elder abuse resources in Orange County focusing on the following: A. The prevalence of elder abuse and the probable increase in the future; B. The efficacy of individual county agencies and departments; C. Interactions with Orange County agencies/departments and non-profit organizations that provide senior resources; D. The availability of outreach and communication to citizens concerning elder abuse; E. The procedures of law enforcement agencies to investigate reports of abuse; and F. The procedures used by the District Attorney’s office to determine prosecution.
F2:
Increased oversight would improve coordination and communication among county agencies and departments.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
By October 1, 2012, the Board of Supervisors should direct the Office of the Performance Audit Director to evaluate Adult Protective Services, The Office on Aging, Adult Mental Health Services and The Public Guardian. The evaluation would determine their individual effectiveness; assess their coordination and communication; and discover any overlap in services among them.
F3:
Reviewing procedures in law enforcement agencies, law enforcement academies under Orange County government jurisdiction and the District Attorney’s office could improve recognition of elder abuse
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
By October 1, 2012, the County Executive Officer should direct the Information Technology Department to evaluate the computer system of The Public Administrator/Public Guardian to insure that this agency has a full capacity to report, coordinate and monitor elder abuse.
F4:
The computer system in the Public Guardian’s Office has been “inadequate for its intended use”17 for many years impacting the ability of the Public Guardian to provide documentation in areas of elder abuse.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
By December 31, 2012, the County Executive Officer should review agencies and departments within his purview to determine if they provide an effective response to elder abuse without any duplication of responsibilities.
F5:
A more definitive study is necessary to address four specific concerns within the area of elder abuse: A. Oversight over coordination and communication between agencies; B. Outreach and communication to the general public; C. Review of law enforcement and prosecution; D. Effective Information Technology to manage data flow.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
By December 31, 2012, the Sheriff’s Department and city police departments should evaluate and update their programs on responding to elder abuse cases.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R6:
By December 31, 2012, the District Attorney should direct staff to review all procedures for prosecution of elder abuse cases.
R7:
By December 31, 2012, the District Attorney should direct staff to review current information available throughout the country concerning elder abuse in order to design an updated program for prosecution. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Findings/Conclusions and Recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. “Not later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section §914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. (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 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 aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d.) The Board of Supervisors, District Attorney and Sheriff-Coroner are required to respond to findings and recommendations. All other agencies set forth in the matrix are requested to respond. Table No. 1 – FINDINGS – RESPONSE MATRIX NAME OF ENTITY F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 COUNTY Adult Mental Health Services: Health Care Agency X X Adult Protective Services: Social Services Agency X X Board of Supervisors X X X County Executive Officer X X X X District Attorney X Office on Aging: OC Community Resources X X Public Guardian: Public Administrator/Public Guardian X LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: OC Sheriff’s Department: County & Contract Cities X Anaheim Police Department X Brea Police Department X Buena Park Department X Costa Mesa Police Department X Cypress Police Department X Dana Point Police Department X Fountain Valley Police Department X Fullerton Police Department X Garden Grove Police Department X Huntington Beach Police Department X Irvine Police Department X La Habra Police Department X La Palma Police Department X Laguna Beach Police Department X Los Alamitos Police Department X Newport Beach Police Department X Orange Police Department X Placentia Police Department X Santa Ana Police Department X Seal Beach Police Department X Tustin Police Department X Westminster Police Department X Table No. 2 – RECOMMENDATIONS – RESPONSE MATRIX NAME OF ENTITY R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 COUNTY Board of Supervisors X X County Executive Officer X X District Attorney X X LAW ENFORCEMENT OC Sheriff’s Department: County & Contract Cities X Anaheim Police Department X Brea Police Department X Buena Park Department X Costa Mesa Police Department X Cypress Police Department X Dana Point Police Department X Fountain Valley Police Department X Fullerton Police Department X Garden Grove Police Department X Huntington Beach Police Department X Irvine Police Department X La Habra Police Department X La Palma Police Department X Laguna Beach Police Department X Los Alamitos Police Department X Newport Beach Police Department X Orange Police Department X Placentia Police Department X Santa Ana Police Department X Seal Beach Police Department X Tustin Police Department X Westminster Police Department X
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
F2 F3 F4 F5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 County County of Orange X X X X X X Cities Aliso Viejo X X X X X X X X Anaheim X X X X X X X X Brea X X X X X X X X Buena Park X X X X Costa Mesa X X X X Cypress X X X X X X X X X X Dana Point X X X X X X Fountain Valley X X X X X X X X X X Fullerton X X X X X X X X Garden Grove X X X X X X X X Huntington Beach X X X X X X X X X X Irvine X X X X X X La Habra X X X X X X La Palma X X X X X X X X Laguna Beach X X X X X X X X Laguna Hills X X X X X X X X Laguna Niguel X X X X X X X X X X Laguna Woods X X X X Lake Forest X X X X X X X X Los Alamitos X X X X X X X X X X Mission Viejo X X X X X X X X Newport Beach X X X X X X X X Orange X X X X X X X X Placentia X X X X Rancho Santa Margarita X X X X X X San Clemente X X X X X X San Juan Capistrano X X X X X X Santa Ana X X X X X X X X X X Seal Beach X X X X X X X X Stanton X X X X X X Tustin X X X X X X X X Villa Park X X X X X X X X Westminster X X X X X X X X X X Yorba Linda X X X X TABLE 3 – Special Districts/JPAs/OCERS Responses Required for Findings (F) & Recommendations (R)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
(R1) - Access for Compensation Costs Transparency - The Grand Jury recommends that each of the sixteen Orange County cities, districts and joint power authority that were rated less than excellent for Accessibility upgrade their access to compensation costs. The access should be intuitive, readily identifiable on the web site home page and provide easy navigation within one or very few “clicks.”
F2:
(F2) – Content & Clarity Ratings for EXECUTIVE Compensation Cost Content and Clarity for the OC cities elected officials and executives over $100,000 in base salary is improving in this 2nd year of ratings. On the other hand, there is understandably even more potential improvement possible for the Special Districts and joint power authority, which are in their 1st year of ratings. o County: The County of Orange went from a nonexistent Executive Compensation Page in 2011 to one rated excellent in 2012 for Content and Clarity. o Cities: This year in 2012, fourteen of thirty-four cities (41%) were rated excellent for Executive CCT Content and Clarity, while none were rated excellent in 2011. However, twenty of the thirty-four cities were rated good, average, poor and nonexistent for Executive Compensation Cost Content and Clarity, all of whom could improve to excellent. o Special Districts and Joint Power Authority (JPA): Only three of twenty-three special districts/JPA (13%) were rated excellent for Executive Compensation Cost Content and Clarity. Nineteen of twenty-three special districts/JPA who received ratings of good, average, poor and nonexistent for Executive Compensation Cost can improve to achieve an excellent rating.26
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
(R2) - Content & Clarity of EXECUTIVE Compensation Costs - The Grand Jury recommends that each of the forty-one of the fifty-seven Orange County cities, districts and joint power authority that were rated less than excellent for their Content and Clarity for their Executive and Elected Officials compensation costs page upgrade their Executive Compensation page. See
F3:
(F3) - Content & Clarity for EMPLOYEE Compensation Cost Ratings There is the most opportunity for more transparent reporting in the Content and Clarity of Employee Compensation Cost reporting on local government websites. o County: The County of Orange was rated excellent above for their Executive Compensation Page Content and Clarity. However, the County of Orange was only rated average for Employee Compensation Cost Content and Clarity and could improve to achieve an excellent rating. o Cities: Only five of thirty-four cities (15%) were rated excellent for Employee Compensation Cost Content and Clarity. Twenty-nine of the thirty-four cities were rated good, average, poor and nonexistent for Employee Compensation Cost Content and Clarity, all of whom could improve to excellent. o Special Districts and Joint Power Authority (JPA) Only four of twenty-three special districts and joint power authority (17%) were rated excellent for Employee Compensation Cost Content and Clarity. Nineteen of the twenty-three special districts/JPA were rated good, average, poor and nonexistent for Employee Compensation Cost Content and Clarity, all of whom could improve to excellent. One of the 23 special districts/JPAs was rated “Not Applicable” due to their volunteer executive board and no paid executives. (3+19+1=23).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
(R3) - Content & Clarity of EMPLOYEE Compensation Costs - The Grand Jury recommends that the County of Orange and all Orange County cities, districts and joint power authority that were rated less than Excellent for Content and Clarity for their Employee compensation costs pages upgrade their Employee pages. See
F4:
(F4) – Transparency of Employer Pension Contribution Rates Many Orange County local government web sites do not generally post their employer pension annual contribution rates prominently to their web sites as part of their compensation cost disclosure for public disclosure. Specifically, these employer contribution percentages refer to the annual percentages of employee salary that CalPERS (California Public Employees Retirement System) or OCERS (Orange County Employee Retirement System) requires of Orange County local governments to fund their employee guaranteed pension plans. OCERS has the employer pension contribution rates buried in detailed actuarial reports and presentations on the OCERS website or requires member passwords to access these annual governmental funding rates. Thus, there is limited transparency for the public of these governmental pension contribution rates.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
(R4) - Transparency of Employer Pension Contribution Rates - The Grand Jury recommends that all Orange County cities, districts and joint power authority, as well as the County of Orange, post their employer pension annual contribution rates prominently and transparently on their web sites. Current and recent rates would be instructive and informative. It is recognized that some already do. The Grand Jury recommends that OCERS display their member organizations annual contribution rates in a transparent way to the general public without password access on their web site. For a suggested model, see http://calpers.ca.gov and enter “public agency employer contribution search.”
F5:
(F5) –Inclusion of Overtime and On-Call Pay in Employee Compensation Costs The Orange County “de facto” standard for CCT in the county, cities, districts and JPA now contains all employees, including a page for executives and all elected officials. Two key categories are missing from compensation cost reporting. They are overtime pay and on- call pay. They have become important as the new “de facto” compensation cost reporting standard which now includes all employees. These two cost categories can be significant for public safety employees. However, it is recognized that these cost categories generally do not apply to elected officials. On the other hand, if overtime does not occur for various employee positions, it is important for citizens to be aware of the aware of that in the annual reporting.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
(R5) - Transparency of Overtime Pay and On-Call Pay in Employee Compensation Cost Reporting – The Grand Jury recommends that all Orange County cities, districts and joint power authority, as well as the County of Orange, include overtime pay and on-call pay in compensation cost reporting on their employees’ compensation pages. See
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
As of the date of dissolution of redevelopment (February 1, 2012), all city operated redevelopment agencies, except Mission Viejo and Seal Beach, were exceeding the administrative costs limit of 5% of the tax increment distributed related to the ROPS as authorized by ABX1 26.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
All successor agencies should review administrative costs to ensure compliance with the limit of five percent of the tax-increment or less as required by ABX1 26 and develop a plan to reduce these costs to three percent of the tax increment received or less in 2012-2013. If these percentages fall below $250,000, the agencies are allowed to claim the higher amount. (See F1)
F2:
Of the agencies surveyed, only Costa Mesa and Santa Ana reported having a citizen involvement committee along the line of a Project Area Committee as authorized by Section 33385 of the Health and Safety Code.
F3:
Historically, external oversight over redevelopment has been missing or ineffective in monitoring redevelopment agency compliance and performance. The newly formed oversight boards offer a potential to improve on that record by providing critical evaluation of existing projects and management of the successor agency debt.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Successor agencies and oversight boards should review the Recognized Obligations Payment Schedule with a view toward limiting the range of projects and obligations thereby retiring the enforceable obligation debt as quickly as possible. (See F3)
F4:
The Orange County Auditor Controller has an expanded role in managing the tax- increment revenue. The implementation of ABX1 26 includes a requirement that all former redevelopment agencies in the county be audited to determine the accuracy of the information supporting agency claimed enforceable obligations. It has been determined that the County will contract with external auditors to accomplish this task under the direction of the Auditor- Controller.
F5:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors has an expanded role in the management of the transition of redevelopment. They have a responsibility to make appointments to all oversight boards in the County. Ultimately, in 2016, there will be a single oversight board over all successor agencies in the County. The Board is also responsible to approve and oversee the external audit contracts to be managed by the Auditor-Controller.
F6:
It is highly likely that new legislation will pass expanding the scope of the low to moderate income housing programs and ultimately a replacement program for redevelopment itself. Local governments should take a proactive approach in planning and shaping its return.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors should appoint a committee to study possible replacement programs for redevelopment and use legislative influence to help shape the next generation of redevelopment in the likely event such a program is passed by the Legislature. (See F6)
F7:
Ending redevelopment changes the distribution of property tax revenues among local agencies, but not the amount of tax revenues raised.
F8:
Prior to the dissolution of redevelopment, some agencies encumbered debt to their cities, thereby creating questionable enforceable obligations.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Successor agencies and oversight boards should critically review the Recognized Obligations Payment Schedule (ROPS) to evaluate the need for debt owed to the city. (See F8)
F9:
Some former RDAs (such as Brea and Buena Park) have incentive payments to commercial entities as enforceable obligations.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
Successor agencies and oversight boards should critically review the Recognized Obligations Payment Schedule (ROPS) to evaluate the need for incentive payments to commercial entities. (See F9)
F10:
The city of Garden Grove failed to adequately address citizen concerns in the pursuit of development of the parking area on Grove Street, west of historic Main Street.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
The city of Garden Grove should resume negotiations with the Downtown Business Association to come to an agreement on the scope of the Grove Street Condominium Project including the availability of a suitable number of convenient public parking spaces to meet the needs of the downtown merchants. (See F10) REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
15 hallazgos
F1:
Most Orange County special districts, with or without the assistance of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), have been incapable or unwilling to consolidate, absorb, or eliminate these outmoded and/or redundant agencies. LAFCO typically addresses larger issues such as merging of cities and elimination of “islands” within the county. The special districts themselves have not worked seriously toward their consolidation or demise. In this regard, the enterprise special districts and the non-enterprise special districts require independent evaluation and handling.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
Each special district should contribute 1% of its unrestricted reserve fund to LAFCO to help finance preparing and directing the consolidation, absorption, or elimination, and the setting of standards for reserves for the special districts. These funds should be included in LAFCO‟s future programs and budgets until the consolidation, absorption or elimination of each special district is achieved. With these additional funds, LAFCO should begin meeting with each special district before the 2014 fiscal year is budgeted for consolidation, absorption and/or elimination of these districts. (See F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, & F6.)
F2:
Special districts have made very little progress in complying with the recommendations made by various governmental agencies. To ensure recommendations are followed, more coor- dination and cooperation is needed from the city and county agencies.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
Each special district should contribute 1% of its unrestricted reserve fund to LAFCO to help finance preparing and directing the consolidation, absorption, or elimination, and the setting of standards for reserves for the special districts. These funds should be included in LAFCO‟s future programs and budgets until the consolidation, absorption or elimination of each special district is achieved. With these additional funds, LAFCO should begin meeting with each special district before the 2014 fiscal year is budgeted for consolidation, absorption and/or elimination of these districts. (See F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, & F6.)
F3:
Most non-enterprise special districts in Orange County have outlived their purpose and usefulness. Services that they once only available through the special district are now being pro- vided by the surrounding cities and the expanding county.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
All special districts (except the Vector Control District and the County Cemetery District) should be eliminated from the county tax rolls and should rely solely on fees or the services of surrounding governments. (See F2, F3, F4, F5, & F6.)
R2:
Community service districts should be absorbed either in the cities surrounding them or into surrounding private homeowners associations. Each community service district should meet with LAFCO and with the appropriate city or homeowner‟s association to develop plans and schedules for the future of these special districts. This meeting should be take place before Sep- tember 30, 2012. (See F3, F4, & F12.)
F4:
The eleven non-enterprise special districts of Orange County founded before 1965 have not reflected the growth of the cities and county. The services that were unavailable from cities or the county have long since been made available as both the cities and county grew. Some of these special districts could be removed from the county tax rolls, and their services funded and absorbed by the county, surrounding cities or homeowners associations wherein they abide.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
All special districts (except the Vector Control District and the County Cemetery District) should be eliminated from the county tax rolls and should rely solely on fees or the services of surrounding governments. (See F2, F3, F4, F5, & F6.)
R2:
Community service districts should be absorbed either in the cities surrounding them or into surrounding private homeowners associations. Each community service district should meet with LAFCO and with the appropriate city or homeowner‟s association to develop plans and schedules for the future of these special districts. This meeting should be take place before Sep- tember 30, 2012. (See F3, F4, & F12.)
F5:
The sixteen enterprise districts typically started as local agricultural irrigation providers and sanitation providers for local communities. These special districts have transitioned into providers of potable water and sewerage disposal for the cities that blossomed around them after 1950. These districts grew until their boundaries met a neighboring special district that was also growing. Some of these local smaller providers have already been absorbed by larger districts under one management.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Water and sewer districts should be consolidated into no more than six regional districts. Consideration should be given to including the city water agencies in the consolidation. LAFCO should meet with the water and sewer districts before October 31, 2012 to develop plans and schedules for consolidation. (See F5, F6 & F9.)
F6:
The sixteen enterprise special districts of Orange County founded between 1919 and 1964 have grown with the urbanization of the county. Thirteen of these special districts rely up- on taxes collected by the county while three rely on fees and other sources for their revenue. This suggests that all of these enterprise special districts could wean themselves from tax subsi- dies and rely on fees for their revenue. Severance from the tax subsidies would enable financial transparency and let the customers see the true cost of the services provided.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
All special districts (except the Vector Control District and the County Cemetery District) should be eliminated from the county tax rolls and should rely solely on fees or the services of surrounding governments. (See F2, F3, F4, F5, & F6.)
R5:
Water and sewer districts should be removed from the tax rolls and operate solely on fees and other revenues for their services. Consideration should be given to forming non-profit agen- cies with ownership shared by the constituents. These districts should meet with county officials before October 31, 2012 to prepare plans and schedules to remove themselves from the county tax rolls. (See F2, F5, & F6.)
F7:
The unrestricted reserves of the special districts are available to the governing boards to spend as they please. Local citizens are not openly informed of this wealth when agencies ask for fee increases, special assessments, or bond measures. Most of the special districts do not ap- pear to have specific criteria for amassing these reserves nor do they have published long-range plans for their constructive use.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R6:
Special districts should adopt “board of director‟s practices” for all their reserves, re- stricted and unrestricted. All reserves should be classified in their 2013-2014 budgets according to GASB Standard No. 54. LAFCO should work with the special districts to prepare standard criteria for accumulating reserves according to the new classifications by December 15, 2012. These standards should be used in preparing the 2013-2014 budgets. (See F7 & F9.)
R7:
Excessive unrestricted reserves should be used to reduce existing debts. Future revenues should be reduced to avoid the accumulation of unallocated revenue that does not meet the adopted new standards. (See F7 & F8.)
F8:
The twenty-seven special districts in Orange County have amassed unrestricted reserves of over $866,000,000. That is enough money to fund all of these special districts for more than year without taxes, fees, interest, or other sources of revenue. The boards of directors have the sole discretion to spend these unrestricted reserves.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
Excessive unrestricted reserves should be used to reduce existing debts. Future revenues should be reduced to avoid the accumulation of unallocated revenue that does not meet the adopted new standards. (See F7 & F8.)
F9:
The Orange County Auditor-Controller allocated nearly $35,000,000 to four enterprise special districts (Costa Mesa Sanitary District, South Coast Water District, Trabuco Canyon Wa- ter District, and Yorba Linda Water District) that did not show this revenue in their budgets pro- vided to the Grand Jury. What happened to that money is not clearly recorded. Budgeting with- out the allocated taxes indicates that, along with the three other enterprise special districts that do not rely on tax revenue, these enterprise special districts could function without tax revenues.
F10:
The enterprise special districts could save millions of dollars in administration costs by consolidation into regional special districts. Five or six such enterprise special districts within Orange County could save at least $500,000 per year for each special district absorbed.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Water and sewer districts should be consolidated into no more than six regional districts. Consideration should be given to including the city water agencies in the consolidation. LAFCO should meet with the water and sewer districts before October 31, 2012 to develop plans and schedules for consolidation. (See F5, F6 & F9.)
F11:
The Buena Park Library and the Placentia Library (the oldest special districts in Orange County) have long outlived their original intent of providing reading materials for their original isolated communities with an electorate of about 100 people. They could readily be absorbed into the County Library System or the cities.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Library districts should be absorbed into the County Library System. Both the Buena Park and the Placentia Libraries should meet with LAFCO and their cities or County Library System before September 30, 2012 to develop plans and schedules for consolidation and removal from the tax rolls. (See F11.)
F12:
The community services that the original non-enterprise special districts provided can be provided by the surrounding cities and the county that have engulfed these districts. Continuing to collect taxes for these special duplicative services is a disservice to both the community they serve and the surrounding communities that provide the same or similar services.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Community service districts should be absorbed either in the cities surrounding them or into surrounding private homeowners associations. Each community service district should meet with LAFCO and with the appropriate city or homeowner‟s association to develop plans and schedules for the future of these special districts. This meeting should be take place before Sep- tember 30, 2012. (See F3, F4, & F12.)
F13:
The Surfside Colony Storm Water Protection District was formed in 1941 to protect the community from ocean swells during storms and high tide. Since then the community has changed and the local governments have grown to where these services can be performed by other county or city services, resources and equipment.
F14:
The true cost of water and sanitary sewers in the enterprise special districts is hidden when both taxes and fees fund these districts. Only when the monthly service bills to the cus- tomers include all the costs for these services without the tax subsidy will the public understand the true cost of these services and achieve financial transparency.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
The Orange County Tax Collector should obtain all the specific allocations for the 1% property tax from the County Auditor-Controller and show them on the tax bill (not just the cur- rent generalized summary) sent to each property owner so that the taxpayers are informed of how much each service is costing them. (See F14.) *******
F15:
Only one of the special districts, The South Coast Water District, has had recent perfor- mance audits. The lack of performance audits for the remaining special districts leaves the po- tential for inefficiencies, poor practices, outmoded operations, etc. hidden from the governing boards and the communities they serve. The lack of published performance audits has contribut- ed to the public‟s ignorance of these districts.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
Each special district should have an independent performance audit at least every three years. The executive summary of the performance audit should be distributed to all the taxpay- ers of each special district. Each of the special districts that has not had a performance audit within the last five years should contract with an independent outside consultant to conduct such an audit during 2012. These audits should be repeated at least every three years. (See F15.)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
The Human Trafficking Task Force (HTTF) recognized that more law enforcement training is needed in sex trafficking.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Police and Sheriff Departments should provide additional training for officers to clarify law enforcement‟s understanding and awareness of minor sex trafficking of girls.
F2:
Child victims of sex trafficking require specialized shelter. Ibid, Laura Lederer 12 Supra, Shared Hope International training conference: “Sex Trafficking of America’s Youth,” May 2009
F3:
Child victims of sex trafficking are often misidentified. Due to the lack of proper identification of the child‟s age, law enforcement agencies may be unable to charge the trafficker/pimp with child related sex trafficking violations.
F4:
Trafficked minors often flee non-secure shelters. Law enforcement and prosecutors may request detention of a child to protect them from repeated exploitation by pimps.
F5:
Penal Code §1275.1 allows the courts to set conditions on bail, including presenting probable cause that the bail money (or the security for the bond) was illegally obtained. This provision allows law enforcement and the courts to hold the perpetrators, which may keep them from intimidating and victimizing young girls once released.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Law enforcement agencies and district attorneys should consider using the provisions of California Penal Code §1275.1 more frequently if they have cause to believe that the source of bail money for a „pimp‟ or „john‟ was illegally obtained.
F6:
No safe group home currently exists in Orange County to shelter the victim from a trafficker or pimp and provide for stabilization.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The County Executive Officer should direct responsible agencies to develop a strategic plan to eliminate this growing problem and meet the immediate need for food, shelter, treatment and protection from exploitation. The establishment of a safe group home in Orange County would be instrumental in meeting this need. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933 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 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: RESPONSE MATRIX F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 R1 R2 R3 R4 Anaheim PD X X X X X X X X District Attorney X X X X X X X X Brea PD X X X X X X X X Buena Park PD X X X X X X X X Costa Mesa PD X X X X X X X X Or. County Executive X X X X Officer X X X X X X X X Cypress PD X X X X X X X X Fountain Valley PD Fullerton PD X X X X X X X X Garden Grove PD X X X X X X X X Huntington Beach PD X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Irvine PD La Habra PD X X X X X X X X La Palma PD X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Laguna Beach PD Los Alamitos PD X X X X X X X X Newport Beach PD X X X X X X X X OC HTTF X X X X X OC Probation X X X X X X X X OC Sheriff/Coroner X X X X X X X X Orange PD X X X X X X X X Placentia PD X X X X X X X X Santa Ana PD X X X X X X X X Seal Beach PD X X X X X X X X Tustin PD X X X X X X X X Westminster PD X X X X X X X X
F7:
Currently no data base is available to law enforcement agencies to check and identify victims of sex trafficking.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The Sheriff‟s Department, city police departments and responsible Orange County agencies should develop a data base using a single term such as “Minor Sex Trafficking” to allow the trafficked victims to be systematically tracked with the result of a proper identification and status as a victim of crime. A consistent label for the crime would allow multiple agencies, communities and regions to research and intervene in a single coordinated effort.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
City officials apparently misused their membership in a non-profit corporation established on behalf of public entities to promote their own political agenda by using their status with that organization in an effort to influence the officials at a local university.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Laguna Hills, CA. City Council and the Tustin, CA. City Council should review the conduct of their city officials and determine what action should be taken so as to prevent future acts of misfeasance.
F2:
City officials arranged a meeting with the office of a university president indicating they were to introduce the executive director of the non-profit entity, when their intentions were to influence the university to investigate and discredit the report where students were assigned as interns to a political campaign by the Masters in Public Administration department.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Elected officials in Laguna Hills, CA. and Tustin, CA should refrain from attempting to exercise influence over public and private educational institutions.
F3:
The influence wielded by city officials appears to have been an attempt to cause the officials of a local university, to exert influence on a member of their faculty.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Additional efforts, including additional hours of study and training, regarding continuing ethical training should be required of those elected officials delineated in recommendation No.1. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Findings/Conclusions and Recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. "Not later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section §914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations..." (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. INAPPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE (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 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 aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. RESPONSE MATRIX:
F4:
City officials may not have been forthcoming with the Orange County Grand Jury in their testimony about the primary purpose in meeting with university officials and the facts and circumstances related thereto.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
The number of AB 109 inmates expected by the Sheriff’s Department was significantly underestimated. During the first six months of operation, the actual number of inmates during the first six months of operation exceeded expectations by more than 100 percent of the expected number.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Based on the first six-months of experience with the number of AB 109 inmates received and the average length of sentence, the Sheriff’s Department should prepare more informed estimates that are more informed for the 2012-2013 fiscal year. (See F1).
F2:
The number of Post-Release Community Supervision cases expected to be released from state prison to local facilities was significantly underestimated. The actual number over the first six months of operation exceeded expectations by approximately 59 percent.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Based on the first six-months of experience with the number of AB 109 state prison releases on Post-release Community Supervision, the Probation Department should prepare estimates that are more informed for the 2012-2013 fiscal year. (See F2).
F3:
Restrictions on the use of AB 109 state funding fails to recognize the increase in crime in communities and the additional demands placed on local law enforcement agencies.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Orange County Community Corrections Partnership (OCCCP) Executive Committee should explore a means to modify or work around the restrictions on compensating local law enforcement agencies for manpower expenses for ordinary enforcement of the law with regard to the PCS population in their communities. (See F3)
F4:
Insufficient time has elapsed since the passage and implementation of AB109 to provide comparison of crime rates before and after the passage of the bill.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Initiate a study by the Orange County Community Corrections Partnership (OCCCP) to compare crime rates in Orange County for the periods of October 2010 through September 2011 and October 2011 through September 2012. The comparison study to be completed by December 2012 with a copy of the study directed to the Orange County Grand Jury on or before December 31, 2012. (See F4) REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
9 hallazgos
F1:
The field staff of OCVCD has to deal with older technology in dispatching, reporting and coordinating their activities. This requires extra time dedicated to formalizing reports. Acquiring current technology that links databases would lessen the time spent in the office and allow more time in the field, better serving the community. (R1)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
OCVCD’s Director of Communication should develop and acquire hardware and software to eliminate the time consuming data acquisition and report writing input that is currently required.
F2:
The laboratories of the Agricultural Commissioner, Health Care Agency, and Vector Control have little inter-relationship with respect to their functions and specialized equipment. Little or no communication exists among the labs for sharing of disease information impacting the public. (R2)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
OCVCD should take the lead in forming a coalition with the Agricultural Commissioners Agency and the Health Care Agency to explore sharing information.
F3:
The OCVCD does not exercise all of its abatement rights under the California Health and Safety Code sections 2060-2067. It fails to issue citations and levy fines for violations of the codes against property owners, including banks, who own foreclosed property. Issuing fines could lead to recouping costs of remediating unattended property and lower assessments to all other taxpayers. (R3)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
OCVCD should start exercising the authority granted to it in the Health and Safety Code and issue citations to individuals, real estate agencies and banks that refuse to maintain swimming pools under their control.
F4:
The OCVCD maintains a database of over 3000 abandoned swimming pools throughout Orange County that are basically unattended breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Considerable time is devoted to treating and following up on the condition of these pools. (R3)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The Board of Trustees should explore downsizing itself to a manageable group of appointed citizens, not elected officials. The Board should consider membership along the lines of the Supervisorial Districts with an appointed representative from each district. Furthermore, the appointees should have some background in biology or related health careers.
F5:
The OCVCD has the largest Board of Trustees of any independent special district in Orange County. Thirty-five members represent all the cities and the County Board of Supervisors. Meeting for an hour monthly to discuss and vote on district business presented to them by the staff does not appear to provide adequate oversight. Thirty-five Trustees is an overly large amount for the task of efficient, cost effective governance of this district. (R4)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
OCVCD should explore teaming with the Webmasters and the County CEO Information Technology, to ensure immediate posting on city websites of vital public health conditions.
F6:
The OCVCD’s Communication Department is striving to provide better service to the public and improve its public outreach. Communication and public outreach needs to continue improving. The OCVCD website has no ability to place threat warnings on cities websites. (R5)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
OCVCD should engage the services of a public relations firm to develop ways to make the name and services more recognizable to the general public.
F7:
Currently the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Orange County have little or no knowledge of the OCVCD. In most cases they do not know what the vector control mission entails or how it serves the community. (R6)
F8:
Based on a survey conducted by OCVCD in 2009, the district earned a 94 % approval rating from citizens who had used their services. The 2011-2012 Grand Jury surveyed prospective jury members in August 2011. Only 17% of the respondents surveyed have ever contacted OCVCD. Of those that had used OCVCD, 75% were satisfied with the response. (R6)
F9:
The OCVCD Inspectors are State certified, dedicated and knowledgeable. They perform their services well. The OCVCD is a well-run and well-resourced operation fulfilling its core mission. OCVCD conducts effective and efficient day-to-day operations.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R30-39:
69 69 71 59 50 29 4 31 56 75 3 30 15 119 9 5
R40-49:
45 146 103 82 61 61 6 64 112 72 10 45 26 161 19 15
R50-59:
45 182 126 92 82 74 7 82 145 72 25 45 53 167 40 17
R60-69:
13 116 80 45 42 50 9 47 83 36 22 27 34 86 27 11 70+ 7 23 16 14 10 9 0 9 21 8 6 6 7 21 5 2 Not indicated 3 8 6 5 4 5 2 3 5 5 2 3 3 7 1 1 Total Counts 269 582 480 350 304 254 32 262 469 346 69 170 140 686 169 55 Percentages 32% 68% 58% 42% 54% 46% 11% 89% 58% 42% 29% 71% 17% 83% 75% 25% GRAND JURY RIDE-ALONGS Members of the 2011-2012 Grand Jury rode with inspectors on their daily rounds.8 They observed how the inspectors prepare for work at the OCVCD yard, and how they organize their daily tasks. Riders traveling with inspectors observed their treatment of open drains, storm channels, standing water, ponds, and unattended swimming pools. Such pools can be treated every three months for up to three years. Inspectors were typically welcomed by the residents. Where rats have been reported the inspectors checked property and homes for signs of infestation. Inspectors go through the property with the occupant, pointing out possible entry areas and food sources. They also educate residents on how to alleviate problems. In some cases the inspectors leave traps with detailed instructions for their use. Inspectors are assigned wide geographical areas. They perform their work with diligence and dedication. Ride-along observers indicated that inspectors are well-trained and more than willing to show and explain their services to residents. The ride-alongs also gave insight into the difficulty inspector’s encounter in recording information. Tasks that have proven cumbersome are separate computer programs used for documenting work orders, unattended pools, mosquito treatment, and rat infestation. These are 7 Figure 1, August 2011 Public Survey 8 Ride-along interviews; October 20, 26, & 27, 2011 all maintained in stand-alone programs. Every inspector must download information from multiple programs to arrange his daily work schedule. At the end of the day the inspector must manually enter all actions taken into these various programs. INSPECTION OF OTHER ORANGE COUNTY LABORATORIES The 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury conducted visits and discussions with officials of the Agricultural Commissioners Laboratory and the Orange County Health Care Laboratory to determine similarities and to understand the relationship between them. Orange County Health Care Laboratory The Orange County Health Care Laboratory is an infectious disease laboratory that is staffed by 39 professionals. Twenty-eight persons are Certified Microbiologists with a minimum education of Master’s degree. Eleven are laboratory technicians with Bachelor degrees in Biology (most are working on their Masters degrees). The laboratory is connected to the Center for Disease Control and The Food and Drug Administration for real time reporting of information by way of the Infectious Disease Data Sharing Network. It actively participates in emergency response networks involved with infectious diseases. The laboratory has the capacity to do mapping of infectious disease cases by area, much the same as OCVCD maps vectors. Test results in the lab are entered into a database system in order to share the information with the Center for Disease Control, The Food and Drug Administration, Orange County Health Care Agency, and local hospitals in a timely manner. The laboratory also maintains a “Water Laboratory” in the southern portion of the county, the purpose of which is to test water at the beaches for the County and the State Coastal Commission. Agricultural Commissions Laboratory The Agricultural Commissioner’s laboratory is staffed by two scientists and two Systematic Entomologists. They identify insects that live on plants or insects that grow in soil or roots in the county of imported. When identifying a harmful insect, the laboratory issues a citation for the crop or load of plants to be returned to its origin or destroyed. The laboratory also oversees the destruction of these plants, if necessary. FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS “In accordance with California Penal Code Sections §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Findings/Conclusions presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court”. Based on the research of the Orange County Vector Control District the Orange County Grand Jury puts forth the following Findings/Conclusions. F1. The field staff of OCVCD has to deal with older technology in dispatching, reporting and coordinating their activities. This requires extra time dedicated to formalizing reports. Acquiring current technology that links databases would lessen the time spent in the office and allow more time in the field, better serving the community. (R1) F2. The laboratories of the Agricultural Commissioner, Health Care Agency, and Vector Control have little inter-relationship with respect to their functions and specialized equipment. Little or no communication exists among the labs for sharing of disease information impacting the public. (R2) F3. The OCVCD does not exercise all of its abatement rights under the California Health and Safety Code sections 2060-2067. It fails to issue citations and levy fines for violations of the codes against property owners, including banks, who own foreclosed property. Issuing fines could lead to recouping costs of remediating unattended property and lower assessments to all other taxpayers. (R3) F4. The OCVCD maintains a database of over 3000 abandoned swimming pools throughout Orange County that are basically unattended breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Considerable time is devoted to treating and following up on the condition of these pools. (R3) F5. The OCVCD has the largest Board of Trustees of any independent special district in Orange County. Thirty-five members represent all the cities and the County Board of Supervisors. Meeting for an hour monthly to discuss and vote on district business presented to them by the staff does not appear to provide adequate oversight. Thirty-five Trustees is an overly large amount for the task of efficient, cost effective governance of this district. (R4) F6. The OCVCD’s Communication Department is striving to provide better service to the public and improve its public outreach. Communication and public outreach needs to continue improving. The OCVCD website has no ability to place threat warnings on cities websites. (R5) F7. Currently the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Orange County have little or no knowledge of the OCVCD. In most cases they do not know what the vector control mission entails or how it serves the community. (R6) F8. Based on a survey conducted by OCVCD in 2009, the district earned a 94 % approval rating from citizens who had used their services. The 2011-2012 Grand Jury surveyed prospective jury members in August 2011. Only 17% of the respondents surveyed have ever contacted OCVCD. Of those that had used OCVCD, 75% were satisfied with the response. (R6) F9. The OCVCD Inspectors are State certified, dedicated and knowledgeable. They perform their services well. The OCVCD is a well-run and well-resourced operation fulfilling its core mission. OCVCD conducts effective and efficient day-to-day operations. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2011-2012 Grand Jury requires 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 the research of the Orange County Vector Control District the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury puts forth the following recommendations: R1. OCVCD’s Director of Communication should develop and acquire hardware and software to eliminate the time consuming data acquisition and report writing input that is currently required. R2. OCVCD should take the lead in forming a coalition with the Agricultural Commissioners Agency and the Health Care Agency to explore sharing information. R3. OCVCD should start exercising the authority granted to it in the Health and Safety Code and issue citations to individuals, real estate agencies and banks that refuse to maintain swimming pools under their control. R4. The Board of Trustees should explore downsizing itself to a manageable group of appointed citizens, not elected officials. The Board should consider membership along the lines of the Supervisorial Districts with an appointed representative from each district. Furthermore, the appointees should have some background in biology or related health careers. R5. OCVCD should explore teaming with the Webmasters and the County CEO Information Technology, to ensure immediate posting on city websites of vital public health conditions. R6. OCVCD should engage the services of a public relations firm to develop ways to make the name and services more recognizable to the general public. REQUIRED RESPONSES “In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2011-2012 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Findings and Recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. ”“Not later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section §914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations…” Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal code Section 933.05 are requested or required as shown below: Responses Required to Findings/Conclusions and Recommendations are required from the OCVCD Board of Trustees and requested from the Health Care Agency, which is a department of the County, and the Agricultural Commissioner. Findings OCVCD HCA Ag Com F1 X F2 X X X F3 X F4 X F5 X F6 X F7 X F8 X F9 X Recommendations R1 X R2 X X X R3 X R4 X R5 X R6 X OCVCD = Orange County Vector Control District) (HCA= Health Care Agency) (Ag Comm. = Agricultural Commissioner)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
15 hallazgos
F1:
Most Orange County special districts, with or without the assistance of the Local Agency
F2:
Special districts have made very little progress in complying with the recommendations
F3:
Most non-enterprise special districts in Orange County have outlived their purpose and
F4:
The eleven non-enterprise special districts of Orange County founded before 1965 have
F5:
The sixteen enterprise districts typically started as local agricultural irrigation providers
F6:
The sixteen enterprise special districts of Orange County founded between 1919 and
F7:
The unrestricted reserves of the special districts are available to the governing boards to
F8:
The twenty-seven special districts in Orange County have amassed unrestricted reserves
F9:
The Orange County Auditor-Controller allocated nearly $35,000,000 to four enterprise
F10:
The enterprise special districts could save millions of dollars in administration costs by
F11:
The Buena Park Library and the Placentia Library (the oldest special districts in Orange
F12:
The community services that the original non-enterprise special districts provided can be
F13:
The Surfside Colony Storm Water Protection District was formed in 1941 to protect the
F14:
The true cost of water and sanitary sewers in the enterprise special districts is hidden
F15:
Only one of the special districts, The South Coast Water District, has had recent performance audits. The lack of performance audits for the remaining special districts leaves the potential for inefficiencies, poor practices, outmoded operations, etc. hidden from the governing
Recomendaciones adicionales
10
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Written communications about unsatisfactory conditions when no crime is charged, with recommendations for improvements (reports);
R2:
Written complaints charging a person with a crime (indictments); and
R3:
Written complaints against a person whose conviction would result in removal from office rather than criminal penalties (accusations). a large portion of the public believes that an individual appearing before the grand jury, particularly a public official, suggests malfeasance or misfeasance. it should be clearly understood that it is the constitutional responsibility of the grand jury to review the conduct of county government each year, and this entails having public officials appear before the jury for the purpose of providing information to the jury about their departments or offices. although grand jurors are a part of the judicial system and are considered to be officers of the court, the grand jury is an entirely independent body. the presiding judge of the superior court, the district attorney, county counsel, and the state attorney General act as the grand jury’s advisors but cannot prevent the actions of the jury except for illegality. Because of the confidential nature of a grand jury’s work, much of it must be conducted in closed session. Members of a grand jury are sworn to secrecy, thus assuring all who appear that their complaints will be handled in an entirely confidential manner. no one may be present during the sessions of a grand jury except those specified by law (pen. code, § 939), the minutes of its meetings may not be inspected by anyone, and its records cannot be subpoenaed. penal code section 939 requires that prejudiced jurors may not be present during any part of proceedings from which they have once been formally excused, and no non-juror may be present during the expressing of the opinions of grand jurors, or the giving of their votes, on any criminal or civil matter before them. an officer having custody of a prisoner witness may be present during criminal sessions of the grand jury while the prisoner is testifying, but the officer shall be warned to ensure the secrecy of any grand jury proceeding that he or she has heard. 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Page iii history of Grand Juries the conduct of criminal investigations and the return of indictments is the smaller part of a grand jury’s function in california. in some states, all persons accused of felonies must be indicted by a grand jury before being tried. this is also true of the federal courts. in this state, the vast majority of criminal cases are presented to the court, at a preliminary hearing, on a complaint issued by the district attorney. cases presented to the criminal grand jury by the district attorney may include, but are not limited to:
R4:
Water and sewer districts should be consolidated into no more than six regional districts.
R5:
Water and sewer districts should be removed from the tax rolls and operate solely on fees
R6:
Special districts should adopt “board of director‟s practices” for all their reserves, restricted and unrestricted. All reserves should be classified in their 2013-2014 budgets according
R7:
Excessive unrestricted reserves should be used to reduce existing debts. Future revenues
R8:
Each special district should have an independent performance audit at least every three
R9:
Each special district should contribute 1% of its unrestricted reserve fund to LAFCO to
R10:
The Orange County Tax Collector should obtain all the specific allocations for the 1%