Orange County Grand Jury
2016-2017
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 (8)
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Orange County government entities are prime cyber targets, under constant cyber attack, and both public and private information held by these entities are not adequately protected.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The county should establish a periodic cybersecurity audit schedule for all third-party vendors that connect to county networks and systems by 12/31/2017.
F2:
The county is subject to many types of cyber attacks but phishing currently represents the highest risk to the county’s sensitive information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
OCIT should select, acquire and direct the implementation of computer-based data loss prevention capability by 12/31/2017.
F3:
Some county cyber attacks come through third-party vendors, who may not always be sufficiently protected.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The county should review, update and standardize all employee and contractor exit procedures to ensure the security of countywide sensitive information by 12/31/2017.
F4:
The county has taken a number of steps to safeguard its digital data and systems against cyber attack, but there are a number of actions generally recognized as cybersecurity best practices that still need to be implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
OCIT should establish a countywide cybersecurity working group by 12/31/2017. Participation should be mandatory for County of Orange agencies that report to the CEO and highly recommended for other county government entities.
F5:
County financial records do not separate out cybersecurity as a line item, making it hard to determine what resources are being allocated in the area and therefore what additional funds are needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
OCIT should develop a formal five-year cybersecurity strategic plan as a separate part of the IT Strategic Plan in the next county strategic plan.
F6:
Cooperation among county agencies is currently limited due to organizational and cultural issues including the visibility of available centralized OCIT cybersecurity support, the inward focus of county agencies and the fact that the influence of the BOS to compel collaboration is largely limited to county agencies with appointed heads that report to the county CEO and, to a lesser degree, the county agencies with elected heads.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
OCIT should finalize a mandatory county incident response plan with procedures for individual agency exceptions and present it to the appropriate oversight bodies and BOS for approval by 7/1/2018.
F7:
OCIT has an effective team in place for addressing cybersecurity deficiencies, but is only in the formative stages of implementing centralized standards and best practices for cybersecurity. Outside OCIT’s control, county government agencies are taking advantage of the county’s cybersecurity initiatives to different degrees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The county should include in its 2018-19 IT Strategic Plan the identification, documentation and categorization by risk of county digital sensitive information. R. 8. The county should annually review and update the amount and types of county cyber insurance based on the annual county risk analysis.
F8:
IT employees across county government are largely untrained and uncertified in cybersecurity, especially at the agency level. Staffing for cybersecurity is challenging due to outdated county cybersecurity job classifications and salary levels, as well as lengthy county hiring processes, particularly for those agencies requiring extensive background checks. Penal Code §933 and §933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections §933 and §933.05, the 2016-2017 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation “Orange County’s Digital Data: Is It Protected from Cyber Attack?” the 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 18 recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R9:
OCIT should implement cybersecurity training and professional certification of all county IT analysts having cybersecurity as a part of their job responsibilities by 7/1/2018.
R10:
OCIT should establish audit and test procedures to periodically, but no less than every two years, gauge the effectiveness of training and other cybersecurity measures by 7/1/2018.
R11:
The county should establish separate budget line items for cybersecurity expenses and capital investments for the 2018-2019 budget.
R12:
The county should implement the use of regional cooperative agreements for the acquisition of all cybersecurity related products and services by 7/1/2018.
R13:
The county should review and update IT job classifications and salary levels to reflect the current job market by 6/30/18. R. 14. The county should develop a succession plan covering cybersecurity-critical positions by 6/30/18 to provide for continuity of these positions. R. 15. Procedures for updating and patching all county software and systems that have been established by OCIT for the shared services program should be made mandatory for all county departments and agencies that report to the CEO, and recommended for all other county government entities by 6/30/18. R 16. OCIT should draft and implement standardized procedures for mandatory use of full disk encryption and remote find/wipe capabilities for countywide mobile devices by 7/1/2018. R. 17. OCIT should establish standardized procedures for IT’s examination and removal of all sensitive information on county digital devices, prior to their removal from county premises through transfer, sale, scrap or reuse by 12/31/17. R. 18. OCIT should establish standardized procedures for conducting periodic cybersecurity vulnerability and penetration testing by 12/31/19. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. DA, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Orange County Board of Supervisors (Findings F.1. – F.8.; Recommendations R.1 - 18.). Responses Requested: County Executive Office (Findings F.1. – F.8.; Recommendations R.1., R.3., R.7., R.8.,
R16:
OCIT should draft and implement standardized procedures for mandatory use of full disk encryption and remote find/wipe capabilities for countywide mobile devices by 7/1/2018. R. 17. OCIT should establish standardized procedures for IT’s examination and removal of all sensitive information on county digital devices, prior to their removal from county premises through transfer, sale, scrap or reuse by 12/31/17. R. 18. OCIT should establish standardized procedures for conducting periodic cybersecurity vulnerability and penetration testing by 12/31/19. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. DA, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Orange County Board of Supervisors (Findings F.1. – F.8.; Recommendations R.1 - 18.). Responses Requested: County Executive Office (Findings F.1. – F.8.; Recommendations R.1., R.3., R.7., R.8., R.11., R.12., R.13., R.14., R.15.). Orange County Information Technology (Findings F.1. – F.8.; Recommendations R.2., R.4., R.5., R.6., R.9., R.10., R.15., R.16., R.17., R.18.). REFERENCES Akamai. (2016). State of the Internet Security Q3 2016 Report. Akamai. Chuang, E. (2017). It's Not You, It's Your Vendor: The Hidden Doorway to Phishing Attacks. Legaltech news, p. 2. Retrieved 5 1, 2017, from http://www.legaltechnews.com/id=1202784938919/Its-Not-You-Its-Your-Vendor-The- Hidden-Doorway-to-Phishing- Attacks?kw=It%27s%20Not%20You%2C%20It%27s%20Your%20Vendor:%20The%20 Hidden%20Doorway%20to%20Phishing%20Attacks&et=editorial&bu=Law%20Technol ogy%20News& Grimes, R. A. (2017). 9 new hacks coming to get you. CSO Online, p. 9. Retrieved 2 21, 2017, from http://www.csoonline.com/article/3171741/security/9-new-hacks-coming-to-get- you.html?idg_eid=c35b9224fe3bb5b632c1e442a73c4ba4&email_SHA1_lc=fa902d91c1a ebeb660bfe968f17cf604cb88c00b&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_ca mpaign=CSO%20Update%202017-02-2 ISO - ANSI. (2010). The Financial Management of Cyber Risk. New York: Internet Security Alliance (ISA)/American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Retrieved 2 21, 2017, from https://share.ansi.org/khdoc/Financial+Management+of+Cyber+Risk.pdf Kaspersky. (2015). The Threats From Within: How educating your employees on cybersecurity can protect your company. Kaspersky Lab. Retrieved 2 17, 2017, from usa.kapersky.com Masunga, S. (2017). Target settles with states over breach. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 24, 2017 Microsoft. (2016). Intelligent Security: Using Machine Learning to Help Detect Advanced Cyber Attacks. Microsoft Corporation. Retrieved 2 2, 2017, from https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/security/intelligence?&WT.srch=1&WT.mc_id=AID__SEM_Ta9wKfnh National Association of Corporate Directors. (2017). Cyber-Risk Oversight. Washington, D.C., USA: National Association of corpoprate Directors. Retrieved 2 23, 2017, from https://www.nacdonline.org/cyber NIST. (2012). Computer Security Incident Handling Guide - Special Publication 800-61. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Security, Information Technology Laboratory. Gathersberg: National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved 1 30, 2017, from http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-61r2.pdf NIST. (2013). Glossary of Key Information Security Terms. (R. Kisswel, Ed.) Retrieved 1 19, 2017, from National Institute of Standards and Technology: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7298r2 NIST. (2016). Small Business Information Security: The Fundamentals. Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology Applied Cybersecurity Division, Information Technology Laboratory. Retrieved 1 30, 2017, from https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7621rl Orange County Information Technology. (2017). Implementing a Shared Services Strategy for Information Technology. Santa Ana: OCIT. Retrieved 5 13, 2017, from http://cams.ocgov.com/Web_Publisher/Agenda01_24_2017_files/images/O00316- 001666A.PDF Phishlabs. (2017). 2017 Phishing Trends & Intelligence Report: Hacking the Human. Charleston: ECrime Management Strategies, Inc. Retrieved 2 27, 2017, from https://pages.phishlabs.com/rs/130-BFB- 942/images/2017%20PhishLabs%20Phishing%20and%20Threat%20Intelligence%20Rep ort.pdf?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkdVeFpESTRNek0xTm1GaCIsInQiOiJNdFhhR1pvcUVmb XdXaDhrMWE5KzVvV25qRDRodzFKdnlsK3NyeGVZWWNkYTN0SDErR2pWVG81 YTJ1Tzdvc05zOH Plante Moran. (2014). Enterprise Resource System Security Audit Report (Phase 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 Combined). Cerritos: Plante Moran. Ponemon Institute. (2016). 2016 Cost of Data Breach Study. Ponemon Institute. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. (2017). Chronology of Data Breaches. Retrieved from Privacy Rights Clearninghouse: https://www.privacyrights.org/data-breaches PwC. (2016). Key findings from the Global State of Information Security 2017. PwC. Retrieved 2 17, 2017, from http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/cyber-security/information-security- survey/assets/gsiss-report-cybersecurity-privacy-possibilities.pdf SANS Institute. (2017). Cyber Security Trends: Aiming Ahead of the Target to Increase Security in 2017. Bethesda: SANS Institute. Retrieved May 12, 2017, from https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/analyst/cyber-security-trends-aiming- target-increase-security-2017-37702 Straight, J. (2017). Key Cyber Trends Dominating the Early 2017 Discourse. Retrieved 3 6, 2017, from Legaltech News: http://www.legaltechnews.com/id=1202780585472/5-Key- Cyber-Trends-Dominating-the-Early-2017- Discourse?kw=5%20Key%20Cyber%20Trends%20Dominating%20the%20Early%2020 17%20Discourse&et=editorial&bu=Law%20Technology%20News&cn=20170306&src= EMC-Email&pt=Daily%20Ale Symantec. (2016). Internet Security Threat Report. Symantec. Retrieved 1 20, 2017 U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). Best Practices for Victim Response and Reporting of Cyber Incidents. Cybersecurity Unit, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Criminal Division. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved 1 30, 2017, from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal- ccips/legacy/2015/04/30/04272015reporting-cyber-incidents-final.pdf Verizon. (2016). 2016 Data Breach Investigations Report. Verizon. APPENDICES
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Multiple consensual relationships involving some members of Bureau management have contributed to a perception of favoritism and cronyism among some in the Bureau. This perception stems from the promotion of some who have been engaged in intimate relationships with their supervisors, whether or not those promotions were deserved, and a belief by some that participation in activities that occur outside the workplace impact promotion decisions. This has created the perception of a hostile work environment for some.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The OCDA should implement comprehensive management training of all management in the Bureau.
F2:
Current county sexual harassment training for Bureau employees does not appear adequate. Many Bureau employees appear to be unaware of the policy. Some OCDA management seemed unaware of the implications of a hostile work environment and what constitutes sexual harassment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The OCDA should ensure all employees receive comprehensive sexual harassment training annually and periodically follow up to ensure policies are being followed.
F3:
The current county sexual harassment policy does not prohibit supervisor-subordinate intimate relationships.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Bureau management should recognize the Bureau’s role in the mission of the OCDA, prioritize assignments accordingly, and develop an assignment process that better uses the experience and skills of investigators.
F4:
The absence of a transparent assignment process that uses investigators’ skill sets has contributed to the perception of favoritism among some investigators.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The county should consider implementing a policy that prohibits intimate supervisor- subordinate relationships and prohibits all individuals holding a senior leadership position in any county agency from engaging in any intimate relationships with anyone in the agency they supervise. R5. The county should review the current sexual harassment training provided to all county employees and include metrics for impact and effectiveness. R6. The Board of Supervisors should hire an outside, independent investigator to investigate why the OCDA and county Human Resources Services departments are not being used in reporting by individuals in the Bureau. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Orange County District Attorney F. 1-8, R.1-3 Orange County Board of Supervisors F. 2-3, R.4-6
F5:
Supervisor and commander positions lack an adequate management training requirement. This has led to either a failure to uniformly enforce OCDA and county policies surrounding work place behavior or at least a perceived failure to do so.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The county should review the current sexual harassment training provided to all county employees and include metrics for impact and effectiveness.
F6:
Some employees report they do not feel comfortable going to OCDA or county Human Resources Services staff to report incidents of harassment for fear they will not be afforded confidentiality, the complaint will be dismissed, or they will face retaliation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should hire an outside, independent investigator to investigate why the OCDA and county Human Resources Services departments are not being used in reporting by individuals in the Bureau.
F7:
Under the current leadership, the Bureau is run much more like a police department than a support unit for a law firm and this has led several employees to invoke the law enforcement code of silence about alleged inappropriate behavior in the Bureau.
F8:
There is a perception among some Bureau employees that some members of OCDA management have not consistently enforced the Orange County zero-tolerance policy towards sexual harassment. Penal Code §933 and §933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested, from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections §933 and §933.05, the 2016-2017 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of “Another Hostile Work Environment? Orange County District Attorney Bureau of Investigation in Orange County, the 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following six recommendations:
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The myriad definitions and nuances of what constitutes an “informant” have caused confusion and may have contributed to the current controversy and unnecessary erosion of trust.
F2:
There is no structured jailhouse informant program operating in the Orange County Jails. The existence of informants in the Orange County jails does not constitute a program. The use of an in-custody informant is generally organic in nature, and narrowly focused.
F3:
Violations in discovery and/or Brady disclosure in the Dekraai case are limited to the actions of a few members of the OCDA and a few OCSD personnel. This does not represent a conspiracy between the OCSD and OCDA.
F4:
The OCII is an incomplete repository of informant information and history due to the voluntary discretion of LLE Agencies to contribute to it.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The OCDA needs to send a clear message to local law enforcement agencies that successful case prosecution relies on the sharing of information, and agencies should be encouraged to share all informant information with the OCDA for input into the OCII.
R5:
Prosecutors within the OCDA need to recognize that the OCII is a tool of limited utility and should not rely solely on the OCII to vet potential witnesses. They should continue to do their due diligence in background checks of all witnesses in their prosecutions.
F5:
LLE Agencies are, and continue to be, a weak link on the prosecution team. While OCDA has no authority over these agencies, they can certainly use the bully pulpit to raise awareness of the problem and encourage participation and commitment to proper legal standards.
F6:
The elevation of personnel in the OCDA to supervisory positions is not the result of standardized, objective hiring standards and does not include any required training in management or supervisorial skills training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The OCDA should implement standardized management hiring and training practices for all supervisory personnel and review employee disciplinary practices to ensure they are sufficient responses to employee actions.
F7:
The OCDA needs to continue and expand the existing training programs to include objective standards in place to evaluate the actual effectiveness of OCDA training. Doubts continue as to whether training, in its current format, will make any substantial difference without metrics to measure impact.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The OCDA should continue working to improve and prioritize its training program by designing and implementing follow-up measurements to determine the effectiveness and impact of current training content and methods.
F8:
Interoffice communication within the OCDA is often lacking and contributes to the absence of a unifying vision or sense of leadership. This allows for individual prosecutors to drift and create individualized record-keeping systems that could pose a liability for the County. It is an untenable position to argue that poor communication within the OCDA is the culprit to explain away constitutional discovery and Brady obligations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The OCDA should review their management and communication to improve inter-office communications and break-down the negative effect of silo-ed operations
F9:
Hiring an independent monitor to oversee work recommended by IPPEC and already completed by the OCDA is a waste of County money.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Board of Supervisors should review and consider canceling, within the next 90 days, the OCDA independent monitor contract implemented on recommendations from the IPPEC and approved by the Board in August 2016.
F10:
Mistakes were made by personnel in the OCSD and the OCDA. In response to internal investigations, the OCSD has taken disciplinary action to the extent it is able to do so at this time. There appears to have been minimal consequences for personnel in the OCDA.
F11:
Both the OCSD and the OCDA need updated technology and record keeping systems.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The OCDA should prioritize updating the current case management system to better track all constitutional and statutory requirements and better interface with LLE agencies and the OCII.
R6:
The OCDA should standardize its discovery record-keeping system for recording and tracking discovery materials and ensure all prosecutors are aware of and use the new uniform system.
R9:
The OCSD should standardize and consolidate jail activity records that have potential discovery repercussions, and minimize multiple filing systems for recording potentially discoverable material within the jail management system.
F12:
In spite of no official completed investigations, the OCSD has proactively made structural and organizational changes to address the issues that arose as a result of the informant controversy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The OCSD should improve supervisor training for newly promoted sergeants that includes demonstrated supervisory skills before rotation back to the field. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required as follows: Responses are required from the following elected officers within 60 days of the date of the publication of this report: The Orange County District Attorney (F.1-11; R.1-7) The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner (F.1-3, 10-13; R.9,10) Responses are required from the following governing bodies within 90 days of the date of the publication of this report: The Orange County Board of Supervisors (F.9, R.8)
F13:
The current promotion process in the OCSD that requires patrol officers to be reassigned to the jail contributes to a culture of inadequate supervision of long-term jail personnel. Penal Code §933 and §933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested, from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2016-2017 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled, “The Myth of the Orange County Jailhouse Informant Program” in Orange County, the Orange County Grand Jury makes the following ten recommendations:
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The VCD and HCA have primarily responded to vector outbreaks in a reactive manner in the past. The VCD wants to be more proactive in the future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
VCD must continue to prioritize its funding allocations for communicating with the public. To increase this effort, the Grand Jury recommends that the district ask their Board of Trustees to authorize maximizing the District 2 assessment for the benefit of VCD by June 30, 2017. These funds should be used first by the VCD for more proactive outreach efforts throughout the county.
F2:
The VCD relies on the public to help identify new sources of infestation. This cooperation is essential for future success.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that efforts focusing on early education information of school children be expanded in content and reach by December 30, 2017.
F3:
The VCD uses multiple media, including print materials, their website, email and social media, as well as in-person activities, as part of their outreach efforts. The HCA focuses on print and opt-in email alerts and bulletins to medical professionals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Getting information to vulnerable populations (seniors, the chronically ill, pregnant women, etc.) is critical. The Grand Jury recommends that detailed plans for implementing new or expanded programs targeting vulnerable populations all over the county should be in place by VCD and HCA by June 30, 2017, for implementation no later than March 31, 2018.
F4:
The presence of undocumented storm drains in Orange County cities makes control of mosquito vectors more difficult.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCD provide the Orange County Board of Supervisors with a ranked list of cities that represent primary concern for storm drain mosquito infestation, as soon as possible to facilitate remediation efforts by the next mosquito season, but no later than June 30, 2017. R. 5. The Grand Jury recommends that, by June 30, 2017, the Orange County Board of Supervisors notify each city of concern in their Supervisorial Districts that their storm drains represent significant sources of mosquito breeding grounds. R. 6. The Grand Jury recommends that the Orange County Board of Supervisors advise cities of concern to schedule by September 30, 2017, and fund by December 31, 2017, thorough mapping of storm drains within city limits, as well as assessment of the condition and need for storm drain repairs. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors financially support this effort.
F5:
Communication about vector diseases directed to treatment facilities such as private and public clinics, hospitals, nursing homes and doctor offices has not translated into timely and effective public education about the prevention and avoidance of infectious diseases. F. 6. Mosquito control and education efforts in the county are concentrated on historical areas of infestation and illness in North County. F. 7. The VCD Board of Trustees’ spending authorization has not been sufficient to accomplish VCD’s current goals. F. 8. In delineating responsibilities of each agency, the existing MOUs between VCD and HCA do not adequately promote effective communications about mosquito-borne diseases and their remediation to the public, including medical professionals and their patients.
F9:
Despite significant scientific and experiential evidence that aerial spraying is effective and safe, the regional public and the VCD Board of Trustees are reluctant to support the use of aerial spraying when recommended by VCD. Penal Code §933 and §933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections §933 and §933.05, the 2016-2017 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Is Orange County Ready for Zika? It Takes a Village to Handle Mosquito-Borne Viruses,” the 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 9 recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
The VCD must work with HCA to expand efforts to proactively reach clinics, nursing homes and medical agencies with communications that will protect patients from mosquito- borne illnesses. The Grand Jury recommends that the MOU between the VCA and the HCA regarding such communications be updated by June 30, 2017. R. 8. The HCA should be more active in communicating with medical professionals using targeted and opt-out alerts and bulletins, as well as instituting measures of effectiveness in these targeted messages. Where possible, they should take advantage of mobile technology to immediately reach physicians and others in the health care trenches earlier in the cycle of mosquito infestation, even before illness is reported. An HCA Communications Plan that addresses these issues should be completed by June 30, 2017, and implemented by December 31, 2017. R. 9. The VCD needs new, valid and reliable qualitative and quantitative measures of outreach effectiveness to guide their communications program and make best use of their resources. This element should be added to the VCD Communications Plan by June 30, 2017, and implemented by March 30, 2018. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding; (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action; (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation; (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report; (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required or requested from: Responses Required: Responses are required from the following governing bodies within 90 days of the date of publication of this report: Board of Trustees, Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District (Findings 1-9; Recommendations 1 - 4, 7, 9). Orange County Board of Supervisors (Recommendations 4-6, 8). Responses Requested: Responses are requested from the following agency within 90 days of the date of publication of this report: Orange County Health Care Agency (Findings 1, 3, 5, 8; Recommendations 3, 7-8).
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
There is no evidence of widespread or organized voter fraud or voter interference in Orange County.
F2:
The Grand Jury has confidence in the integrity of the ballot process and the accuracy of election results.
F3:
The ROV office has reviewed and updated voter registration rolls per State and Federal guidelines improving voter turnout percentages. F. 4. The Grand Jury viewed pilots of Voter Service Centers for the 2016 General Election and found they increased accessibility and operated in accordance with Federal and State voting requirements.
F5:
The ROV communications and outreach programs promote transparency and encourage outside observations by the voting public.
F6:
The management skills demonstrated by ROV staff and volunteers were effective and will support moving the voting process into the new voting model under SB450. Penal Code §933 and §933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2016-2017 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled, “No voter fraud here: The transparent election process”, the 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury has no recommendations. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Responses are required from the following governing bodies within 90 days of the date of the publication of this report: Orange County Board of Supervisors (Findings F.1-F.6) Responses Requested: Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads: ROV (Findings F.1-F.6) REFERENCES California Government. (2016, 9 29). SB-450 Elections: vote by mail voting and mail ballot elections. (2015-2016). Retrieved 2 7, 2017, from California Legislative Information: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB450 California Government. (n.d.). Election Codes. Retrieved 2 7, 2017, from California Legislative Information. California Secretary of State. (2016). VoteCal County Questions and Answers. Retrieved December 5, 2016, from Alex Padilla Secretary of State: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/votecal-project/votecal-county- questions-and-answers/ California Secretary of State. (2016). Voter Bill of Rights. Retrieved 2 7, 2017, from Alex Padilla California Secretary of State: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-bill-rights/ Myers, J. (2016, March 1). All of California's voters are now in one online database. Retrieved December 5, 2016, from Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac- california-voter-database-online-20160301-story.html Senate District 26. (2017). Bill to Modernize Elections Passes Legislature. Retrieved November 30, 2016, from Senator Ben Allen Representing the 26th District: http://sd26.senate.ca.gov/news/2016-08-29-bill-modernize-elections-passes-legislature Tribune News Services. (2016, 9 30). U.S. Official: Hackers targeted voter registration systems of 20 states. Retrieved January 13, 2017, from Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-hackers-target-election-systems- 20160930-story.html USA.gov. (n.d.). Voting and Election Laws. Retrieved 02 07, 2017, from USA.gov: https://www.usa.gov/voting-laws APPENDIX A: TERMS, TYPES OF FRAUD Voter impersonation is a type of voter fraud in which a person claims to be someone else when casting a vote. Double voting (ballot stuffing): One individual casts more than one ballot in the same election. Dead voters: The name of a deceased person remains on a state's official list of registered voters and a living person fraudulently casts a ballot in that name. Felon voter fraud: The casting of a ballot by a convicted felon who is not eligible to vote as a result of being a felon. Voter suppression: A variety of tactics aimed at lowering or suppressing the number of voters who might otherwise vote in a particular election. Registration fraud: Filling out and submitting a voter registration card for a fictional person, or filling out a voter registration card with the name of a real person, but without that person's consent, and forging his or her signature on the card. Voter impersonation: A person claims to be someone else when casting a vote. Vote-buying: Agreements between voters and others to buy and sell votes, such as a candidate paying voters to vote for him or her. Fraud by election officials: Manipulation of ballots by officials administering the election, such as tossing out ballots or casting ballots in voters' names. APPENDIX B: PROPOSED VOTE SERVICE CENTER LOCATIONS Benefits of Vote Center Concept Voter convenience Matches data trends and adapts to voter behavior Alleviates Election Day lines Eliminates provisional ballots cast Significant cost savings over time Reduces certification times Preserves in-person voting option Allows for voting in any vote center Countywide Eliminates “volunteers” and uncontrolled environment Increases security Utilizes electronic poll books Ability to replace damaged ballots APPENDIX C: GRAND JURY CHECKLIST FOR POLLING PLACE OBSERVATIONS Precinct Number: Inspector of Elections: Polling Place Address: Grand Jury Member Arrival Time: City and Zip Code: Grand Jury Member Departure Time: Type of Facility: # of Poll Workers on Site: Number of Precincts At This Polling Site: POLLING SITE A = Complete B = Issue Noted C = Not Applicable 1. Polling Site Early Set Up – Before Nov. 8th 1. A B C COMMENTS A. Cardboard Voting Booths Set Up B. Inside Signs In Place C. E-Booth Tamper-Evident Security Seals in Place D. Set-Up and Daisy Chain Cables Connected E. VVPAT Power Cords and Power Strip Installed F. Power Strip Not Connected to Wall Outlet G. No JBC or Paper Ballots on Site H. Polling Site Secured for the Evening 2. Polling Site Opening & First Voter A. County Cell Phone Turned On B. Oath/Payroll Page Signed C. E-Booth Security Seals Verified/Chain of Custody Signed D. E-Booths Set Up/# of Booths E. Cardboard Voting Booths Set Up F. Power Strip Connected and On G. Outside and Inside Signs in Place H. JBC Seals in Place/Chain of Custody Signed I. Gray Data Cable Attached to First Booth J. Black Power Cord Connected to Power Strip/Outlet K. JBC Set-Up Complete L. Official Table Properly Set Up M. American Flag Outside by Entrance to Polling Site N. First Voter Verifies Ballot Box is Empty & Sealed O. First Voter Verifies that PUB Count is Zero P. First Voter Signs Zero Tape for JBC Q. Poll Worker Puts Signed Zero Tape in JBC Envelope 3. Validation of Voter Eligibility & Timely Processing A. Voter Name Verified, Voter Signs, Writes Address B. Street Address Confirmed C. JBC Assignment Completed D. Traffic Flow Through Polling Place Managed E. Time From Arrival to Vote Complete <10 Minutes F. Is Polling Site High Volume? Comment on Process 4. Voter Assistance and Clarification of Questions A. Voters Greeted B. Poll Workers Have Proper Identification C. Poll Workers Professional, Discreet, Courteous D. E-Slate Instructions Provided as Needed E. Spoiled Paper Ballots Identified and Secured F. Poll Workers are Proactive with Disabled Voters G. Language Assistance Provided Where Needed H. Ensures No Disruptions Allowed in Polling Site I. Quick Transactions for Drop Off Ballots J. Comment on Inspector of Elections Polling Site Management 5. Ballot Security A. Timely Verification of Tamper-Evident Seals B. Ballot Box Remains in Clear Site and Sealed C. Clear Lines of Site from Table to Booths/Entrance D. “Marked” & “Table” Street Index Updated Hourly E. Issues of Electioneering/Intimidation Addressed F. E-Booth & JBC Security Seals Verified/Chain of Custody Signed 6. Handling of Provisional and Paper Ballots A. Voter Requesting to Vote Properly Processed B. Provisional Ballot Envelop Completed C. Provisional Access Code Handled Correctly D. Provisional Ballots Secured in Envelop/Ballot Box E. Receipt Given to Voter for Ballot Status Check 7. Polling Site Close and Initial Talley A. Announcement of Polling Site Closing B. Last Voter in Line Identified C. Unused/Spoiled/Surrendered Ballots Counted D. Ballot Box Unsealed/Ballots Organized/Secured E. All Items Packed F. Site Cleaned Other Observations/Comments: APPENDIX D: SELECTED CALIFORNIA VOTER TURNOUT AND PERCENTAGES Figure 1. Turnout of Registered Voters by County Alameda Los Angeles Orange Riverside Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego Santa Clara Statewide Totals 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 2. Percentage of Votes Cast by Mail Alameda Los Angeles Orange Riverside Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego Santa Clara Statewide Totals 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Figure 3. Percentage of Votes Cast in Person Alameda Los Angeles Orange Riverside Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego Santa Clara Statewide Totals 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The impact of SB 277 on school districts in Orange County was minimal. Districts were prepared and staffed with well trained personnel.
F2:
There were very few problems that arose with medical exemptions for vaccinations. Health clerks and school nurses were able to handle any discrepancies.
F3:
Personal belief exemptions that were grandfathered in are professionally tracked with timely notifications to parents as to when vaccinations are due to be completed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
School districts should continue to track students with grandfathered personal belief exemptions to ensure these students have the required vaccinations before they reach the next reporting levels.
F4:
Orange County school districts made every effort to make vaccination information available using social media, direct mailings and links on school websites to clinics in the area.
F5:
School nurses, LVN’s and health clerks directly notified the parents of students with vaccination lapses and those requiring boosters for pre-K, kindergarten and 7th grade well in advance of the due dates. Penal Code §933 and §933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2016-2017 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Based on its investigation titled, “Ouch! - Now That Didn’t Hurt: The Implementation of the Vaccination Bill, SB 277 in Orange County Schools” the 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury has 2 recommendations.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Districts should continue to monitor student vaccination percentages to maintain the threshold defined by the CDPH REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required from the governing body of each of the following districts within 90 days of the date of publication of this report: Anaheim Elementary School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Capistrano Unified School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Fountain Valley School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Fullerton Elementary School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Garden Grove Unified School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Huntington Beach City School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Laguna Beach Unified School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Newport-Mesa Unified School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Ocean View School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Orange Unified School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Santa Ana Unified School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Savanna School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Responses are requested from the following within 90 days of the date of publication of this report: None requested.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The beneficial impact of Grand Jury reports is diminished if recommendations are left open and not properly pursued to closure.
F2:
The credibility and impact of the Grand Jury watchdog function is diminished if
F3:
Tracking and consolidation of open report recommendations directed to the Target Audience should be the responsibility of the CEO.
F4:
The process of tracking open Grand Jury report recommendations is most effective when formalized and instituted as an ongoing procedure by the CEO.
F5:
The follow-up of open report recommendations is best done in March of each year to coincide with the requirement that responses of Further Analysis (FA) must have been completed within 180 days from the original response date.
F6:
The Target Audience needs written policies and procedures from the CEO for proper use of the “Needs Further Analysis” (FA) response to ensure it complies with CPC section 933.05, including the scope, and parameters of that analysis and timeframe not to exceed six months.
F7:
Tracking open Grand Jury recommendations to closure becomes a higher priority for the Target Audience when promoted and endorsed by the Board of Supervisors and the CEO/COO.
F8:
The CEO is in the best position to track and consolidate long-standing open report
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
WBI in FY14/15 Committee underway to determine if it makes sense to centralize County IT Services under the CEO office of
R8:
WBI Feb2021, a cost analysis will be done for both basins Improving The County of Orange Contract Policy Manual will undergo thorough review in Government’s Multi-Billion Dollar 2015 for mods to be approved by BoS. See above where Contracting Operations 1314BoS R1 FA same response was a WBI Contract Policy Manual will undergo thorough review in 2015 for mods to be approved by BoS. See above where CEO R2 FA same response was a WBI Juvenile Offenders and Recidivism: Agree, grant funds & donations to be solicited. Probation Orange County Solutions 1314BoS R3 WBI Dept to take the lead. Orange County Information Technology Management:Good Job Overall; Disaster Recovery Must Be Addressed 1314BoS R2 WBI Joint reply with CEO/IT. Will be implemented in FY14/15 CEO never replied on behalf of BoS on this. Only reply
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The pedestrian screening areas located at the entrances to the Central Justice Center are heavily used and become congested during high traffic times. Pedestrian crowding prevents the Sheriff’s Special Officers from having an adequate view of persons entering the facility.
F2:
The industrial/office grade partitions used in the Central Justice Center’s screening areas to channel the public entering and departing the facility do not provide ballistic protection for Sheriff’s Special Officers in the case of an active shooter emergency.
F3:
There is no system for regulating or channeling the public in order to prevent crowding at the scanning stations. Sheriff’s Special Officers must use verbal commands in order to maintain public order and organization.
F4:
None of the County jail or court facilities visited uses full body scanners to prevent the public from bringing non-metallic weapons, tools or other contraband into the facility.
F5:
The current security/surveillance camera system on the exterior of the Harbor Justice Center is not adequate and until completion of on-going upgrades, does not provide for sufficient monitoring.
F6:
The roll-up doors located at the Harbor Justice Center do not prevent some observation of inmates arriving and departing the court by the Sheriff’s transportation vehicles.
F7:
The Command Center at John Wayne Airport uses outdated surveillance equipment.
F8:
The K-9 office located at John Wayne Airport is in need of repair or replacement.
F9:
The Harbor Patrol Marine Operations Bureau does not have waterproof dashboard or handheld video cameras for use at all three harbors in its patrol area.
F10:
Adequate long-range surveillance equipment is not available to Dana Point deputies performing harbormaster duties. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Sheriff’s Temporary Detention/Holding Areas, Patrol Areas and Special Services
F11:
The outside parking/equipment staging area located at the Aliso Viejo Sheriff’s Station provides inadequate protection along the rear of the enclosed area. No barrier exists to prevent unencumbered access onto Sheriff’s property.