Orange County 2018-2019 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

View the full annual report (PDF)

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (7)

June 25, 2019 — Grand Jury 2018-2019 Home At Last: Honoring Our Veterans With a Veterans Cemetery In Orange County

26 páginas 8 hallazgos 3 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 8 hallazgos

F1: There is private and public sector significant interest in, and support for, establishing a veterans cemetery in Orange County.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)

R1: By November 30, 2019, the Irvine City Council should decide which, if any, site within its borders to pursue for a veterans cemetery. Site selection efforts should validate the cost and valuation information. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6)

R2: By November 30, 2019, the OCCD, in coordination with the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the City of Anaheim, should decide whether to pursue developing both a public cemetery and veterans cemetery on the Gypsum Canyon (91/241) site. Site selection efforts should validate the cost and valuation information. (F1, F6, F7)

R3: By December 31, 2019, in the event that both the City of Irvine and OCCD seek to pursue a veterans cemetery, the Grand Jury recommends that a joint City of Irvine and OCCD Veterans Cemetery Selection Committee be established that includes a representative of the Board of Supervisors to determine which of the respective sites will be endorsed. (F1, F5, F6, F8) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No 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 or 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. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, 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 from: Responses Required:

F2: Although four sites are under consideration, to date, only two veterans cemetery locations in the City of Irvine have been recognized for potential funding by the State.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F3: In the City of Irvine, competing political and financial interests have caused delays in veterans cemetery site selection.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F4: Use of the ARDA property for a veterans cemetery will reduce potential tax income for the City of Irvine compared to other proposed sites.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F5: Site development cost estimates and site valuations identified to date vary widely.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

F6: Completion of the veterans cemetery project will require multiple sources of funding; some funding has been available in the past.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)

F7: There is no known opposition to the use of the Gypsum Canyon (91/241) property as a veterans cemetery from the Anaheim City Council, Orange County veterans groups, or the OCCD.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F8: The City of Irvine and OCCD, at their City of Anaheim site, could both be interested in developing a veterans cemetery at their respective properties. The State and CalVet, however, will support only one veterans cemetery in Orange County.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

June 20, 2019 — Grand Jury 2018-2019 Orange County’s Urban Forest

21 páginas 10 hallazgos 5 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos

F1: Cities identified in F10 have dedicated a portion of their general fund budget to an urban forest program; however, the allocated percentage varies widely among cities (See Appendix B).

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: By September 30, 2019, Orange County cities listed in F10 should develop and implement policies and practices that will benefit their urban forests and explore ways to improve their street tree count (F1, F6, F10).

F2: In order to efficiently manage financial and staff resources, Orange County cities identified in F10 utilize contract services for their tree maintenance and services. Some cities also maintain a small staff to supplement contract services.

F3: City councils for the cities identified in F10 are supportive of their urban forest programs and budget requests made by their respective city managers and public works departments.

F4: Cities interviewed for this report reported minimal financial liabilities from tripping hazards, root intrusions, and falling branches and trees.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: By September 30, 2019, each city listed in F10 and the City of Mission Viejo should commit to continue regularly scheduled tree inspection and maintenance cycles to enhance public safety and to minimize future liabilities due to tree-related claims (F4).

F5: Cities identified in F10 have not been successful in ensuring that residents are aware of their city’s urban forest program.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: By September 30, 2019, Orange County cities listed in F10 should implement a program to coordinate with non-profit and volunteer organizations to improve residents’ awareness of the city’s urban forest benefits and promote active involvement with ongoing programs (F5).

F6: Environmental and economic benefits provided by urban forests have not been fully realized in Orange County cities identified in F10 and the unincorporated areas of Orange County.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F7: Cities identified in F10 do not coordinate their urban forest programs with each other.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R4: By September 30, 2019, the County of Orange and each of the cities listed in F10 should individually, or through an MOU or other cooperative agreement with as many other Orange County cities as are willing to cooperate, hire or contract with an Urban Forest Coordinator to (F7, F8):  Act as a resource to provide advice to the County and the cities and assist them with coordination among each other.  Coordinate volunteer groups to participate in and enhance the County and each city’s urban forest program.

F8: The County of Orange does not coordinate a cohesive urban forest program with its cities.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F9: The County of Orange does not have an allocated street tree budget for unincorporated areas (Appendix B).

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: By September 30, 2019, the County of Orange should reevaluate allocating a street tree budget for unincorporated areas (F9). COMMENDATION The City of Mission Viejo has an exceptional community involvement program that includes a city employee dedicated to coordinate volunteer organizations to assist with the urban forest program. The Grand Jury commends Mission Viejo. RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No 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 or 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. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices . . . “ §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, 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 from:

F10: The following cities have significantly fewer public street trees per resident than other Orange County cities (Appendix B).  La Palma  Laguna Beach  Laguna Niguel  Laguna Woods  Santa Ana  Stanton  Westminster  Yorba Linda

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

June 19, 2019 — Grand Jury 2018-2019 Emergency Public Information – Should I Stay or Should I Go?

33 páginas 11 hallazgos 9 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 11 hallazgos

F1: Lack of coordination among the involved agencies caused Emergency Public Information sent out about evacuations during the Canyon 2 fire to be inconsistent, and confused residents.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)

R1: By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors, should establish minimum standards/expectations for individual cities who voluntarily participate in centralized Emergency Public Information planning activities in order to protect public safety during multijurisdictional emergencies. (F1)

R2: By December 31, 2019, using the authority derived from R1 (above), the Emergency Operations Center should establish specific minimum standards/expectations with regard to coordination and dissemination of Emergency Public Information that follow SEMS guidelines, by which committed cities must comply for multijurisdictional emergencies. (F1, F5, F10)

R3: By September 30, 2019, the County Emergency Operations Center, the six cities interviewed by the Grand Jury and Orange County Fire Authority should adopt a standardized written protocol for issuance of mass notifications and require training on their software systems, whether the WEA service, AlertOC or any other system is utilized. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)

R4: By September 30, 2019, the six cities interviewed by the Grand Jury should pre-select facilities with sufficient technical capability and of various sizes that are readily accessible to all authorized personnel for use as potential Joint Information Centers so they can be activated in a timely manner. (F1)

F2: Some emergency management personnel, tasked with creating and disseminating Emergency Public Information, in a rapidly-evolving, multijurisdictional emergency did not fully understand their roles and responsibilities.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F3: No training standards for Public Information Officers exist and there are no formal written protocols for issuance of mass notification, including required training on the use of mass notification systems.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F4: The County’s vendor for the AlertOC mass notification system had not updated its GIS mapping software, so some residents in newer neighborhoods did not receive an AlertOC message during the Holy Jim fire.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R9: By September 30, 2019, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department should seek, at a minimum, semi-annual updates on AlertOC vendor software and concurrently request regular updates on its capabilities. (F4) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No 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 or 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. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the Governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, 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 from: Required Responses Findings Recommendations Board of Supervisors F1, F5 R1, R2 OCSD F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6,

F5: The lack of a standardized written protocol for Alerts and Warnings decreases the ability of the County and its Operational Area jurisdictions to speak with one voice when it comes to alerting the public during emergencies.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

F6: The outdated hotline telephone technology at the County Emergency Operations Center cannot track caller metrics, so staffing decisions are made based on observing the length of time between incoming phone calls.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: By September 30, 2019, the County Emergency Operations Center should modernize its hotline telephone technology. (F6)

F7: During the Canyon 2 fire, procedures allowing some hotline workers to pass road closures were ineffective, which led to a shortage of operators during the first day of the fire.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: By September 30, 2019, the County Emergency Operations Center should ensure hotline personnel maintain current training and are provided appropriate physical access during emergencies. (F7, F8)

F8: Some hotline operators are not current on the use of the software for logging incoming phone calls, thus decreasing their efficiency.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: By September 30, 2019, the County Emergency Operations Center should ensure hotline personnel maintain current training and are provided appropriate physical access during emergencies. (F7, F8)

F9: The County and interviewed cities do not seek sufficient public feedback of the perceptions of effectiveness of the Emergency Public Information.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R7: By September 30, 2019, The Orange County Sheriff’s Department and each interviewed city’s Emergency Management Division should adopt a proactive process by which residents impacted by an emergency can easily provide feedback regarding their experience with Emergency Public Information, such as by telephone, mail-in, and/or online surveys. (F9)

F10: The lack of standardized emergency management terminology among the various jurisdictions within Orange County causes delays and confusion in the dissemination of Emergency Public Information.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F11: Orange County jurisdictions and the California Highway Patrol lack a joint plan for evacuation routes, thus evacuations can be chaotic, creating increased potential for danger to residents.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R8: By September 30, 2019, a task force, made up of representatives from all Operational Area jurisdictions, public safety Public Information Officers and state public safety professionals, such as California Highway Patrol, should be created to develop an emergency operations plan for large, wide-spread disasters. (F11)

May 31, 2019 — Grand Jury 2018-2019

23 páginas 18 hallazgos 9 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 18 hallazgos

F1: There was minimal centralized technical oversight of the inmate phone recording system (the “Recording System”) within the OCSD prior to July 2018.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)

R1: By September 30, 2019, the OCSD should create an onsite unit within the Inmate Services Division (OCSD/Inmate Phone System Oversight Management) to provide direct oversight of the inmate phone system. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9, F13, F14)

R2: By October 31, 2019, the OCSD/Inmate Phone System Oversight Management should assign: A. One or more persons to: handle all phone number input and deletion actions, produce lists for audit, complete the audits, produce lists for management, manage regular communications to internal and external users and provide periodic in person training to internal users, and B. One or more: systems engineers to handle all nonproprietary hardware, software and systems problems independently and other proprietary changes directly with the phone call Recording System contractor. (F1, F2, F5, F7, F8, F12, F14)

R6: By September 30, 2019, the OCSD/Inmate Phone System Oversight Management should develop and implement a method to automate input and deletion of information on lists. (F1, F2, F8, F14)

F2: Lack of OCSD verification of the contractor’s transfer of telephone numbers from the old to the new system allowed the contractor’s transfer error to survive.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)

R4: By October 31, 2019, the OCSD/Inmate Phone System Oversight Management should develop a periodic auditing process to maintain current data and delete outdated information. (F2, F8)

R6: By September 30, 2019, the OCSD/Inmate Phone System Oversight Management should develop and implement a method to automate input and deletion of information on lists. (F1, F2, F8, F14)

F3: Most of the legal community believed none of their telephone conversations with inmate clients would be recorded.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R7: By October 31, 2019 the OCSD should meet directly with the legal community annually to share information on methods for assuring privileged telephone communications and receive input on best practices. (F3, F10)

R8: By October 31, 2019 the OCSD should develop a plan for written periodic updates to the legal community on methods for assuring privileged communications (i.e. trade publications, social media, correspondence). (F3, F10)

F4: Available features of the contractor’s system were not being utilized by the OCSD to generate all available reports in order to support oversight.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: By September 30, 2019, the OCSD/Inmate Phone System Oversight Management should acquire all available system features required to have complete control of user level software settings and report generation. (F4, F11)

F5: OCSD did not require an on-site systems engineer be provided by the contractor to resolve technical issues in a timely manner.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F6: There was no instruction in either the inmate orientation brochure or the inmate orientation video regarding inmate’s attorney-client privilege rights for telephone calls with their attorney.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R9: By October 30, 2019 the OCSD should prepare an updated inmate orientation brochure and video that include information on the attorney-client privilege rights during phone calls with their attorney. (F6, F15) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No 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 or 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. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all Responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices . . . “ §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the Response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, 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 from:

F7: There was no internal “policy manual” for management of the inmate telephone system. Post-June 2018:

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

F8: There is currently minimal centralized technical oversight of the inmate telephone system within the OCSD.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)

R4: By October 31, 2019, the OCSD/Inmate Phone System Oversight Management should develop a periodic auditing process to maintain current data and delete outdated information. (F2, F8)

R6: By September 30, 2019, the OCSD/Inmate Phone System Oversight Management should develop and implement a method to automate input and deletion of information on lists. (F1, F2, F8, F14)

F9: Lack of OCSD verification of the contractor’s transfer of telephone numbers from the old to the new system is resulting in significant costs to the County of Orange.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F10: The OCSD does not provide periodic reminders to outside users (attorneys) of the Recording System regarding the method for placement of phone numbers on the DNR list.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

F11: Available features of the current system are not being utilized by the OCSD to generate all available reports in order to support oversight.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F12: OCSD does not currently require its telephone system contractor to provide a systems engineer on site to resolve technical issues.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F13: The lack of centralized technical oversight of the Recording System by the OCSD has resulted in ineffective communication between the various OCSD units that use the system.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R3: By September 30, 2019, each OCSD unit that accesses the inmate phone system should designate a coordinator to interface directly with OCSD/Inmate Phone System Oversight Management. (F13)

F14: The lack of centralized technical oversight of the Recording System by the OCSD causes a delay in resolving issues with the system.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)

R6: By September 30, 2019, the OCSD/Inmate Phone System Oversight Management should develop and implement a method to automate input and deletion of information on lists. (F1, F2, F8, F14)

F15: There is no instruction to inmates on either the inmate orientation brochure or the inmate orientation video regarding their attorney-client privilege rights for phone calls with their attorney.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F16: No evidence has been presented to the Grand Jury indicating that any defendant’s rights to a fair and impartial trial have been improperly or adversely affected by the violation of their communication privilege with their legal counsel.

F17: The OCSD and the DA have been responsive and professional in handling the situation once the recorded inmate telephone calls were discovered in June 2018.

F18: As of the writing of this report, there has been no evidence of malicious intent by the OCSD or the DA regarding the use of any privileged telephone communications.

May 13, 2019 — Grand Jury 2018-2019

30 páginas 7 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 7 hallazgos

F1: In the past SWD has used revenue from its recreation rights as one of its sources to offset costs for maintenance and replacement of capital investments in water infrastructure.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: If an impasse still exists between SWD and OC Parks on basic terms of water-based recreation rights the parties should use a neutral outside resource such as solution focused good faith mediation by September 30, 2019, to achieve resolution. (F1, F2, F3 & F6)

F2: For OC Parks the revenue from rights and property assigned by TIC will be the source to cover costs associated with the restoration, maintenance and repairs of the newly- dedicated open space.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: If an impasse still exists between SWD and OC Parks on basic terms of water-based recreation rights OC Parks should, by September 30, 2019, request from TIC a separation of those rights described in the IOD from the remaining road parcels, easements and Recreation Land Parcel and a transfer of all but the water recreation rights to OC Parks. (F1, F2, F3 & F6)

F3: Without sufficient historical financial information from SWD, OC Parks cannot project future financial opportunities at Irvine Lake.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: By September 30, 2019, SWD should provide full financial disclosure of historical operating information for water-based recreational activity, at a minimum for the period 2011-2016, in sufficient detail to allow OC Parks to evaluate any recreation rights buyout offer or other specific management proposal. Absent such information, SWD and OC Parks should negotiate and present to their respective governing bodies a management agreement to continue operating water-based recreation at Irvine Lake and share revenue, expenses and net profits (F3)

F4: Minimal effort to engage one another, a lack of creative proposals and slow responsiveness between OC Parks and the water districts have allowed negotiations to stall.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R4: If by December 31, 2019 resolution has not been reached as to the reopening of Irvine Lake for water recreation, staff for SWD, IRWD, and OC Parks should post on their respective websites and submit to their governing body for discussion in a public meeting their perspective as to the obstacles to reopening the lake and what plan they have to resolve the issue. (F4)

F5: Although not a party to any recreation rights, IRWD does have a right of approval over decisions affecting water use rights and water quality. Therefore, settling easement rights issues in a successor document to the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among SWD, IRWD and TIC is required prior to concluding negotiations on recreation rights. Parties expect to complete this in the first half of 2019.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: By December 31, 2019, SWD, IRWD and OC Parks should explore the economic feasibility of establishing and maintaining Irvine Lake at a minimum water level based on expected income and other potential cost offsets. (F5 & F6)

F6: SWD, OC Parks and IRWD acknowledge that to maximize recreational opportunities a more stable Irvine Lake water level is desirable.

F7: A master plan for recreational activities remains to be developed.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: By March 31, 2020, once recreation rights are determined, OC Parks should hold open public planning meetings to address possible uses and activities, and their location at Irvine Lake, that result in the development of a multi-year Recreational Master Plan. This planning would include examining other public/private models within Orange County and Southern California for covering future capital costs and minimizing any liability associated with boating. This also would include general cost benefit or financial feasibility analysis for the recreational uses under consideration. (F7) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No 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 or 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. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . ..” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, 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 from: Responses Required: OC Parks responds to Findings 1-7 and Recommendations 1-6 SWD responds to Findings1-6 and Recommendations 1-5 IRWD responds to Findings 4-6 Recommendation 4 and 5 Responses Requested: TIC responds to Recommendation 2

June 26, 2018 — Grand Jury 2018-2019 If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It

20 páginas 7 hallazgos 4 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 7 hallazgos

F1: The Auditor Controller’s department identity as a “taxpayer watchdog”, complete with a “bulldog logo”, created an adversarial image for some members of the Board of Supervisors.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors and County elected officials should discuss and resolve differing opinions in a constructive and professional manner, without airing disagreements in a public forum. (F1, F2, F7)

F2: The need for the Auditor Controller’s “Community and Government Relations” team has been questioned by the Board of Supervisors.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F3: The Grand Jury has determined the Board of Supervisors had the right to take the action it did. However, independence, transparency and accountability may be flawed in a structure where people report to those that are being held accountable.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R1: By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors should reevaluate the effect of the realignment on efficiency, effectiveness, staff and the public perception. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,

R4: By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors should reevaluate their decision to remove $1 million from the Auditor Controller’s budget and reallocate some or all of those dollars back to the Auditor Controller in order to fully staff the department and complete an Action Plan based on the Values Institute work on morale. (F3, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of the Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No 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 or 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. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices . . . “ §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, 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 from:

F4: The Grand Jury found no evidence of inefficiency in the Auditor Controller’s office prior to realignment of the Internal Audit Department to the Board of Supervisors.

F5: Realignment of the Internal Audit Department from the Auditor Controller to the Board of Supervisors has reduced staff mobility and cross training and may have adversely affected morale.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R1: By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors should reevaluate the effect of the realignment on efficiency, effectiveness, staff and the public perception. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,

F6: Fifty-seven counties in California have combined departments of the Auditor Controller and Internal Audit; Orange County is the only county to have separate Auditor Controller and Internal Audit Offices, raising a question of efficiency and effectiveness.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors should provide the public with an explanation for Orange County remaining unique among California’s 58 counties. (F6)

F7: Disagreements between the Board of Supervisors and the Auditor Controller’s Office over Supervisor mailers and a controversial pension payment were argued in the public arena, creating public dismay as well as distrust between the departments.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

Grand Jury 2018-2019

14 páginas 9 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 9 hallazgos

F1: Inmates being booked will often have abnormal vital signs due to the stress of being handcuffed, being booked into jail and potentially being under the influence of various substances.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R1: By September 30, 2019, CHS should obtain vital signs on every consenting inmate being booked into the OC Jail at the time of or within 48 hours of booking. (F1, F2, F3, F4)

R2: By December 31, 2019, CHS should evaluate the benefits of, and strongly consider becoming a NCCHC accredited facility to further protect the health of the inmates of Orange County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)

F2: Vital signs are attempted only on inmates being booked who self-identify as having hypertension, a heart-related disorder or a prior medical history.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R1: By September 30, 2019, CHS should obtain vital signs on every consenting inmate being booked into the OC Jail at the time of or within 48 hours of booking. (F1, F2, F3, F4)

F3: Inmates have the right to refuse to disclose medical history as well as any medical interventions.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R1: By September 30, 2019, CHS should obtain vital signs on every consenting inmate being booked into the OC Jail at the time of or within 48 hours of booking. (F1, F2, F3, F4)

F4: With the increasing number of inmates, their often poor health status, and the potentially incomplete diagnosing of inmates, the county is opening itself up to potential liability lawsuits.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R1: By September 30, 2019, CHS should obtain vital signs on every consenting inmate being booked into the OC Jail at the time of or within 48 hours of booking. (F1, F2, F3, F4)

F5: Inmates are being transferred to outside hospitals for evaluation of chest pain and more than half are being admitted for care, increasing medical costs to Orange County taxpayers.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F6: CHS policy does not comply with generally accepted medical practices for monitoring and treating elevated blood pressure.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: By September 30, 2019, CHS should establish a standardized policy for inmates who present with abnormal blood pressure readings below 160/110. (F6)

F7: Electronic medical records currently in use by CHS provide no means to monitor how many and which inmates are having vital signs performed as a result of a nursing decision.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R4: By December 31, 2019, CHS should monitor completion of vital signs by altering the “Receiving Screening Form” to allow a data sort encompassing: vital signs refused, vital signs not attempted and vital signs completed. (F7)

F8: Inconsistencies between the CHS reports and the reports of OCFA paramedics appear in the custodial death reports issued by the OCDA.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: By September 30, 2019, OCDA should establish a protocol for reviewing all medical records for medical inconsistencies when investigating custodial deaths, engaging medically trained assistance as needed, and taking appropriate corrective action to address identified inconsistencies, including referral to the appropriate state licensing board as necessary. (F8)

F9: The current physical configuration at IRC is not conducive to conducting health screenings.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: By December 31, 2019, OCSD should reconfigure the health screening area at IRC to allow for more privacy, increased safety for the nurses conducting the screening and improved access to the inmates. (F9) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No 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 or 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. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, 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 from: Responses Required: