Mountain (near St. Helena), Napa County

Recommendations 18

• R1
  That the County Board of Supervisors, the City Council of each incorporated jurisdiction, the County Counsel and every public official not under the authority of the foregoing provide information to all county employees within their jurisdiction regarding their duties and responsibilities towards the grand jury process and that the instruction be completed prior to the end of this calendar year [2013]. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury requested responses to recommendation R1 from the Napa County Counsel, the Napa County Board of Supervisors, the Napa City Council, the American Canyon City Council, the St. Helena City Council, the Yountville Town Council, the Napa County Auditor, the Napa County Assessor-Recorder-County Clerk, the Napa County Tax Collector, the Napa County District Attorney, and the Napa County Sheriff. All respondents responded within the applicable statutory deadline with the exception of the City of Calistoga. Its response was received on October 4, 2013. The responses varied in scope. Most respondents advised that they could not agree with or disagree with the finding of willful violation of the secrecy admonition due to the absence of personal information by the responding agency or official. Some respondents added that they had no awareness that the agency or its staff were involved in a violation of the secrecy admonition. The Yountville Town Council stated that it had not been involved in a grand jury investigation during the term of the 2012-2013 Grand Jury. The City of Napa specifically noted that the Grand Jury did not identify the offending local agencies and persons in its final report. Some respondents advised that they had implemented recommendation R1. These were the Board of Supervisors, the City of Napa, City of American Canyon, the Town of Yountville, and the Assessor-Recorder-County Clerk. The Board of Supervisors added: “The Board of Supervisors agrees to have Department Heads review [its adopted Code of Ethics] with staff annually, and provide instructions to staff specific to the grand jury process.” Others agreed to implement recommendation R1 by the end of calendar 2013. These were the County Counsel, the City of Calistoga, the City of St. Helena, the District Attorney, the Auditor-Controller, the Sheriff-Coroner, and the Treasurer Tax-Collector. A few of the responses ranged beyond the 2012-2013 Grand Jury’s specific
• R2
  The Grand Jury recommends that every effort be made to design a state-of- the-art jail facility. It should be sufficient for current needs as well as anticipated future requirements. Emphasis should be placed on designing the jail to facilitate not only capacity, but also the logistics of medical, mental health and evidence-based programs. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury requested that the Director of NCDC, the Chief Probation Officer, and the Chief Information Officer respond to recommendation R1 and that the Board of Supervisors respond to recommendation R2. The Board of Supervisors timely submitted its response by letter dated June 25, 2013. The Board of Supervisors in the same letter also provided the “appointed Department Head responses” to recommendation R1. As to recommendation R1, the Board of Supervisors, on behalf of the three Department Heads, advised that the recommendation was in the process of being implemented, with implementation to occur by the end of the fiscal year 2014-15 (i.e., by June 30, 2015). In connection with the three underlying findings, the Board of Supervisors, while agreeing with finding F1 (relating to the increased number of offenders resulting from realignment) and advising that it had made the decision to construct a new jail in response to finding F3, disagreed in part with finding F2. In finding F2, the Grand Jury found: “The information technology/ systems used to keep records for adult criminal justice have not been used for extracting information specific to quantifying recidivism in Napa County.” The Board of Supervisors responded: “The Board of Supervisors disagrees partially with this finding. Although recidivism rates are directly calculated in the County’s current criminal justice data system, data is taken and loaded into reporting systems that allow us to analyze basic recidivism findings. Work on a new data management system is underway and it is expected that an updated system and reporting/analysis process will improve our ability to see individual program impacts as they relate to recidivism.” As to recommendation R2, the Board of Supervisors advised that the recommendation was in the process of being implemented, with the notation that “design and construction is several years away.” It advised that it expected to review an environmental impact report analyzing “the preferred out of downtown location for a new jail by the end of the 2013 calendar year.” B. Observations The responses to recommendations R1 and R2 conform to the requirements of California Penal Code section 933.05(b)(2). Substantively, it would appear that the response of the Board of Supervisors is in significant if not complete agreement with finding F2 of the 2012-2013 Grand Jury. In particular, the Board acknowledges that “recidivism rates are not directly calculated in the County’s current criminal justice data system . . . .” Italics added. The loading of data into reporting systems to ascertain “basic recidivism findings” (presumably meaning “rates,” with “basic” not defined in the Board’s response) is not claimed by the Board to be the same as or a satisfactory substitute for an ability to track defined and meaningful recidivism rates in the ordinary course of business through a system capable of doing so. The importance of being able to do so is the subject of significant
• R3
  The NSO, County IT [Information Technology] and the NSO budget analyst work together to develop a cost/benefit analysis for a secure server with state-of- the-art software to store, index, manage and retrieve crime-scene photographs that are now routinely stored on CDs.
• R4
  The NSO develop full documentation of policy and procedures for the collection and preservation of DNA evidence. This documentation should include the currently used standard operation procedures for handling DNA evidence.
• R5
  That no later than December 31, 2013, the NSO and District Attorney’s Office develop a joint policy and procedure which effectively obtains and enforces proper court orders for appropriate destruction of evidence in NSO custody in cases either fully adjudicated, dismissed or beyond the statute of limitations.
• R6
  That within the 2013-14 fiscal year the NSO hire a part-time or extra-help person to fully staff the Property (Evidence) Room. The Sheriff-Coroner timely submitted his response by letter dated June 10, 2013. The Sheriff-Coroner agreed with recommendations R1 through R5 and disagreed with recommendation R6. The Sheriff-Coroner agreed to the immediate implementation of R1, R2, and R4. The Sheriff-Coroner, while not so stating directly, provided a response that showed that recommendation R3 required further analysis. As to recommendation R5, the Sheriff- Coroner agreed to work with the District Attorney to have a procedure in place by December 31, 2013, as requested by the Grand Jury. The Sheriff-Coroner disagreed with recommendation R6. He provided this explanation: “We are currently developing procedures that will help with time management of the property room. We have also determined some procedures are redundant and those procedures have been eliminated.” The District Attorney by letter dated June 7, 2013 timely responded to R5, the sole recommendation directed to him. He advised: “We will develop a joint policy and procedure within this framework by December 31, 2013 as requested.” B. Observations The 2013-14 Grand Jury appreciates the responses of the NSO. Although the Sheriff-Coroner did not respond through use of the precisely stated categories as set forth in California Penal Code section 933.05(b)(3), the Grand Jury is able to make appropriate observations with respect to his responses as submitted. In connection with recommendations R1, R2, R3, and R4, where the Sheriff- Coroner advises that the NSO is implementing the recommendations, the NSO omitted to provide the timeframe within which the NSO would accomplish implementation of these recommendations, as required by California Penal Code 933.05(b)(2). The 2013- 14 Grand Jury assesses from the response of the Sheriff-Coroner that these recommendations will be implemented of June 10, 2013, or by January 10, 2014. If this assessment is incorrect, the Grand Jury requests that the Sheriff-Coroner so inform the Grand Jury by letter on or before February 7, 2014. In connection with recommendation R5, the Sheriff-Coroner advises that a joint policy and procedure will be worked out with the District Attorney’s Office by December 31, 2013. The 2013-2014 Grand Jury commends the Sheriff-Coroner for this expedition. The Grand Jury requests either the NSO or the District Attorney’s Office provide it with a copy of the to-be-developed joint policy and procedure by no later than February 7, 2014. In connection with recommendation R6, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requests that the Sheriff-Coroner provide it with a copy of the new procedure no later than February 7, 2014. If the new procedure is not established by then, the Grand Jury requests the Sheriff-Coroner to so inform it by letter on or before February 7, 2014. The 2013-14 Grand Jury requests that the NSO carefully reviews California Penal Code section 933.05 so that its responses to any grand jury report in the future are in full technical compliance with the statute. VI. REVIEW OF THE RESPOSES TO THE 2012-2013 REPORT ON THE NAPA COUNTY ELECTION DIVISION A. Discussion On June 24, 2013, the 2012-2013 Grand Jury issued its final report on the Napa County Election Division. The Election Division is one of four Napa County Divisions (Registrar of Voters, Assessor, Recorder, and Clerk) consolidated under the management of the Assessor-Recorder-Clerk. The Assessor-Recorder-Clerk, an elected officer, serves as the ex-officio Napa County Registrar of Voters (“ROV”). The Grand Jury stated: “This consolidation of offices is unusual and is found in few other California counties.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury stated that upon careful examination it questioned “the ability of a single Napa County manager to oversee the operations of all four consolidated divisions (ROV, Assessor, Recorder, Clerk).” It stated that in the months before an election the manager’s “full and undivided attention” is “absolutely required” to be focused on the Election Division. The Grand Jury noted that other counties “have chosen to have election staff working under a separate elected or appointed ROV who is able to concentrate energies solely to election issues, without distraction from the demands of other divisions, even if there should be an increased cost attendant to that structure.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury found advantages in an appointed ROV. In brief summary, it noted that an ROV requires both managerial and technical competence, and that the position was more likely to be filled with a properly credentialed person if appointed. It expressed concern about the appearance of a conflict of interest when the position is elective, whether or not the ROV is on the ballot. It stated that accountability would be bolstered through an appointive position because the appointee would be answerable to the Board of Supervisors, which could better ensure high-quality conformance with good practices with “accountability for ultimate performance . . .shifted from one elected official to a more representative number.” In the 2012 election, the Grand Jury noted expressed dissatisfaction with the substantial switch to vote by mail (“VBM”) and the limited release of interim election results after the election night count. It believed that an appointed ROV, answerable to a County Elections Board appointed by the Board of Supervisors, might result in an election system more responsive to the will of County residents. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury made fifteen findings, followed by nine recommendations, as follows:
• R7
  The Registrar of Voters publish the voter information pamphlet on the Election Division website.
• R8
  The Election Division create an archive of public concerns and/or complaints and its responses thereto.
• R9
  Napa County Board of Supervisors establishes an election office facility with more space for storing and processing ballots and easier access for the public. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury requested responses to recommendations R1, R2, and
• R10
  NCTPA should explore, adopt and apply sustainability design tools such as TOD to determine ideal alterations to transit services within the 2014 calendar year. VII. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
• R11
  That the Director of General Services and Facilities within the next three months create a computerized, online Facilities Use Application form designed for the exclusive reservations of playing fields.
• R12
  That the Director of Maintenance and Construction continue to research and apply the most effective method of controlling the gopher infestation observed at many fields.
• R13
  That the Superintendent of Schools and the Director of General Services and Facilities establish written guidelines immediately for the public posting of Youth Sports Council meetings, agendas and minutes.
• R14
  That the City of Napa and the NVUSD continue to work in collaboration in the development of more playing fields on city- owned land for community use such as Kennedy Park.
• R15
  That the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services implement and maintain a new financial software system for accounting services within the NVUSD to include the Napa Youth Sports League account.
• R16
  That the NVUSD establish within the next six months written policies defining the type of work that can be performed on the fields by volunteers from the non-profit sports organizations.
• R17
  That the Parks and Recreation Department resume the responsibility for collecting field use fees from the NVUSD as it did prior to 2007. IX. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
• R18
  Graphs and charts, prepared in the ordinary course of business, showing Vine ridership, prepared on or after January 1, 2009.