N T Y of SAN Bern a R D

Cities/Special Districts 2. County 3. Human Services 4. Law & Justice Each of these committees is responsible for handling assignments within the Cities and County, including Special Districts. For whatever reason, when it is felt that a standing committee is unable to absorb an issue into its scope, an Ad Hoc Committee is formed to examine that specific complaint, problem or issue. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury formed three Ad Hoc Committees. The following is a summary of the issues.

Newberry Community Services District – the Grand Jury reviewed issues regarding practices, Policy and Procedures and Board actions of the agency. A report follows in this section with recommendations.

San Bernardino County Sheriff Department Taser Policy – The main focus of investigation was to address taser use and was extended to Taser Training, what types of individuals should not be tasered, and what precautions were in place to minimize injury and/or death from the use of the Taser. The Grand Jury reviewed local and National cases and statistics regarding taser-related deaths. The results of these investigations, including the Findings and Recommendations are included in the following Final reports. BAIL SOLICITATION OF INMATES AT COUNTY DETENTION CENTERS BACKGROUND The Grand Jury received a complaint regarding the activities of bondsmen at the San Bernardino County Sheriff Department (SBCSD) Detention Centers, including the use of government websites by bondsmen for inappropriate purposes. In order to identify and investigate issues and concerns, it was essential the Grand Jury understand the processes and legal procedures of bail bond transactions. Interviews of bail bond agents, representatives of the California Department of Insurance, and various government agencies were conducted. Policies and procedures for bail bondsmen visits to detention centers, including their need for face-to-face visitations with inmates, were collected and researched. A bail is defined as a bond which is posted by a bail bond company to the court as a guarantee for the arrestee’s appearance to all mandated court appearances and for the release of the person from detention. The bail bond fee is the sum of money or collateral which is exchanged between the arrestee and the bail bond company to secure the bond. The arrestee promises to attend all court appearances, as necessary. Bail bonds may be posted at any County detention center or holding facility, and at the rehabilitation facility for women only. However, the majority of bails bonds are posted at the West Valley Detention Center, Central Detention Center and Adelanto Detention Center/Victor Valley Jail. The scope of bail bond activities and magnitude of the potential revenues during a one-month period is illustrated in the Table below. TOTAL ARRESTS FOR JULY 2012 San Bernardino Detention Arrests Number of Arrestees Average Bail -- $25,000 Centers July 2013 Posted Bail Bonds Bail fee is $2,500 Bail fee @ 10% of bail amount West Valley Detention Center 7,731 397 $992,500 Central Detention Center 1505 56 $140,000 Adelanto Detention Center/ 1,116 65 $162,500 Victor Valley Jail Total 10,352 518 $1,295,000 Source: San Bernardino County Sheriff Department –Detention Centers 70 If the total arrests for the month of July (10,352) were annualized, that number would be approximately 120,000 arrests each year in this County. Bail Bond Process When a person is arrested on suspicion of a crime and the Court has an established monetary value (bail) they have the right to seek and post a bail bond for their release. At the time of arrest and during the booking process the arrestee has an opportunity to make a call to a bail bond company to initiate the process of obtaining a bail bond. A posted directory is in each holding cell. The law states that a bail bondsman (bondsman) must be solicited for bail directly by the arrestee, the arrestee’s attorney of record, or an adult friend or family member. A bondsman has the authority to negotiate and complete the process of acquiring a bond from a surety insurer for any person who has been arrested and detained on a bondable offense. The California Department of Insurance has the administrative and enforcement authority for licensing and regulating of the activities of bondsmen. The bondsman is licensed upon conformance with the following qualifications:  a minimum age of 18 years;  residency in the State of California;  completion of a minimum of 20 hours of approved classroom study;  passage of a California licensing examination;  provides a bond in the sum of $1,000; and  notice of appointment by a surety insurer. A bondsman may have more than one appointment by a surety insurer and the surety companies do not have to be located within the State of California. Penal Codes §1300 through §1301, and California Code of Regulation (CCR), Title 10, §2054 through §2104 provide the legal basis for bail bond licenses, bondsmen and bail transactions. When the bondsman working with a bail bond company posts the guarantee of the total bail amount for the release of a suspect, the company assumes the responsibility for making sure the suspect will be present in court at all court required appearances. Because the bail bond company is taking a risk on the suspect, now identified as a bailee, it is necessary for the collateral to be as significant to the risk being taken, and significant for the bailee to be willing to comply with the court appearance requirements. Bail bonds are negotiated in several ways. In a perfect world where all bondsmen follow the letter and spirit of the law, bondsmen charge ten percent of the bail amount as the fee. For example, on a $25,000 bail the ten percent fee is $2,500. However, to become more competitive, 71 a bondsman can negotiate a lower fee by using the ‘rebate’ law as approved by Proposition 103 legislation. This is accomplished by calculating a lower fee percentage as a ‘rebate’ back to the bailee. Recently, the economic climate has affected the ability of many to make financial arrangements for bail fees. Thus, the amount of the fee can be lowered anywhere from an eight percent fee to a two percent fee (i.e., 8% of $25,000 is $2,000 and 2% is $500.) The rebate or discount process has brought the bail fee to a level which can be more affordable. There is also the process by some bail bond companies to offer a ‘credit bail’ where a down payment is made and partial payments are accepted until fully paid. It is illegal to charge interest on bail fees. The bondsman may require the bond to be secured by a lien on an arrestee’s or his family/friend’s real estate property. This procedure is used in cases of high bail amounts when the bail fee is also substantial (i.e., ten percent of $100,000.) In this situation, the bondsman usually requires ten percent of the fee in cash, with the remaining amount secured by asset(s). The business costs of the bail bond company are 20% of the bail fee to be paid to the surety company, of which ten percent is placed into a buffer account. The buffer account is a holding account which provides a bail bond company the ability to absorb losses due to bond forfeitures. Once the buffer account has reached its maximum threshold, the ten percent payment is not necessary. The remainder of the bail fee is gross profit to the bail bond company. A bond company and/or bondsman may surrender the bailee to the court or custody if it is determined the bailee is a potential flight risk. Per CCR §2090, if the bailee is surrendered, the bail fee is refundable minus administrative costs. It is not legal for the bondsman to surrender a bailee to custody for non-payment of bail fees. If the bailee does not appear in court as required, the court orders the ‘bail is forfeited’ and notifies the bail bond company there are 185 days to locate the defendant and surrender him to detention or present him to the court. The bondsman has the authority to hire a bounty hunter to locate and retrieve the bailee. Bounty hunters are not licensed by the State of California. Bounty hunters have no more enforcement powers than an average citizen, as in a ‘citizen’s arrest’ or ‘citizen’s hold for arrest.’ At the end of the initial 185 days, the bail bond company may file a request for an extension, if a good cause can be shown, for an additional 180 days to locate and retrieve the bailee. A good cause would be the bailee has been located in another state and additional time is necessary to return him to the local jurisdiction. If the client appears voluntarily or has been placed in custody for an additional crime, the bond forfeiture is vacated and the bond is exonerated. A bail bond company may file a motion to exonerate the forfeited bond prior to the 365 days allowed for returning the client once the bail has been forfeited. The motion may be based upon evidence the client cannot be produced due to death, permanent inability to appear because 72 of disability, long-term hospitalization, mental illness, military detention, or incarceration. All motions for bail exoneration must be reviewed and approved by the San Bernardino County Counsel which will analyze the merits of the motion and determine if in agreement or opposition to the motion. Opposition may be raised by evidentiary objections based upon investigating and authenticating the foundations set forth in the bond company motion. In the cases when the bond is forfeited by Summary Judgment, the bond company has 30 days to pay the amount of the bail to the court. Failure to make the payment results in the bond company being disqualified from posting any bails within the jurisdiction of the court. If a bond company appeals the Summary Judgment for bond forfeiture, they must post an appeal bond, with an outside surety company. FACTS Inmate Locator System The website for the San Bernardino County Sheriff Department includes an Inmate Locator page. The purpose of the page is to provide a means of identifying an arrestee, the detention facility in which an arrestee is detained, if the detainee has been released, and other case related data. Most arrestees at a County detention center are pretrial inmates and under suspicion of committing a crime. Queries of the Inmate Locator System are subject to certain access restrictions. To make a query, the user must enter either the arrestee’s name and age, or the booking number. The Inmate Locater System monitors the number of queries based upon the user’s internet address. After five unsuccessful booking number queries in a 24-hour period from the same internet address (‘information not found’), the system prevents any additional access or response for two hours. The intent of restricting access to this data, as opposed to merely listing all the names of the arrestees, is to protect the privacy of the individual. The bondsman, following appropriate protocols, would have sufficient information from the inmate or family/friend, to query the system for necessary details to post the bail. For the bondsman and bail bond companies, being able to view and monitor new bookings by detention center and bail amount, is more than just informational; it is a list of potential new bail clients. The Inmate Locator System access rule for limiting queries to five attempts per internet address can be defeated simply by either using multiple computers or devices (each device has its own internet address), or by using the services of an internet address switching and/or masking company. These companies may route customer activity through servers throughout the world in order to hide the actual internet address of the user. Once the tactic for making unlimited number of queries is established, the inmate booking number field is accessible by the bond company employees. The San Bernardino County Sheriff Department booking number contains embedded information which identifies the detention center, the month, the year, and a sequential (booking) 73 number assigned to each arrestee. The sequential booking number starts over at the beginning of each month. With unlimited access to the booking numbers, it is a simple matter to zero in on the most current booking number for each facility and monitor the system for the next number. With the booking number, an arrestee’s personal data can be retrieved. This scheme is not by itself illegal, it is what can be accomplished with the information that facilitates illegal solicitation activities. The information which is acquired via the Inmate Locator System can be used as root data to locate additional personal facts about the arrestee. Internet websites offering to locate individuals through free subscriptions or paid websites, list employment information, various financial details, asset ownership, and identity of family/friends of the individual. The objective of the bond company, when using these sites is to ‘data mine’ for information that will identify family members/friends of the arrestee that can be targeted family/friend by a solicitation phone call. The bondsman calls the target and implies they are calling on behalf of the arrestee to inform the target the person has been arrested. If the targeted person would like to get the arrestee released, a bail bond can be arranged over the phone with follow-up later at the bond company office. The bondsman can additionally use the information obtained from the Inmate Locator System to seek a visitation with a potential client at the detention center and directly solicit bond services from the inmate, purporting to be acting “on request” of a family member or friend. Website ‘spoofing’ is the act of creating a website for the purposes of misleading users into believing the spoofed website actually belongs to a different organization. Web pages displaying government logos, entity trademarks or copyright, without permission and for malicious purposes, are clearly illegal. Web pages with large print headers such as “West Valley Detention Inmate Information” or “West Valley Detention Center Inmate Information” are misleading to all but the most observant user. Per the California Business and Professional Code §17.500, even though the spoofed website statement(s) may be true, if couched in such a manner that it is likely to mislead or deceive the consumer, are illegal. On September 16, 2011, at the request of the SBCSD, County Counsel issued a ‘Cease and Desist” order to an offending bond company. However, these types of websites continue to persist. The objective of spoofing the San Bernardino County Sheriff official website is to trick the user into believing they are utilizing the official website. This is where the bond company initiates the process of ‘phishing.’ Users who have logged onto this type of spoofed website are invited to enter their contact information in addition to the information regarding the arrestee they are trying to locate (i.e., name and birth date). These users voluntarily enter the requested information believing they are communicating with the SBCSD. However, in reality they are communicating with a bail bond company. Once their personal information is transmitted to the bond company, the bond company is ‘free’ to contact that person and offer bail services. Therefore, it is not considered to be initiating contact or solicitation because the bond company is responding to a customer. Official Visitor’s Process Bondsmen use the Official Visitor’s process to visit inmates in the San Bernardino Sheriff Detention Centers. The Official Visitors policy in the Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) Orders specific to the West Valley Detention Center identifies bondmen licensed by the State of California as being able to use Official Visitors process. When a bondsman requests to visit a detainee at the West Valley Detention Center, presents their license identification, completes a ‘Bail Agent Request’ with the information of who has contacted him to arrange the bail, and signs it, certifying the accuracy of the information. If the completed request is in order, the lobby Custody Assistant will call the unit where the inmate is located, notifying him of an Official Visitor. A visitor’s pass is provided along with a key to an attorney visiting room for the unsupervised visit. If multiple visit requests are made, the bondsman must return to the lobby and complete an additional form requesting the next inmate to be contacted. A deputy in the lobby will examine the bondsman’s briefcase and/or paperwork for contraband. The bondsman passes through a metal detector and is allowed entry into the secured area. Each detention facility commander has responsibility for establishing written procedures for inmate visiting, specific to the facility. The Grand Jury conducted a survey of Riverside, San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles Counties to review their local policies and procedures for how visits of inmates by bondsmen are handled at their detention centers. The Table on the following page compares these policies with those of the County of San Bernardino. Bondsmen designated Supervised as Request by bondsmen for visitation POLICY visitation verified? an official visitor of bondsmen County of Yes, and access is No, the visitation is provided in official Only in case staff has questions within the official San Bernardino visitor’s room visitor’s room Yes, if documents Yes, but has access in require signature, Only if staff is suspicious of County of Riverside the normal supervised use of pass through reason to see inmate. visiting areas. slot for deputy or inmate is used. Yes, bondsman may No, request to visit form Yes, if it can visit detainees in the includes the name of the County of reasonably be same capacity as a detainee and person who accommodated social visitor, via requested the agent’s San Diego without hindrance to phone behind jail operations. secured glass services. window. Yes, but access is Yes, bondsman may provided in the Yes, randomly, staff may call the visit in the same normal visiting number provided on the request capacity as a social County of Orange areas, unless form for the person who requested visitor, behind documents require their services. secured glass signature. window. No, but visitations The Watch Commander approves County of Yes, communication are conducted the interview request or notifies a with inmates is without compromise follow-up investigator if there are Los Angeles considered privileged. to Officer or inmate questions. security Based upon the survey results, it appears that other jurisdictions have initiated official visitation policies that limit direct access of bondsmen to inmates. Official Visitors are defined in the SBCSD POST orders as bondsmen, attorney, peace officers, clergy, any government official with proper identification, interpreters, and a Notary Public. Official Visitors can visit inmates at any time between 0830 and 2200 hours. This differs from regular visitors who must schedule visitations at the discretion of the detention facility. Additionally, Official Visitors are able to conduct unsupervised face–to-face visits in an enclosed room with inmates. The Official Visitors’ Log at the West Valley Detention Center and Victor Valley Jail reveal that bondsmen, representing one or two of the local bond companies, visit two through seven inmates as official visitors on a daily basis. The Central Detention Center does not have a log for bondsmen. However, most bondsmen maintain it is not routinely necessary to have a face-to-face visit with an inmate before posting the bail bond. The negotiation of a bail bond can be conducted by telephone or with a representative of the inmate, (i.e., family or friend). The only time it is necessary for a bondsman to meet with an inmate is to get signatures from the inmate when securing real estate property for posting the bond. That action, in itself, is not needed in all of those limited circumstances, as it is more common for the inmate’s family or friend to use their real estate property to secure the bond. In those cases, the inmate signature is not needed. In consideration of an issue raised in the original complaint, the Grand Jury evaluated the process of bail bond forfeitures and exonerations which are adjudicated in the San Bernardino County Courts. The County receives approximately three to four motions for exoneration per week. County Counsel’s Office tracks and litigates all the motions for bond exoneration to ensure compliance with jurisdictional prescriptions and statutory requirements. It is their responsibility to enforce and collect summary judgments of forfeited bail bonds. During the year 2011, nine summary judgments were satisfied on forfeited bonds totaling $444,750, and in 2012, 10 summary judgments were satisfied on forfeited bonds totaling $487,296. The monies from the paid judgments on forfeited bail bonds are received by the Court Clerk and then transferred by the Court Financial Services Department to the County Auditor who distributes the monies to the appropriate entity and into the San Bernardino County Treasury. The distribution of funds is governed by a statutory formula prescribed in Penal Code §1463. The distribution, by percentages of forfeited amount, go to the County where the arrest was made, to the municipality, if applicable, in which the arrest was made, and to the State depending on the charged crime, after any court and administrative fees have been deducted. The consequence of nonpayment on a forfeited bail bond, after the entry of summary judgment by a bail bond company or surety, results in the disqualification of the affected company from posting bail bonds and acting as surety. FINDINGS 1. Websites and web pages are currently in existence which are spoofing the San Bernardino County Sheriff Department (SBCSD) Inmate locater, detention centers, and official Websites.

The “Request for Visit” form used by bondsmen to visit inmates does not include a certification of accuracy and truthfulness by signature of the bondsman.

Bondsmen have conducted up to seven unsupervised official visits to different inmates in a day facilitating abuses by bondsmen in contacting inmates for bail services.

The SBCSD Detention Centers do not have consistent policies for maintaining logs for bondsmen visits.

The County of San Bernardino Office of County Counsel is effectively responding to motions for bond forfeitures and exonerations.

Inmates are not generally aware that it is illegal for bondsmen to solicit bail services.

Diligently review the list of disbursements to be approved on the consent agenda prior to scheduled Board meetings and (a) discuss questionable disbursements with the General Manager and/or (b) request to pull questionable disbursements from the consent agenda for public discussion and review. The General Manager should: 11. Train all participants in the purchase card program on the new and revised policies and procedures for purchase cards.

Review consultants or vendors with a single invoice over $5,000, or multiple invoices that, together, exceed $5,000 to ensure that they have a contract or total expenditure approved by the Board of Directors at a meeting. If the contract was not approved by at least two Board members, or no contract exists, steps should be taken to bring the purchase(s) into compliance with the Policy Handbook.

Carefully review all requests for reimbursements, including supporting documentation, against the policies and procedures in the District Policy Handbook prior to approval.

Establish the following to ensure that the District is in compliance with the Policy Handbook and maintains adequate internal controls: (a) District Legal Counsel Log; (b) Policy handbook for the Fire Department; and, (c) Catalog of all retained District records. viii 15. Establish a Capital Asset Management System that records capital asset information such as the purchase date, condition it was in at the time of purchase, warranties, maintenance history, usage statistics, original useful life, remaining useful life, and replacement costs. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) should: 16. Review suggestions made in its 2009 report and include more robust analysis of governance and reorganization options for the next Service Review of the District, scheduled for 2014. ix 1. NCSD Governance As a public entity, the NCSD is bound by various laws embedded in the California State Government Code, which establish rules for open meetings and the retention of official records. In addition, best practices are employed by government entities around the world to ensure that the deliberations of public bodies are clearly communicated, and actions are well articulated and accurately recorded. Further, best practices establish various protocol for members of the public to be provided with the opportunity to comment on matters before elected bodies or on matters of general concern, in an orderly, respectful and efficient manner. NCSD Public Meetings Because the NCSD is a public entity that derives its authority from the voters, it is incumbent upon members of the elected Board of Directors to establish policies, procedures and rules that govern the manner in which it conducts the public’s business. Based on a review of records, testimony from individual Board members and observations at public meetings, the Grand Jury found that: (1) the Board has not formalized a robust policy framework, rules or protocol for conducting public meetings; (2) individual members of the Board and other persons often exhibit inappropriate behavior during public meetings; and, (3) records of official action are not consistently prepared or otherwise completed in a timely manner. Open Government Policy Framework and Rules Are Weak NCSD Policy 5070 establishes the “Rules of Order for Board and Committee Meetings.” Although loosely based on well-regarded rules defining parliamentary procedures, Section 5070.1.1 states that “These rules of order are intended to be informal and applied flexibly. The Board prefers a flexible form of meeting and, therefore, does not conduct its meetings under formalized rules – Roberts Rules of Order.” Subsection 5070.1.1.1 further states that “If a Director believes order is not being maintained, then he/she should raise a point of order – not requiring a second – to the President. If the ruling of the President is not satisfactory to the Director, then it may be appealed to the Board. A majority of the Board will govern and determine the point of order.” The intended flexibility of these Rules of Order is emphasized in other sections of the policy. Subsection 5070.5.1 states that “The President shall take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to preserve order and decorum during Board meetings, including public hearings. The President may eject any person or persons making personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks, refusing to abide by a request from the President, or otherwise disrupting the meeting or hearing.” Further, Subsection 5060.6.1 states that “By motion made, seconded and approved by a majority vote, the Board may, at its discretion and at any meeting: a) temporarily suspend these rules in whole or in part; b) amend these rules in whole or in part; or, c) both.” The remainder of the Policy addresses procedures for individual Directors to obtain the floor; and, offering, commenting and moving motions to a vote. Although different parliamentary procedures have been developed over the years, Roberts Rules of Order are generally considered to be the standard for local government entities in the United 1 States. The Institute for Local Government1 states that formalized rules of order are necessary to “guide the discussion and decision-making process.” Although following parliamentary procedure is not required in California, it is considered to be a best practice, makes public meetings more efficient, and reduces the chances of official actions being declared illegal or challenged for procedural deficiencies. Further, the League of California Cities, in the organization’s publication Open and Public IV, has made the observation that there are certain key principles and goals that should be considered when government bodies develop their policies regarding public meetings:  A legislative body's need to get its business done smoothly;  The public's right to participate meaningfully in meetings, and to review documents used in decision-making at a relevant point in time;  A local agency's right to confidentially address certain negotiations, personnel matters, claims and litigation; and,  The right of the press to fully understand and communicate public agency decision-making. Although prepared in the context of the State’s Open Meeting Law (i.e., the “Brown Act”), these principles support the concept that in order to operate effectively, meetings require rules and procedures to ensure orderly, efficient, and productive sessions in a calm, professional setting. The limitations of the District’s current policy, including the desire for “flexibility” embedded in the policy foundation, do not support the accomplishment of these goals. The League of California Cities continues by stating, “An explicit and comprehensive public meeting and information policy, especially if reviewed periodically, can be an important element in maintaining or improving public relations. Such a policy exceeds the absolute requirements of the law . . . A narrow legalistic approach will not avoid or resolve potential controversies. An agency should consider going beyond the law, and look at its unique circumstances and determine if there is a better way to prevent potential problems and promote public trust.” As will be discussed below, the public trust appears to have been damaged in the NCSD, in part by the manner in which public meetings are conducted, the behavior of Directors during public meetings and inconsistencies with the preparation and maintenance of official records of action. As a first step toward improving public access and communication, the NCSD should adopt more robust policies regarding parliamentary procedure, adhering to the basic principles of Roberts Rules of Order, which have been in existence and used by local government agencies in the United States for well over 100 years. When developing these policies, the District should consult with the California Special District Association (CSDA), which can provide resources and make suggestions regarding best practices for special district organizations. Members of the Board Exhibit Inappropriate Behavior at Public Meetings and May Have Acted in Violation of California Law 1An affiliate of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the League of California Cities. As part of the Grand Jury’s investigation, members attended NCSD Board meetings and listened to numerous tape recordings of other meetings to assess the effect of the weak policy foundation on proceedings. The following observations were made:  Before the start of Board meetings, members of the public who wish to address the Board fill out a “Request to Be Heard” card and are provided with three minutes to voice their concerns. Although this is a typical practice in government organizations, members of the public were also permitted to engage in discussions at any time during the meeting, without filing the required Request to be Heard Card. Often, members of the public spoke to individual directors without going through the President and, although some persons would raise their hand to be recognized, in many instances other persons would simply begin to speak without being recognized. Sometimes, multiple conversations occurred simultaneously and discussions between persons in the audience were conducted separately while the Board merely watched and listened.  In several instances, members of the Board engaged in arguments with one another and members of the public. During these exchanges, the meetings were disrupted as people talked over one another and made sarcastic and snide remarks. In some instances, the arguments between Board members became overly heated, causing some members to walk out while the meeting proceeded. In another instance, a Board member challenged a member of the public who had just finished addressing the Board. This resulted in a brief shouting match between the two. In another instance, a member of the public was talking loudly during the meeting and, when asked by a Board member to be silent, the person responded with an obscene gesture.  Some Board members were seen slouching in their chairs, keeping their heads down and speaking in voices that could barely be heard by the audience. Such behavior gives the impression that these members are indifferent and/or disinterested in the proceedings, is disrespectful and unprofessional.  The unprofessional behavior of the Board has been observed for some time by previous employees and members of the public. In March 2012, the resignation letter submitted by a former Fire Chief, stated that his departure was due, in part, to “. . . the public fights and bickering so prevalent on the NCSD Board.”  At the February 26, 2013 meeting of the Board, an argument started regarding whether the Board member could remove an agenda item without a vote of the Board. The item in question concerned an accusation that a sitting member of the Board had committed fraud and conspiracy. During recess, three members of the Board (a quorum) were observed talking together in private, which is a clear violation of the Brown Act. The Newberry Springs Community Alliance, which describes itself as a “. . . grassroots organization of residents and property owners fostering an improvement of Newberry Springs through the engagement of educating the community” regularly blogs critical comments about the Board. In March 2013, this organization blogged “The CSD Board has had a hard time holding a single meeting that doesn’t contain a Brown Act violation.” These examples of poor behavior by Board members, and the inability of the President to control both Board member and audience interaction, suggest that the individual members of the Board 3 have not yet developed the necessary skills to lead or participate in public meetings in a professional manner. Combined with more robust policies, procedures and rules defining parliamentary procedures, Board members should be provided with training on duties, responsibilities and behavior as elected officials. Further, it is clear that members of the Board may not be familiar with the requirements of the California Open Meeting Law or Records Retention Act, as discussed in the section, below. Accordingly, the City Attorney should be requested to develop and lead workshops on these topics to ensure that current and future Board members have the background and knowledge to adhere to these laws. Board Members Have Not Been Provided With Appropriate Training Assembly Bill 1234 requires that all board members of special districts complete a two-hour, on- line Ethics Compliance Training Course after joining the Board. Based on records maintained by the District, all Board members have received this training. The California Special District Association (CSDA) provides training for elected officials and managers of special districts, including various orientation trainings, leadership summits, and related topics such as human relations and resource management. Other courses are provided through the Special District Leadership Foundation, and guides are available through the State Board of Equalization and other bodies. In addition, other trainings are offered by Statewide organizations, such as the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) that may be helpful to the District’s leadership. For example, CSAC has an agreement with California State University Northridge to provide special courses for elected officials and managers that can be attended to obtain credit towards a Master Degree in Public Administration. In addition, CSAC offers courses through the Institute for Excellence in County Government, which may be beneficial to the District directors, including:  The Art and Practice of Elected Leadership;  Getting Things Done: Working Effectively to Achieve Objectives;  Chairing and Managing Effective Public Meetings;  Making Impressions: Media Interviewing;  Negotiation and Collaboration in Complex Environments; and,  Advanced Practice in Negotiation.2 Although these courses are designed for County elected officials, the topics and content can also be applied to the operations of the NCSD. The members of the Board should explore the opportunity for attending selected courses, with the goal of improving the conduct of public meetings and interactions with each other and members of the public. Records of Board Actions Are Not Complete or Prepared in a Timely Manner 2 Go to http://www.csac.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2013-winter-spring-publish_3.pdfto view a complete description of available courses for the Spring 2013 schedule. NCSD Policy 5060.1.1 states that: Copies of a meeting’s minutes shall be posted for a minimum of 10 days on the NCSD website within 14 (days) of NCSD meeting for public review. Copies of meeting minutes shall be distributed to Directors as part of the information packet for the next regular meeting of the Board, at which time the Board will consider approving the minutes as presented or with modifications. Once approved by the Board, the official minutes shall be kept in a fireproof vault or in a fire- resistant cabinet. The NCSD does not adhere to this policy. During the period of this review, the Grand Jury found that Board minutes were not being consistently recorded, posted and secured in the manner prescribed by Policy 5060.1.1. Minutes were generally not transcribed promptly and were not ready for approval at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting. When copies of minutes were requested, the current General Manager reported that she had to look in several locations before they were located. A number of Board minutes were audio recorded but not transcribed for weeks or months later, resulting in some Board members not recalling what actions were taken on agenda items when presented with the written notes for approval. Members of the Grand Jury reviewed the written notes and listened to numerous audio recordings of Board meetings. The background noise on some recordings made it difficult to hear or understand who was speaking and, in some cases, what was being said. Some audio recordings were started after the meetings were called to order and no references to the dates of the meetings were heard. This creates difficulties with providing an accurate written record of Board proceedings, even when the audio recordings are transcribed. For example, the Board minutes from the August 28, 2012 meeting included a typed side-note that stated the notes “ . . . are not transcripts of the meetings; only the hi-lights and hopefully accurate.” To ensure that there are accurate records of official actions, the Board should direct the General Manager to begin and maintain a process to record, transcribe, post, and safeguard official Board minutes within two weeks of any Board meeting, in accordance with the District’s current policy. Conclusions NCSD Board meetings are not conducted in accordance with rules of order or professional conduct recognized as best practices in public sector organizations. In addition, the NCSD does not consistently record or post official minutes in a timely manner, in violation of the District’s own policies, and compromising the ability of Board members to recall official actions when reviewing the minutes for accuracy. A clear violation of California’s Open Meeting Law, also known as the Brown Act, was observed by the Grand Jury and has been the topic of concern by members of the Newberry Springs community. Further, members of the Board have attended mandatory ethics training. However, expanded trainings on leadership and effectively chairing public meetings are available through the California Special District Association, the Special District Leadership Foundation, the California State Association of Counties, and other bodies. The Board should attend such trainings, and adopt and adhere to expanded, formal policies and rules regarding conduct at public meetings. In addition, NCSD management should take steps to 5 ensure that records of official Board action are routinely recorded, approved for accuracy, and indexed for timely access by the public.