⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 3 findings
F01
From the outside, the NRP and CEP programs are perceived by some as Supervisor ‘slush funds.’ However, the Grand Jury believes recent changes made to the programs should have a positive impact on these outside perceptions.
F02
Policy B-072 is a significant balance for the negative perceptions of the NRP program, but supervisorial common sense, self-policing and careful vetting of grant applicants by Board staff are still needed as oversight of the NRP program.
F03
While there is overhead associated with the programs, the administrative costs are reasonable.
Recommendations 6
-
11-30Page 5Amend the NRP and CEP application to include questions on donations
-
11-31Page 5Publish the Tax ID number of each organization which receives funding,
-
11-32Page 5Create an outcome measurement to apply to CEP that will modify the
-
11-33Page 5Create an audit trail for CEP and NRP so donations for tangible items can be
-
11-34Page 5Create a self-certification process to ensure recipient organizations are in full
-
11-35Page 5Follow Policy B-072 meticulously, and ensure all Board staff review it
Commendations 3
-
CM1Augment the County’s core competencies such as libraries, regional parks, and recreational facilities.
-
CM2Are used as leverage to generate additional funding from other agencies and private sources.
-
CM3Help create lasting improvements to the quality of life for County residents. Further, the Grand Jury commends the San Diego County Board of Supervisors for making grants in a transparent and open process. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall 6 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 (filed April 26, 2011) address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Recommendations Date San Diego County Board of 11-30 through 11-35 07/26/11 Supervisors 7 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 (filed April 26, 2011)
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office