Sheriff-coroner Department County of Orange California Sandra Hutchens Sheriff-coroner Office of Sheriff-coroner August*

Some Sheriff-Coroner Department employees are unfamiliar with the confidentiality and process of Grand Jury proceedings in civil investigations and the authority of the Grand Jury to admonish witnesses. Response: Agrees with finding. Not all Sheriff-Coroner Department employees are familiar with Grand Jury processes and the Department can do more to make sure guidelines for interacting with the Grand Jury are clear. It is important to note, however, that the Grand Jury also has an obligation to follow the rules and make its procedures clear. This particular Grand Jury's method of admonishment of confidentiality was inconsistent with the practice of past grand juries who utilized this tool in the grand jury room when employees were providing testimony. In fact, the California Attorney General's opinion upon which the Grand Jury relies in its Report (No. 02-1108) addresses the Grand Jury's authority to admonish witnesses not to disclose information that the witnesses learned in the grand jury room. The Attorney General stated: "We conclude that in order to carry out the Legislature's policy of preserving the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, a grand jury, sitting in its civil watchdog capacity, may admonish a witness not to disclose what the witness learns in the grand jury room." The Grand Jury report left the impression that Department's supervisors were nefariously pressing employees for information and details of their interviews with grand jurors. This assertion is highly inaccurate. In one incident an individual grand juror came to the jail, demanded to speak with particular employees and then admonished those employees to keep their conversation confidential or risk contempt of court. This approach by the grand juror caused department employees to ask their supervisors questions about protocol. Department members were instructed to be fully cooperative and to provide any and all information requested by the Grand Jury. Supervisors spoke with their employees, not to violate the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings, but to ensure that complete information was provided to the grand juror who requested it. The insinuation that they were failing to abide by confidentiality rules is unfair to the professionals who were doing their best to be transparent and efficient.

The attention to data tracking of AB 109 inmates is excellent. Response: Agrees with finding.

The Theo Lacy Dining Hall has an outdated video VHS camera system. Response: Agrees with finding.

The Theo Lacy Housing modules do not have cameras in the day rooms. Response: Agrees with finding.

The Central Jail Complex camera systems are inadequate for the (1) dining hall, (2) booking loop, (3) housing areas, and (4) on the roof areas. Response: Partially disagrees with finding. The current video systems cover the high traffic areas that are mentioned in the Grand Jury Report (dining room, booking loop, housing areas, and roof recreation areas) but improvements could be made to give more clarity of picture and span of coverage.

The Commissary employs Community Work Program inmates who with more training could leave the Commissary with a marketable job skill. Response: Agrees with finding. OCSD is currently providing occupational practices to our Community Work Program inmates at the Commissary Warehouse location. The Inmate Services Division is continuing to partner with a local Community College to provide this training at the Commissary facility and is completing the certification process for the program.

The Commissary Account code 600 has a mixture of business cost and resale items. Response: Agrees with finding. The Commissary Account code 600 had a mixture of business cost and resale items. This format complies with government code and standard government accounting practices. RECOMMENDATIONS