Final Consolidated Grand Jury Report 2023-2024

Conclusions 10

• CL1 Page 11
  The Grand Jury believes that those of us who live in Sonoma County have reason to be grateful for many things. We fully recognize that the county is not perfect by any means, that we collectively face many problems yet to be solved. But we also recognize that we have the benefit of being able to openly discuss (and debate) our problems and to take the most direct action available to a free people when we don’t like what our elected leaders are doing: vote for someone else—freely, openly, and without fear of government reprisal. In short, we live in a place where democracy thrives. It is the considered opinion of the Grand Jury that the Registrar of Voters office does an excellent job of managing and protecting our cherished right to vote, and the Grand Jury commends it for a job consistently well done. The fact that the county’s voter turnout (measured as the percent of registered
• CL2 Page 6
  Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Election Integrity in Sonoma County voters who cast ballots) is consistently among the highest in the state speaks volumes: we believe that if people have an inherent distrust of an election process, they generally don’t bother to participate5. The Grand Jury also commends the time and energy spent by public groups, including (in alphabetical order) the Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, and the Republican Party, in observing the election process and asking intelligent and probing questions about our election processes and procedures. The Grand Jury is keenly aware that, by any reasonable measure, the democratic institutions and traditions that most Americans have long taken for granted are under attack. In the minds of some, the notion that all political power is (and, by right, ought to be) vested in the public is outdated, a relic of the past. The Grand Jury urges our fellow citizens to recognize that our ability to control our destinies through fair and impartial elections is no accident: it results from our active participation in the election process. Nor should we blindly presume that democracy just happens —that we can afford the conceits of misguided indifference or self-indulgent, unwarranted cynicism. We can, and should, recognize that our political processes are not perfect, but also that we can, and should, use the power of voting to constructively address our problems. Embracing indifference will, in the long term, invite the undoing of our most fundamental right: choosing who will lead us. The Grand Jury urges all Sonoma County citizens, regardless of political persuasion or preference, to participate in every election. Do not be an idle spectator of an activity that can only thrive with active engagement.
• CL3 Page 32
  The Grand Jury focused on the Department of Health Services’ procurement processes in this investigation. We found a poorly functioning process with a history of violations of County policies and ordinances. For many years, DHS often entered into no-bid and sole source contracts without filing a required sole source waiver. DHS’ RFP process is lengthy and cumbersome and often not completed in a timely manner, resulting in significant delays in service startup and vendor payments. Process issues include imprecise contract and RFP language, RFP cancellations after months of delay, and poor or misleading communication causing vendor uncertainty. Staff shortages, which have in part been blamed on a toxic work environment, aggravate the department’s problems with timely performance. The BoS and the Auditor have been notified of management and procurement issues at DHS for many years, and these types of problems continued during this Grand Jury’s investigation. An inordinate amount of DHS, Auditor, County Administrator and BoS staff time and money has been spent straightening out the tangled web of problems caused by these systemic failures, and when DHS has problems, real people suffer. The Grand Jury notes that the Homelessness Services Division may have gotten off to a better start with their FY2024-25 contracts: the contract package is scheduled to be presented to the BoS this June. However, it is our understanding that a significant number of DHS’ behavioral health contracts will not be ready for signature prior to the start of the new fiscal year. The Grand Jury hopes that the recent change of administrative structure, wherein DHS reports directly to the County Executive Officer rather than the BoS, will improve DHS operations. Further, we look forward to the County implementing the recommendations suggested by consultants Civic Initiatives, hired by the BoS to review the entire County’s current procurement practices. The Grand Jury encourages the County Executive, the Auditor, the Purchasing Agent and particularly the BoS to continue to support DHS in its efforts to build a fully staffed and highly functioning department.
• CL4 Page 26
  Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury DHS 2024: Often Reported, Never Repaired
• CL5 Page 52
  The Grand Jury set out to investigate a simple citizen complaint about a school district’s failure to follow oversight rules and ended up looking at the entire universe of taxation and spending in Sonoma County. It’s a topic made for analysts: county residents pay almost four billion dollars in taxes and the Sonoma County government spends more than $2.2 billion to provide public services, so there is a lot of data. It isn’t particularly hard to figure out how much is paid in taxes, but it’s almost impossible to figure out where the money goes in terms that most people will understand: it’s buried in thousands of pages of County, city, special district, and school documents. There is little effort to aggregate the information across government boundaries and none of these agencies have any legal requirement to aggregate information. But if agencies could agree on common ways to classify and share their operational data, all their jobs would be easier—and a significant public benefit would be an important byproduct. We also learned that the Assessor’s office has a backlog that is impacting current property tax collections and that is putting taxpayers in jeopardy. As assessors catch up, three or four years of delayed revaluation can add thousands and thousands of dollars to an unsuspecting taxpayer’s bill. This is a solvable problem: the Board of Supervisors can give the Assessor’s office the authority and budget to temporarily engage the necessary resources. Finally, the Grand Jury learned that the two major public oversight mechanisms—citizens’ committees and the County’s internal audit program—are doing what they’re legally required to do,
• CL6 Page 36
  Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Taxes & Spending in Sonoma County but not enough to provide actual, robust oversight. Citizen’s Oversight Committees are largely restricted to reviewing post-fact accounting and have a hard time getting public participation and the County audit team doesn’t have the staff or budget to expose County operational weakness before they become headlines in the Press Democrat. At least one of these problems can be solved. An informed electorate is government’s most valuable asset. The Grand Jury commends the Auditor- Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector staff for the Citizens’ Report; it’s an excellent start. The Controller can help by updating EFS, the general accounting system, to facilitate functional tracking as spending occurs. Most importantly, the Board of Supervisors can lead the way by mandating improved data definition, cross-agency reporting and aggregation, and facilitating reporting integration with independent authorities like schools and special districts.
• CL7 Page 70
  Although SCSO is compliant with Title 15 medical and mental health requirements, the MADF is not designed or configured to house the growing number of individuals with mental health diagnoses. MADF staff are doing the best they can under difficult circumstances and chronic staff shortages. The nature of the job, long hours, mandatory overtime, and the challenge of dealing with mentally ill inmates have all contributed to a long-term staffing crisis. Correctional officer turnover and the ensuing loss of institutional knowledge is an issue. The result is that MADF has had difficulty offering and maintaining inmate programs and providing out of cell time and activities. Although improvements are being made, there is more that should be done to improve the situation for everyone involved. The Grand Jury found several key issues. Hiring and retaining Correctional Officers needs to continue to be the highest priority. We acknowledge the significant amount of progress that has been, and continues to be, made by SCSO. In the past five months, recruitment and hiring have gone up and the mandatory overtime necessitated by under-staffing has gone down. It is clear that SCSO is making a concerted effort to address the chronic staffing shortage and that they are moving in the right direction. We were greatly encouraged by the May 1 newsletter from the Sheriff’s Department announcing that Detention will be fully staffed by summer 2024. Now that the roster is being filled; attention needs to turn to retaining the best officers and replacing any staff that doesn’t measure up. Robust substance abuse treatment services are needed, both inside and outside the jail. The Grand Jury found significant overlap between what SCSO is doing and what the Department of Health Services is doing. Two recent developments are encouraging.: in March, 2024 the BoS authorized SCSO to execute an agreement with GEO Reentry Services to provide substance use disorder treatment services to adults at the County’s detention facility through March 31, 2027 with an option to extend for two additional one-year terms. Outside the jail, the “Dr. Sushma D. Taylor Recovery Center” will soon provide medically managed withdrawal services for low-income male patients, with 50 beds for those in our county who struggle with addiction. Sustained commitment and collaboration are essential to continued improvement. The Board of Supervisors, and the Sheriff’s Office must work together to find (and fund) solutions to the problems facing the MADF staff and inmates that are under their authority.
• CL8 Page 62
  Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury MADF 2024: Déjà vu All Over Again
• CL9 Page 77
  The 2023-2024 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury concluded that the responses to the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Recommendations are in compliance with the Penal Code. In addition, the 2023-2024 Grand Jury has included its observations on those responses. A copy of the full 2022-2023 Grand Jury report and responses received can be located within the County of Sonoma, Superior Court of California website.
• CL10 Page 77
  Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 2022=23 Continuity Report 2022-2023 Grand Jury Response Summary Chart CITY OF SONOMA CEMETERIES: Don’t Bury Your Problems RES: Respondent SCM: Sonoma City Manager SCC: Sonoma City Council RECOMMENDATIONS RES RESPONSES 2023-2024 GJ

Commendations 2

• CM1 Page 12
  The Grand Jury commends all employees of the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters office and the citizen poll workers who devote countless hours in ensuring that County elections are conducted in an open and unbiased manner. 5 The California Secretary of State reports that in the 2022 General Election there were 304,017 registered voters in Sonoma County and 200,347 ballots counted, a 65.9% turnout rate. This compares favorably to the state’s overall turnout rate of 50.8%.
• CM2 Page 6
  Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Election Integrity in Sonoma County

Observations 12

• OB1 Page 84
  The report’s findings may be wholly accepted, or rejected, as written.
• OB2 Page 84
  The report’s findings may be partially accepted and partially rejected, or
• OB3 Page 84
  The report’s findings require further analysis. No follow-up action (by either the Grand Jury or the respondent) is required in cases where findings are accepted or rejected. When the respondent indicated that a recommendation required further analysis, however, the public is entitled to know what that analysis concluded; this report will tell you. Similarly, regarding a report’s recommendations, agencies and elected officials must respond in one of four ways:
• OB4 Page 84
  The recommendation is accepted and has already been implemented.
• OB5 Page 84
  The recommendation is rejected, and no further action will be taken.
• OB6 Page 84
  The recommendation requires further analysis (which should be completed within six months of publication of the Grand Jury report).
• OB7 Page 84
  The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. State law requires the heads of government agencies and elected officials to respond within 60 days of the Grand Jury’s issuance of a report; agencies run by boards are allowed an additional 30 days. Of course, substantive issues may not be resolved by the time the subsequent Grand Jury issues its Continuity Report. Responses stating that “further analysis is required” or that “recommendations will be implemented in the future” are a commitment to action that probably won’t be monitored or reported: this can be a convenient way for respondents to kick the can down the road (and sometimes hope it goes unnoticed). This year, the Sonoma County Grand Jury decided to review Grand Jury reports from 2018 to 2022. The Grand Jury looked at all responses to recommendations that promised further analysis or future action to see whether these commitments had been fulfilled and promised actions had been taken. The following tables show the status of findings and recommendations that were not resolved in prior years’ reports, and whether government commitments for future action were eventually met. We’re pleased to note that most government commitments were fulfilled and here the Grand Jury is equally pleased to share the list of items still outstanding.
• OB8 Page 78
  R1 By July 31, 2023, The City SCM, An examination of transactions from the The Grand Jury of Sonoma contacts the SCC Cemetery Enterprise was carried out. It acknowledges that this Recommendation has California Department of Tax was determined that tangible items were been implemented. and Fee Administration to not being sold directly to customers, but establish procedures to collect, rather were included in the internment report, and pay sales tax on packages sold and therefore not subject to tangible items sold at the a sales tax. In those situations, the cemeteries. Cemetery Enterprise is considered a consumer and they have arranged to pay sales tax when purchasing these items from their vendors. The CDTFA judged this to be an allowable practice. R2 By December 31, 2023, The City of Sonoma Cemeteries The Grand Jury SCM, The City of Sonoma conducts a Monument Services Fee was updated in acknowledges that this thorough analysis of the SCC July 2023 to reflect the actual costs Recommendation has been implemented. systems, processes, and incurred by the City for products and procedures related to services. Based on the recommendations of cemeteries, to include the a study by LF Sloane Consulting Group current software program used. the city took several steps including using The Grand Jury is aware that general fund money to expand capacity the City of Sonoma has cited and developing a user-friendly price list of their intention, in their fiscal services and products. With the help of LF year (2022-2023) goals, to Sloane, the city is drafting a 2024-25 complete a financial analysis of budget that will reorganize the staff and the Cemetery Fund and address operational shortfalls. develop a plan for resolution of the deficit in the Fund, and we encourage the City to include an operational analysis as well. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F7) R3 By December 31, 2023, the A draft of a comprehensive Policy and The Grand Jury SCM, City of Sonoma will develop a Procedures manual for the City of Sonoma acknowledges that this SCC Recommendation will policies and procedures manual Cemeteries is currently being reviewed by be implemented. for the operations of the staff. (2/13/24) Cemetery Program. (F1, F2, F4, F5, F7)
• OB9 Page 77
  Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 2022=23 Continuity Report R4 By December 31, 2023, the SCM, The Assistant City Manager is currently The Grand Jury City of Sonoma designates a SCC responsible for the oversight of the acknowledges that an interim solution has manager to oversee the cemeteries and addressing operational been implemented. cemetery day-to-day issues. In December 2023, the City Finance operations. (F2) Committee recommended a manager The City of Sonoma anticipates approval of position be included for funding as part of a permanent managerial the 2023-24 Mid-Year Budget position by April of adjustments. A job description has been 2024. drafted and is scheduled for City Council approval in March to be formally included as part of the mid-year budget in April. R5 By December 31, 2023, the SCM, In September 2023, L.F. Sloane Consulting The Grand Jury City of Sonoma conducts a SCC Group presented a Cemetery Action acknowledges that this thorough review of the Update to the City Council. Based on the Recommendation has been implemented. Cemetery Endowment Fund. report, the City Council approved a 2023- The Grand Jury is aware that 2024 Cemetery Price Lists including the City of Sonoma has cited Endowment Fund contributions that will their intention, in their fiscal bring Endowment Fees in line with current year (2022-2023) goals, to costs and market conditions. complete a financial analysis of the Cemetery Fund and The Finance Committee approved moving develop a plan for resolution of the Endowment Fund to the City Local the deficit in that fund and the Agency Investment Fund to increase Grand Jury recommends that returns. The plan is to first address the the Endowment fund is included in that analysis. (F3, issue of operational losses, and then F5) determine if the Cemetery Fund should be absorbed into the General Fund and no longer treated as an enterprise.
• OB10 Page 77
  Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 2022=23 Continuity Report OUTSOURCING PETALUMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Is It Better or Is It Easier? RES: Respondent PCC: Petaluma City Council RECOMMENDATIONS RES RESPONSES 2023-2024 GJ
• OB11 Page 80
  R1 By December 31, 2023, the PCC The City of Petaluma routinely performs a The Grand Jury City completes a cost-benefit cost/benefit analysis with City contracts acknowledges that this analysis of using a private firm and recently completed a cost/benefit Recommendation has been implemented. versus employees to staff the study on M-Group which can be found in planning department. (F1, F2, Appendix A of the Fiscal Year 2023/24 F3, F4) budget preparation. R2 By no later than March 1, PCC Before the conclusion of the current The Grand Jury 2024, the City opens an RFP contract with M-Group in July of 2026, the acknowledges that this for planning services and City will release a RFP to solicit proposals recommendation will be implemented in the considers a combination of city from multiple private firms prior to future. employees and private initiating a new contract for planning contractors to staff the planning services. The City of Petaluma will department. (F1, F3) continue to consider the best combination of City employees and private contractors to provide the best, most cost-effective service delivery for the Petaluma community. The city has determined that an employee-only model would be more expensive and provide no higher level of service. R3 By September 30, 2023, the PCC This recommendation was implemented The Grand Jury City requires M-Group to before the publication of the Grand Jury acknowledges that this recommendation has provide badges or logos to their report. All M-Group employees now have been implemented. employees that identify them as an identification badge. M-Group employees. (F5) R4 By August 31, 2023, the PCC An updated email signature is being used The Grand Jury City requires M-Group to by all M-Group staff. acknowledges that this recommendation has direct their employees to been implemented. include their firm’s logo and or name in their email signature. (F6) R5 By August 31, 2023, the PCC The staff directory now identifies M- The Grand Jury City includes an M-Group Group staff as M-Group Consulting acknowledges that this recommendation has designation on each staff listing Planners. been implemented. under the planning staff directory on the website. (F7)
• OB12 Page 77
  Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 2022=23 Continuity Report R6 By December 31, 2023, the PCC The City Council states that they and other The Grand Jury City conducts a formal survey local leaders are “attuned to the acknowledges that this recommendation will be of the citizens of Petaluma to community’s values and all of its needs”. partially implemented. better understand their To that end, they will “continue to ensure awareness and understanding that all City services are delivered to the of the outsourcing of the public in the best, most cost-effective way planning department and their possible. This applies to all City services, experiences interacting with M- not just to one type of City service, such as Group employees. (F5, F6, F7) planning services.” A survey focusing on “the full range of existing City services” will be conducted by December 31, 2024. WARMING CENTERS: County Action Needed Now RES: Respondent BOS: Board of Supervisors SPI: Sonoma Public Infrastructure Recommendations RES Responses 2023-24 GJ

Agency Responses 2

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.