2015-2016 Final Report

Conclusions 66

• CL1
  1 “Board by-laws Sections 9000, 9005, 9010, and 9011 were violated by the Board members as described in this report.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this Finding.”
• CL2
  San Joaquin County does not have a single clearly defined strategic plan to address homelessness 34
• CL3
  Collaboration and communication among County government and private agencies is virtually nonexistent
• CL4
  There are many governmental, private and non-profit agencies that strive to help the homeless, but there is no leadership to focus all the parties involved
• CL5
  The lack of leadership, communication and collaboration indicates that addressing homelessness in the County has not been a major priority As a result, the Grand Jury recommends:
• CL6
  County officials take the leadership role in creating a single, focused and coherent strategic plan to address homelessness A homeless camp under Highway 99 in Lodi.
• CL7
  This strategic plan needs measureable long- and short-term goals and objectives with an established timeline and an annual evaluation process
• CL8
  One individual within County government be appointed to oversee all matters related to the homeless
• CL9
  That individual needs to report directly to the County Administrator and have the authority, resources and respect to bring together the necessary entities to develop the County’s Strategic Plan on Homelessness
• CL10
  San Joaquin County’s “Homeless Prevention Plan” 2. “Homelessness in Lodi; Current Conditions, Challenges and Recommended Strategies; Committee on Homelessness (September 2015) 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
• CL11
  High levels of support for wards.
• CL12
  Wards can receive a diploma or GED and work toward an Associate Degree.
• CL13
  Wards who spoke to the Grand Jury were articulate, courteous and motivated to take advantage of the opportunities that are available.
• CL14
  Participation by the Foster Grandparents Program was first-rate.
• CL15
  Staff appeared well trained, administered structured programs and invested in the programs.
• CL16
  The facility appeared clean, well maintained and not crowded; safety did not appear to be an issue. 77 During the tour Grand Jurors noted a number of things that need attention:
• CL17
  O.H. Close is very much showing its age. Tiles are worn to the point of being completely gone; swamp coolers were rusted beyond repair.
• CL18
  One N.A. Chaderjian dormitory smelled of urine.
• CL19
  Although O.H. Close has impressive landscaping training, they aren’t using this program to maintain the facility grounds.
• CL20
  Broken light fixtures.
• CL21
  Staff appears engaged and dedicated.
• CL22
  “Staffing levels appeared adequate to maintain control.”
• CL23
  “The DVI lieutenant who led the Grand Jury tour was experienced, enthusiastic and knowledgeable with all aspects of the institution; in addition she was aware of the proximity of inmates to visitors.”
• CL24
  “Reentry educational and vocational training programs were exceptional.”
• CL25
  “DVI is well maintained both inside and outside.”
• CL26
  “Overcrowding did not appear to be a problem.”
• CL27
  “Inmates were cooperative with staff during visit.”
• CL28
  Shall require written consent from property owners before placement of any donation bin on private property
• CL29
  Shall obligate the bin owner to maintain it
• CL30
  Shall obligate the bin owner to hold property owners and their agents harmless from liability who remove unwanted bins from their property
• CL31
  Shall require donation bins meet or exceed the requirements found in the California Welfare and Institutions Code, §§150 to 153
• CL32
  Shall adopt sanctions for any violations of the ordinance provisions
• CL33
  Shall require owners of donation bins that do not have IRS Code 501(c)(3) status to pay permit fee to generate income to help off-set ordinance enforcement efforts City of Escalon Response: “The City will consider an ordinance with the elements identified in the Grand Jury recommendation.” City of Lathrop Response: “On or before December 1, 2015, the City of Lathrop will consider an Ordinance adding Chapter 15.60 REGULATION OF UNATTENDED DONATION BINS to Lathrop Municipal Code Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION.” 105 City of Lodi Response: “The City of Lodi has adequate enforcement authority to address the problem identified by the Grand Jury. Accordingly, the City of Lodi respectfully declines the Grand Jury’s recommendation.” City of Manteca Response: “The City of Manteca agrees to enact an ordinance and permit process regulating to unattended donation bins as set forth in the Recommendation R1 .…” City of Ripon Response: “The City of Ripon agrees to enact an ordinance that regulates unattended donation bins as set forth in Recommendation R1.” City of Stockton Response: “The respondent partially agrees with this recommendation. The City of Stockton agrees that a review of current regulations is merited, with the objective of developing more specific regulations for addressing challenges that arise from unattended donation bins. City staff will conduct this review by December 31, 2015, including a review of similar regulations from benchmark cities, and prepare a recommendation for the City Council. However, the recommendation is very prescriptive and includes detailed code requirements that may not be best suited of (sic) tailored to the specific circumstances in Stockton The City will take into account and review each of the specific recommendations outlined above, but reserves the right to design and adopt those specific regulations that are most appropriate for our community.” City of Tracy Response: “This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but the City will enact an ordinance regulating unattended donation bins by December 1, 2015. However, the contents of such an ordinance is (sic) yet to be determined.” County of San Joaquin: “The recommendation will not be implemented. “ If the County enacted a land use ordinance to regulate for-profit donation bins, it could certainly include a component to require consent or acknowledgement from the property owner. However, maintenance of real property or any appurtenances on the property is the responsibility of the property owner. In addition, restriction of liability between a property owner and an affected party is a legal concern and not addressed through land use ordinances. “The current County ordinance code does provide for resolution of land use violations through referral to the District Attorney. Included in the legal proceeding is the ability to recover enforcement costs. The County could collect a fee through a discretionary application to place a donation bin on an approved site and in turn use those revenues to subsidize enforcement activities on other parcels, however, such a fee is unlikely to cover the cost of enforcement. “Ultimately, the County does not have authority, through land use regulations, to enact or implement many of the recommendations contained in the report and, therefore, will not be moving forward with an ordinance to regulate unattended donation bins.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury reviewed all Findings, Recommendations and agency responses and determined no further action is required. 106
• CL34
  The inspection of 572 properties
• CL35
  The removal of 20,000 square feet of graffiti and repainting
• CL36
  The removal of 520 cubic yards of debris, 60 pieces of e-waste and 40 tires
• CL37
  The abatement of 13 properties
• CL38
  Bringing into compliance 11 homes found with fixed window bars
• CL39
  The attendance by Blitz staff at 24 community meetings and the scheduling of a community volunteer day to paint five houses
• CL40
  Waste cans and park benches being painted by community youths
• CL41
  The completion of 12 public works projects (street signs, potholes and park repairs) Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior 126 Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code sections 924.2 and 929) 127 Follow-Up Report to the 2014-2015 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 1417 Manteca Unified Board of Trustees: Board Behavior Creates Conflict 2014-2015 Case No. 1417 Preface This report contains the methods the 2015-2016 Grand Jury used to determine if the Manteca Unified Board of Trustees responded to the 2014-2015 Grand Jury Final Report. The sitting Grand Jury monitors the responses in the areas of compliance, responsiveness and implementation. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury recommendations were meant to strengthen the District’s operations, efficiency and compliance within the Manteca Unified School District Board of Trustees. A complete copy of the original report and the District’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/previous_GJ_2012-07-12.htm 1.0 Fact F1.1 “Coercion by some trustees caused established Board policies and procedures, including safeguards, to be circumvented by some administrators.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this finding.” R1.1 “By September 30, 2015, a policy should be adopted by the MUSD Board of Trustees to accomplish the following: When a Board member or an administrator becomes aware of any improper behavior by any Board member, it will be immediately shared with the Superintendent and all Board members.” Agency Response: “The Recommendation has not been implemented but it will be implemented by the timeline set forth above. However, the policy will clarify that when a Board member or 128 administrator becomes aware of any violations of Board Policies, Administrative Regulations, Board Bylaws and/or the law that this information will be shared immediately with the Superintendent and all Board members.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury reviewed the agency’s response and newly revised Board by-laws. The Grand Jury determined no further action is required. F1.2 “Public statements by some trustees have caused anger and disruption in MUSD.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this finding.” R1.2 “By September 30, 2015, the MUSD Board should adopt a policy that calls for immediate action when a trustee violates District by-laws. This would include public discussion at the earliest possible Board meeting, and/or moving to censure the trustee found to be in violation.” Agency Response: “The Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. It is not reasonable as “immediate” action is rarely under the confines of the Brown Act. The Brown Act requires, among other limitations, that action items be properly agendized under a specific timeline. In addition, the District believes that a policy that includes progressive interventions is a more collaborative and efficient approach.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury reviewed the agency’s response and revised Board by-laws. The Grand Jury determined no further action is required. F1.3 “Some Board members interfered with employees’ duties, violating Board policies and by- laws.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this finding.” F1.4 “Behavior by some Board members has made employees fearful in the workplace.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this finding.” F1.5 “Administrators have been spending inordinate amounts of time dealing with issues involving trustees, making it difficult for them to complete necessary District work.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this finding.” 129 2.0 Fact: Dramatically escalating legal costs F2.1 “Costs for legal services related to Board members’ behavior has increased during the first nine months of the current fiscal year nearly 30 times what it was two years earlier.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this Finding.” F2.2 “The departure of Weston Ranch High School principal added an unnecessary cost to the District.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this Finding.” 3.0 Fact: Board and staff training F3.1 “Only a few trustees have attended school board training in recent years preventing some trustees from having a common understanding of their role and responsibilities.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this Finding.” R3.1 “Newly elected Board members are strongly urged to participate in a new board training offered by CSBA or other organizations.” Agency Response: “The Recommendation has already been implemented with a summary of the implemented action described below: “New Trustees are encouraged to attend the annual CSBA Conference and Trade Show for newly elected Trustees. Further the San Joaquin County Office of Education hosts a meeting for new Trustees, generally in February. “At the March 3, 2015, Board of Education meeting, the Board adopted 9250, Remuneration, Reimbursement, Other Benefits encouraging Board members to attend no more than one conference/training per year tailored to the Roles of the Board. Additionally, the Board adopted Bylaws 9000, Roles of the Board, 9005, Governance Standards, 9011, Disclosure of Confidential Privileged Information, and 9012, Board Members Electronic Communications. “Enclosed is the Board adopted Bylaw 9250, Remuneration, Reimbursement, Other Benefits and the minutes reflecting Board adoption.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury reviewed the agency’s response and documentation. The Grand Jury determined no further action is required. F3.2 “A lack of understanding by staff of the role of Board members has caused serious problems.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this Finding.” R3.2 “All Board members are strongly urged to participate in annual board training offered by CSBA or other organizations to keep them current with educational trends and changing legislation.” 130 Agency Response: “The Recommendation has already been implemented with a summary of the implemented action described below. “At the March 3, 2015, Board of Education meeting, the Board adopted 9250 Remuneration, Reimbursement, Other Benefits encouraging Board members to attend no more than one conference/training per year tailored to the Roles of the Board. Additionally, the Board adopted Bylaws 9000, Roles of the Board, 9005, Governance Standards, 9011, Disclosure of Confidential Privileged Information, and 9012, Board Members Electronic Communications. “Enclosed is the Board adopted Bylaw 9250, Remuneration, Reimbursement, Other Benefits and the minutes reflecting Board adoption.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury reviewed the agency’s response and revised Board by-laws. The Grand Jury determined no further action is required. R3.3 “Administrators should review Board by-laws and share with their staff those sections dealing with Board governance.” Agency Response: “The Recommendation has not yet been implemented but it will be implemented by the following timeline. “A procedure will be added to the new employee packet to include the Bylaws referencing Board governance and will require signature of employee acknowledging receipt of information. Further, the Superintendent will disseminate a memo to administrators and supervisors to review the Bylaws with their staff. The procedure will be reviewed annually by the Superintendent.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury reviewed the agency’s response and revised Board by-laws. The Grand Jury determined no further action is required. 4.0 Fact: Board by-laws updates expedited because of Board behavior F4.1 “Board by-laws Sections 9000, 9005, 9010, and 9011 were violated by the Board members as described in this report.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this Finding.” F4.2 “By-law changes dealing with the Board were added or updated as a result of Board member behavior.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this Finding.” 131
• CL42
  Inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the county;
• CL43
  Investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of city and county offices, departments and their functions;
• CL44
  Inquire into the allegations of willful or corrupt misconduct of public officials;
• CL45
  Investigate into the activities of all school and special assessment districts within the county;
• CL46
  Submit a final report of its findings and recommendations to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. How the Grand Jury is Organized The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court empanels 19 Grand Jurors to serve for one year, fulfilling the duties as outlined under state law. The judge appoints a foreperson who presides over the grand jury. The grand jury elects other officers and organizes itself. The jurors meet in a weekly general session. Smaller investigative committees meet throughout the week. In addition, jurors meet with county and city officials, visit county detention facilities, and conduct independent reviews on matters of interest or concern. Each of the working committees report to the full Grand Jury. Conclusions are reached after study and thorough discussion of the issues and they may appear as part of the grand jury’s final report. 136 Desirable Attributes of a Grand Juror Grand Jury service is a volunteer position with modest monthly compensation for meetings and mileage. Members receive a wealth of experience and provide a vital service to their community.
• CL47
  Knowledge of and interest in local government and community affairs
• CL48
  Skill in working productively with others in a group setting where respect and patience are essential
• CL49
  Skill and experience in fact-finding, investigative techniques and report writing Benefits of Being a Grand Juror The benefits of being a grand juror are many:
• CL50
  You will enjoy the satisfaction and pride of doing an important job.
• CL51
  There is the experience of being a member of a respected panel.
• CL52
  You will become part of a body of people with the unique authority to see local government workings not available to most county citizens.
• CL53
  As a grand juror, you have an opportunity to make a difference for your community. Qualifications To be considered for nomination, you must meet the following legal requirements:
• CL54
  Be at least 18 years old;
• CL55
  Be a resident of San Joaquin County for at least one year immediately prior to the beginning of your service;
• CL56
  Possess intelligence, sound judgment and good character;
• CL57
  Have sufficient knowledge of English language to communicate orally and in writing; You cannot be considered:
• CL58
  If you are serving as a trial juror in any court in California;
• CL59
  If you have served as a Grand Juror in any California courty within the previous year;
• CL60
  If you have been convicted of malfeasance in office or any other high crime;
• CL61
  If you are serving as an elected public officer. 137 Citizen Complaints The Grand Jury receives complaints regarding all levels of local government. They may include, but are not limited to, allegations of misconduct by public officials or employees and inefficiencies in local government. Any citizen may submit a complaint by completing a Complaint Form. Complaints are treated as confidential. This allows a complainant to come forward without intimidation. Generally, the Grand Jury provides to the complainant written acknowledgement of receipt of a complaint. However, with so many possible investigations, it is necessary for the Grand Jury to make hard decisions about what investigations to undertake during their term. The complaint form should be submitted only after all attempts to correct an issue have been explored. The Civil Grand Jury complaint form can be found on the next page and at: http://www.sjcourts.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/grandjury/CompForm.pdf Send your completed form to: San Joaquin County Superior Court Attn: Trisa Martinez, Judicial Secretary 222 E. Weber Avenue, Room 303 P. O. Box 201022, Stockton, CA 95201 Forms also can be obtained by visiting or writing to the address above. The Grand Jury does not accept complaints via e-mail. To Learn More … For more information about the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury visit: http://sjcourts.org/general-info/civil-grand-jury 138 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY 222 E. Weber Ave., Room 303 Stockton, CA 95202 Phone: (209) 468-3855 COMPLAINT FORM All communications to the Grand Jury are confidential. The Grand Jury is the avenue for county residents to bring attention to what they believe are injustices not resolved by public agencies, after other reasonable efforts have failed. What is your name, address and phone number? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ What agency and/or person are you complaining against? (Name of agency and all individuals, including their addresses and phone numbers) _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Please explain the nature of your complaint providing as many details as you can, including dates, times, and places where the events took place. (Attach extra sheets if necessary)- _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Action taken. (Please list other persons and/or agencies you have contacted in an attempt to resolve this complaint and any actions you have taken yourself.) _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 139 Witnesses. (Please provide names and telephone numbers of anyone else who can substantiate your complaint.) _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ The information in this form is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE: ________________________________________________________________ DATE: _______________________________________________________________________ 140
• CL62
  The issue of the 800 uncounted VBM ballots was brought to light publicly in The Record newspaper column on May 14, 2015, 345 days after the election. The Grand Jury attempted to answer three important questions: (1) What caused the late delivery of approximately 800 VBM ballots from the June 3, 2014, Gubernatorial Election? (2) Why were these same ballots not counted? (3) Did ROV do everything it could to make sure every vote counted? 19 Due to lack of ROV documentation the Grand Jury could not confirm which ROV employees picked up the VBM ballots at Delta Station PO during the 2014 primary election. The ROV blamed the USPS for the late delivery of the ballots in question. The USPS does not guarantee the time it takes for mail to be delivered. Again, a complete lack of documentation prevented the Grand Jury from vetting this claim. The change in the State Election Code effective January 1, 2015 addresses some of the ballot delivery problems, however it does not address ROV’s issues involving procedural documentation and ballot tracking. Equally disturbing, ROV personnel failed to notify the public of the 800 ballots that were received late and not counted. The Grand Jury requested to view the late ballots in question. Jurors were assured the ballots had been isolated. However, when jurors viewed the ballots they learned that all uncounted ballots had been commingled. The Grand Jury could not confirm they actually viewed the 800-plus uncounted VBM ballots the ROV received on June 4, 2014. The arrival of 800 ballots the morning after the election created considerable angst among election officials. It was highly unusual for hundreds of ballots to suddenly appear a day late. Nevertheless, election officials, while not legally required to report late VBM ballots, felt no ethical obligation to announce to the public what had happened. It has been an enlightening journey for the Grand Jury. After numerous interviews and poring over pages of documents, the Grand Jury cannot point to a specific breakdown in the election process that caused this to occur. However, the Jury has offered several recommendations that it hopes will lead to a better overall system for receiving, tracking and maintaining the security of VBM ballots. The citizens of San Joaquin County deserve a system that ensures and gives them faith again that EVERY VOTE DOES COUNT. Disclaimers Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code section 911. 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. 20 The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to all Findings and Recommendations in this report. Mail a hard copy of the response to: Honorable José L. Alva, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Or hand deliver to: 222 E. Weber Ave., Room 303 Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at [email protected]
• CL63
  The Grand Jurors found that Deuel Vocational Institution, while being an older facility, was well maintained inside and outside. Dedication and commitment of the staff was evident. The Grand Jury noted there is no priority given to job placement for inmates eligible for release that have completed educational or vocational courses and received proper certification. Acknowledgements The 2015-2016 Grand Jurors would like to acknowledge all staff who spent time touring with the Grand Jury and discussing issues of interest and concern to them. Jurors also would like to acknowledge the creative and innovative programs and the professionalism of the staff. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code sections 911, 924.1 (a), and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code sections 924.2 and 929). 81 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Juvenile Justice Detention Facilities October 7, 2015 Introduction The Grand Jury is mandated pursuant to Penal Code section 919(a) to investigate individual cases of persons confined but not indicted in facilities of the State of California, County of San Joaquin and Cities within the county. Penal Code section 919(b) states the Grand Jury inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county. Juvenile Justice Detention The Juvenile Division of the Probation Department serves and assists the Juvenile Court in matters concerning the supervision of juvenile offenders and performs other investigations as mandated by various sections of the state Welfare and Institutions Code.
• CL64
  LAFCo agreed to coordinate a series of meetings with the fire districts to discuss consolidation. LAFCo expressed that it did not believe a structured time frame is needed nor that consolidation would necessarily be beneficial. Many of the fire districts were established to address the unique circumstances and specialized needs of their districts and these districts provide direct access to their constituency. LAFCo concluded the subject is deserving of discussion with all of the districts. LAFCo recognized that prior to any consolidation efforts the staff, elected officials and community will need to be engaged in the process. An update to the Municipal Service Review (MSR) for the Rural Fire Protection Districts in San Joaquin County is scheduled to be completed in December 2016, which will be an opportune time to address the issue of consolidation. LAFCo expects that these discussions will begin in July or August 2016. 96 The Grand Jury believes consolidation deserves careful consideration and should benefit the taxpayers and result in better service. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code sections 924.2 and 929) 97 Follow-Up Report to the 2014-2015 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 1407 STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Rubber Stamped School Buses Still Idle Lack of Board of Trustees Oversight 2014-2015 Case No. 1407 Preface This report contains the methods the 2015-2016 Grand Jury used to determine if the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees responded to the 2014-2015 Grand Jury Final Report. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury recommendations were meant to strengthen the District’s operations, efficiency and compliance with their fiduciary responsibility as set forth in the California Education Code. A complete copy of the original report and the District’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/previous_GJ_2012-07-12.htm F1.l The Board approved the purchase of 31 new school buses without proper analysis. Agency Response: “The Board disagrees with this finding …. The Board’s June 2013 decision to purchase the 31 busses was based on facts and analysis available at the time of the decision, and only after receiving information from staff on the costs related thereto. This further affirms the District’s experience and due diligence in managing transportation to benefit the needs of our students.” F1.2 The Board approved the sale of 31 new school buses based on a factually inaccurate staff report without proper analysis. 98 Agency Response: For the reasons described above, the Board disagrees with this finding. During the 2014-2015 school year, with new leadership in the District came different priorities and a determination in 2014 that the 31 buses should be sold following State law procedures. This decision was made based on additional financial information acquired by the former Chief Business Official. The Former CBO shared this information with the Board and the former Superintendent both during public meetings and in individualized meetings. Furthermore, it should be noted that the former CBO was in communications with the Fiscal Crisis Management and Assistance Team (FCMAT). FCMAT’s report indicated that the District’s annual in-house cost proposal was $3,302,965.36, which, as noted in the report, was $128,615.00 more than the current contract cost with Storer Transportation.” R1.1 By September 30, 2015, the Board should adopt a policy requiring that as part of any proposal for the purchase or sale of District assets exceeding $30,000, District staff will provide a full accounting and justification as required by the California Education Code and financial reports best practices to ensure fiduciary duty is adhered to. Agency Response: “This recommendation will not be implemented. The District has a longstanding history of purchasing, acquiring, selling and building capital assets and improvements. The District’s previous financial and program audits, to include its Municipal Bond programs, have not reflected any going (sic) concerns or material adjustments/recommendations to operational procedures or internal controls related to the Districts procurement and management of assets .…” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury reviewed the agency’s response. No further action is required. F2.1 The District has transported more special education students than requested by the special education program. Agency Response: “The Board agrees with this finding.” R2.1 By December 31, 2015, the Board should direct District staff to complete implementation of the transportation guidelines and guiding questions for IEP team assessments including additional training specific to transportation department support. In addition the Board should require quarterly staff reports about progress on implementation of the transportation guidelines. Agency Response: The Board is in the process of partially implementing this recommendation. Although the Board has not directed staff to implement transportation guidelines, the District is in the process of implementing a plan. By December 31, the Board will direct staff to complete implementation of the transportation guidelines and provide bi-annual reports to the Board .… Furthermore, the District plans to provide the Board bi-annual rather than quarterly staff reports on implementation of transportation guidelines with the first report being the standard June CASEMIS report in June 2016 .…” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury reviewed the agency’s response. No further action is required. 99
• CL65
  As a result of the Grand Jury’s requests for responses regarding the monitoring and maintenance of unattended donation collection bins in targeted cities in San Joaquin County, the Grand Jury learned most of the cities agreed with the findings to some degree. The recommendation of the Grand Jury report 2014-2015 that the cities “should enact ordinances that regulate unattended donation bins” was received by the majority of cities as a positive step toward alleviating the problem facing this issue. In some cases a new ordinance was adopted, as in the response from the City of Tracy, to “regulate donation containers to ensure that donation containers will not have a negative, blighted visual impact, impede or interfere with public access, circulation and parking; or become hazards or nuisances.” Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code sections 924.2 and 929). 107 Follow-Up Report to the 2014-2015 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 1412 STOCKTON MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Struggling in the MUD 2014-2015 Case No. 1412 Preface This report contains the methods the 2015-2016 Grand Jury used to determine if the City of Stockton responded to the 2014-2015 Grand Jury Final Report. The sitting Grand Jury monitors the responses in the areas of compliance, responsiveness and implementation. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury recommendations were meant to strengthen the operations, efficiency and compliance within the Stockton Municipal Utilities Department. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations, as well as the City of Stockton’s responses, are presented verbatim. The 2015-2016 Grand Jury follow-up results are presented in the form of further Findings and Recommendations.
• CL66
  The 2015-2016 Grand Jury determined that MUD responded pursuant to statute and in a timely manner to the findings and recommendations made by the 2014-2015 Grand Jury. The Grand Jury appreciates MUD’s cooperation in addressing the issues raised in last year’s report. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. The Stockton City Council shall respond to each Finding and Recommendation in this report. 118 Mail a hard copy of the response to: Honorable José L. Alva, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Or hand deliver to: 222 E. Weber Ave., Room 303 Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at [email protected] 119 Follow-Up Report to the 2014-2015 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 1414 CITY OF STOCKTON South Stockton Quality of Life As the South Side Goes, So Goes Stockton 2014-2015 Case No. 1414 Preface This report contains the findings, recommendations and responses to the 2014-2015 Grand Jury Final Report issued to the City of Stockton on South Stockton’s Quality of Life. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury recommendations were meant to bring light to the lack of funding and services provided to South Stockton over the years. The findings, recommendations and responses are verbatim in this report. A complete copy of the original report and the City’s response may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/2014-2015_roster%20and%20reports.html

Agency Responses 8

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

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.