Grand Jury Final

Conclusions 7

• CL1
  The MCOE violated the California State Education code by not putting the ATC out to bid and instead allowing Firm Build to construct the project. Response to Grand Jury Finding 1: The MCOE agrees that the ATC project should have been put out to bid in accordance with the California Education Code. The ATC was seen by many as part of the WLA student's educational program. It afforded the students an opportunity to gain 632 West 13th Street • Merced, California 95341 • (209) 381-6600 • www.mcoe.org Merced County Office of Education's Response to Grand Jury Report July 17, 2009 Page 2 real world construction experience. It was not considered to be a typical public works project that would normally be let out to a competitive bid. Unlike all such projects today, the ATC project was not run through the MCOE Business Department facilities staff. MCOE's internal procedures have been changed to insure that every project now goes through the MCOE facilities department. Grand Jury Recommendation 1: The MCOE should follow proper procedures as outlined in the California Education Code. All projects should be put out to bid as the law requires. Response to Grand Jury Recommendation 1: The MCOE will follow proper procedures and put all projects out to bid as prescribed in the Education Code and Public Contract Code. All departments have been briefed on the proper procedures to follow. Internal policies are in place to ensure that proper procedures are followed.
• CL2
  The MCOE and Firm Build did not get the necessary permits from the County of Merced for the construction of the ATC. Response to Grand Jury Finding 2: Firm Build was the oversight contractor for the ATC project and responsible for the permitting process. Unlike all such projects today, the ATC project was not run through the MCOE Business Services Department facilities staff. MCOE's internal procedures have been changed to insure that every project goes through the MCOE facilities department. Grand Jury Recommendation 2: The MCOE should obtain the required building permits for future construction projects and should have the projects inspected as required. Response to Grand Jury Recommendation 2: MCOE's internal procedures have been changed to insure that every construction project goes through the MCOE Business Services Department facilities department staff who have expertise to insure proper contractual oversight of all construction projects. Grand Jury Findings 3: The MCOE allowed students to use the ATC when it had neither passed inspection nor been approved for occupancy. Response to Grand Jury Finding 3: MCOE was not aware of the lack of formal approval until after the fact. Once notified, immediate action was taken to quickly correct all deficiencies. The program was allowed to continue, with County of Merced approval, as no health or safety threats were ever involved. The expertise of the MCOE facilities department staff was also utilized at this point to ensure that the inspection process was completed and occupancy permit received. Grand Jury Recommendation 3: For all future projects, the MCOE should have a contract signed by both parties to ensure the specifications of the contract are followed to the letter of the contract. Merced County Office of Education's Response to Grand Jury Report July 17, 2009 Page 3 Response to Grand Jury Recommendation 3: MCOE has policies in place to ensure that contracts are always signed by both parties before any action can be taken on the contract.
• CL3
  The MCOE, in its relationship with Firm Build, ignored a conflict of interest when it allowed its coordinator for the ATC project to serve on the Firm Build Board of Directors. Response to Grand Jury Finding 4: MCOE did not believe a conflict of interest existed at the time as MCOE understood that its coordinator did not have a financial interest in Firm Build. Grand Jury Recommendation 4: The MCOE should provide more supervision and oversight when it enters new projects. There was clearly a lack of both in the construction of the ATC and the MCOE and Firm Build needed to communicate more often and effectively. Response to Grand Jury Recommendation 4: At the outset of MCOE's partnership with Firm Build, agreements were executed in a timely manner. Over time, it took longer for subsequent agreements to be executed by Firm Build. When this lack of supervision and communication was identified related to the ATC project, funding to Firm Build was discontinued and the expertise of the MCOE Business Services Department facilities staff was utilized to finalize inspection and occupancy permit requirements.
• CL4
  The Grand Jury investigation of the relationship between the MCOE and Firm Build and the operation of the WLA unveiled there was not clear oversight and supervision of the connection between WLA and Firm Build. The Grand Jury commends the MCOE for its efforts in working and aiding at-risk students in Merced County and hopes the WLA will continue with the good work it has been doing. Response to Grand Jury Finding 5: MCOE agrees that oversight of the operation of the WLA as it related to Firm Build was not as effective as it should have been. MCOE has implemented oversight procedures and policies it believes will strengthen the oversight of the WLA and all MCOE programs. MCOE intends to continue the important work of the WLA with improved oversight in place. Grand Jury Recommendation 5: The MCOE should ensure there is no conflict of interest when it enters into agreements with outside entities who desire to become involved in its operations. Response to Grand Jury Recommendation 5: MCOE has adopted policy number 2150 that effectively insures that conflict of interest possibilities related to contractual agreements are prevented.
• CL5
  The MCOE followed proper procedures when it approved expenditures for attendees at the International Home Builders Conference in 2005, acquiring written authorization for those who attended the conference. This authorization is required before any follow-up payment may be made for conference expenses. Merced County Office of Education's Response to Grand Jury Report July 17, 2009 Page 4 Response to Grand Jury Finding 6: MCOE concurs that it followed proper procedures when making payment for attendees at the Home Builders Conference. Grand Jury Recommendation 6: The MCOE is encouraged to continue to look for funding and contributions with the local community to aid in funding for the WLA. Response to Grand Jury Recommendation 6: The MCOE utilizes appropriate educational funding to maintain the continued operation of the WLA and welcomes local community support for this purpose.
• CL6
  The MCOE paid only for those documented charges on the Firm Build First Equity credit card, which amounted to $8,496.64. Response to Grand Jury Finding 7: The MCOE agrees that it paid only documented charges on the Firm Build credit card for the Home Builder's Conference. Grand Jury Recommendation 7: The MCOE should follow good accounting practices for all recordkeeping, keeping careful records of all incurred expenses involving outside parties, such as the case with Firm Build. Response to Grand Jury Recommendation 7: The MCOE follows good accounting practices for all record keeping and keeps careful records as was the case with Firm Build. Sincerely, Lee Anderser NEX LEE ANDERSEN Merced County Superintendent of Schools LA:yc cc: Honorable Carol Ash, Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury
• CL7
  In closing, the Board would also like to express a concern that several County departments had with this year's Grand Jury and its investigations. Specifically, the Grand Jury issued the report and findings based on single interviews or presentations without meeting with any other impacted group to get a full picture of the situation from multiple parties. It is essential for any effective investigation process to be impartial and for the investigation and fact-finding process to support this. Proper investigations ensure that all involved parties would be contacted and interviewed before presenting any findings and recommendations. The Board requests that in the future that the Grand Jury to speak to all of the affected parties as part of their official investigation process to ensure that the examination of the issues facing our community is thorough and not biased in any way to either the complainant or the respondent. Again, the Board of Supervisors appreciates the responsibilities of the Grand Jury to provide thoughtful recommendations to improve our County and community. Respectfully submitted, Jerald R. O'Banion, Vice-Chairman Board of Supervisors Harlan Dake, 2008-2009 Merced County Grand Jury Foreman CC: Mr. Demitrios O. Tatum, County Executive Officer Student a , Merced CountyOffice of Education Lee Andersen, Superintendent Equal Opportunity Employer July 17, 2009 Mr. Harlan Dake, Foreperson Merced County Grand Jury PO Box 2034 Merced, CA 95344 RE: Response from the Merced County Office of Education (MCOE) to the Grand Jury Report Issued July 2009, on the relationship between the Merced County Office of Education and the non-profit organization known as Firm Build. Dear Mr. Dake, On July 15, 2009, the Grand Jury of Merced County released its Report entitled "Relationship between the Merced County Office of Education and the Non-profit Organization known as Firm Build." OVERVIEW OF DISTRICT RESPONSE The Merced County Office of Education ("MCOE") appreciates the Grand Jury's interest and review of the MCOE's Work Place Learning Academy's ("WLA") program. We believe the program is a worth-while effort to train at-risk students in occupations that would assist them in obtaining employment after graduation. MCOE agrees that there were areas where better oversight could have been provided. Actions to strengthen MCOE's internal procedures and controls have been taken to ensure that proper oversight will be provided on all similar projects in the future. MCOE follows good business practices and complies with all laws and regulations. The situation with Firm Build happened because of the close relationship between Firm Build and MCOE in operating the Work Place Learning Academy and training of our students. DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Grand Jury Finding 1: The MCOE violated the California State Education code by not putting the ATC out to bid and instead allowing Firm Build to construct the project. Response to Grand Jury Finding 1: The MCOE agrees that the ATC project should have been put out to bid in accordance with the California Education Code. The ATC was seen by many as part of the WLA student's educational program. It afforded the students an opportunity to gain 632 West 13th Street • Merced, California 95341 • (209) 381-6600 • www.mcoe.org Merced County Office of Education's Response to Grand Jury Report July 17, 2009 Page 2 real world construction experience. It was not considered to be a typical public works project that would normally be let out to a competitive bid. Unlike all such projects today, the ATC project was not run through the MCOE Business Department facilities staff. MCOE's internal procedures have been changed to insure that every project now goes through the MCOE facilities department. Grand Jury Recommendation 1: The MCOE should follow proper procedures as outlined in the California Education Code. All projects should be put out to bid as the law requires. Response to Grand Jury Recommendation 1: The MCOE will follow proper procedures and put all projects out to bid as prescribed in the Education Code and Public Contract Code. All departments have been briefed on the proper procedures to follow. Internal policies are in place to ensure that proper procedures are followed. Grand Jury Finding 2: The MCOE and Firm Build did not get the necessary permits from the County of Merced for the construction of the ATC. Response to Grand Jury Finding 2: Firm Build was the oversight contractor for the ATC project and responsible for the permitting process. Unlike all such projects today, the ATC project was not run through the MCOE Business Services Department facilities staff. MCOE's internal procedures have been changed to insure that every project goes through the MCOE facilities department. Grand Jury Recommendation 2: The MCOE should obtain the required building permits for future construction projects and should have the projects inspected as required. Response to Grand Jury Recommendation 2: MCOE's internal procedures have been changed to insure that every construction project goes through the MCOE Business Services Department facilities department staff who have expertise to insure proper contractual oversight of all construction projects. Grand Jury Findings 3: The MCOE allowed students to use the ATC when it had neither passed inspection nor been approved for occupancy. Response to Grand Jury Finding 3: MCOE was not aware of the lack of formal approval until after the fact. Once notified, immediate action was taken to quickly correct all deficiencies. The program was allowed to continue, with County of Merced approval, as no health or safety threats were ever involved. The expertise of the MCOE facilities department staff was also utilized at this point to ensure that the inspection process was completed and occupancy permit received. Grand Jury Recommendation 3: For all future projects, the MCOE should have a contract signed by both parties to ensure the specifications of the contract are followed to the letter of the contract. Merced County Office of Education's Response to Grand Jury Report July 17, 2009 Page 3 Response to Grand Jury Recommendation 3: MCOE has policies in place to ensure that contracts are always signed by both parties before any action can be taken on the contract. Grand Jury Finding 4: The MCOE, in its relationship with Firm Build, ignored a conflict of interest when it allowed its coordinator for the ATC project to serve on the Firm Build Board of Directors. Response to Grand Jury Finding 4: MCOE did not believe a conflict of interest existed at the time as MCOE understood that its coordinator did not have a financial interest in Firm Build. Grand Jury Recommendation 4: The MCOE should provide more supervision and oversight when it enters new projects. There was clearly a lack of both in the construction of the ATC and the MCOE and Firm Build needed to communicate more often and effectively. Response to Grand Jury Recommendation 4: At the outset of MCOE's partnership with Firm Build, agreements were executed in a timely manner. Over time, it took longer for subsequent agreements to be executed by Firm Build. When this lack of supervision and communication was identified related to the ATC project, funding to Firm Build was discontinued and the expertise of the MCOE Business Services Department facilities staff was utilized to finalize inspection and occupancy permit requirements. Grand Jury Finding 5: The Grand Jury investigation of the relationship between the MCOE and Firm Build and the operation of the WLA unveiled there was not clear oversight and supervision of the connection between WLA and Firm Build. The Grand Jury commends the MCOE for its efforts in working and aiding at-risk students in Merced County and hopes the WLA will continue with the good work it has been doing. Response to Grand Jury Finding 5: MCOE agrees that oversight of the operation of the WLA as it related to Firm Build was not as effective as it should have been. MCOE has implemented oversight procedures and policies it believes will strengthen the oversight of the WLA and all MCOE programs. MCOE intends to continue the important work of the WLA with improved oversight in place. Grand Jury Recommendation 5: The MCOE should ensure there is no conflict of interest when it enters into agreements with outside entities who desire to become involved in its operations. Response to Grand Jury Recommendation 5: MCOE has adopted policy number 2150 that effectively insures that conflict of interest possibilities related to contractual agreements are prevented. Grand Jury Finding 6: The MCOE followed proper procedures when it approved expenditures for attendees at the International Home Builders Conference in 2005, acquiring written authorization for those who attended the conference. This authorization is required before any follow-up payment may be made for conference expenses. Merced County Office of Education's Response to Grand Jury Report July 17, 2009 Page 4 Response to Grand Jury Finding 6: MCOE concurs that it followed proper procedures when making payment for attendees at the Home Builders Conference. Grand Jury Recommendation 6: The MCOE is encouraged to continue to look for funding and contributions with the local community to aid in funding for the WLA. Response to Grand Jury Recommendation 6: The MCOE utilizes appropriate educational funding to maintain the continued operation of the WLA and welcomes local community support for this purpose. Grand Jury Finding 7: The MCOE paid only for those documented charges on the Firm Build First Equity credit card, which amounted to $8,496.64. Response to Grand Jury Finding 7: The MCOE agrees that it paid only documented charges on the Firm Build credit card for the Home Builder's Conference. Grand Jury Recommendation 7: The MCOE should follow good accounting practices for all recordkeeping, keeping careful records of all incurred expenses involving outside parties, such as the case with Firm Build. Response to Grand Jury Recommendation 7: The MCOE follows good accounting practices for all record keeping and keeps careful records as was the case with Firm Build. Sincerely, Lee Anderser NEX LEE ANDERSEN Merced County Superintendent of Schools LA:yc cc: Honorable Carol Ash, Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury

Commendations 7

• CM1
  The Grand Jury has no recommendations and observed that Mr. Kettering and his staff are doing an excellent job. John Latorraca Correctional Center Mandated Annual Inspection Introduction The Merced County Grand Jury inspected the John Latorraca Correctional Center facilities located at 2584 W. Sandy Mush Road, Merced, on November 16, 2009. California Penal Code Section 919b mandates that the Grand Jury annually inspect correctional facilities within Merced County. The Merced County Sheriff's Office, under the command of Sheriff Mark Pazin, is responsible for the operation of the facility. The site is under the direct supervision of Commander Joe Scott, who provided a power point presentation. A tour of the facility was conducted by Sergeant Salacup and Correctional Officer O'Brien.
• CM2
  The staff and supervisory personnel at the John Latorraca Correctional Center are again to be commended for their efforts under trying and dangerous conditions. Los Banos Police Department and Jail Mandated Annual Inspection Introduction On October 27, 2009, the Merced County Grand Jury inspected the City of Los Banos Police Department and Jail located at 945 5th Street, Los Banos. The inspection was mandated by Section 919b of the California Penal Code which requires a yearly inspection. Grand Jury members were met at the facility by Commander Gary Breese. Commander Breese informed the Grand Jury members that the Los Banos Police Department is currently searching for a new Chief of Police. Retired Commander Knapp is acting as the interim Chief of Police, but is limited to the number of hours he may work. Commander Breese provided a thorough tour of the jail and the police department facilities. Los Banos operates a Type I jail facility which allows the department to house no more than 20 inmates for up to 96 hours, excluding holidays. At the time of the Grand Jury's visit, there were no inmates being held in the facility. The California Highway Patrol, Dos Palos Police Department, California Department of Fish and Game, the Merced County Sheriff's Department, and the Gustine Police Department all use the Los Banos jail for booking purposes. The jail is part of the police department facility and was designed according to the standards in effect at the time of its construction in 1969. As such, it no longer meets the criteria in effect today and cannot be modified to meet current construction standards. The jail has passed all required inspections, including those of the Health Department, Fire Department, and Juvenile Justice Agencies. There is one cell designed to hold inmates who may be in danger of injuring themselves. Due to its age, the materials used in the cells construction are no longer available, and repairs to the surfaces are difficult to accomplish, expensive, and only minimally satisfactory. There is a kitchen area where sandwiches and other snacks are prepared for inmates. Los Banos officials will not hold violent or mentally disturbed detainees, who are considered unique inmates. These inmates are immediately transported to the appropriate Merced County facility in Merced. The Los Banos jail has demonstrated its efficient use of its facility by keeping a large number of inmates out of the County facilities. Generally, these inmates have been "cite and release" or "bailed out" detainees. When the facility nears capacity the Merced County Sheriff's Office transports them to County facilities. Community Service Officers (CSOs) are used as jail monitors under the supervision of the on- duty sergeant. When a CSO is not available, the jail area is under constant surveillance by police dispatch personnel. The Los Banos Police Department is authorized for 48 officers. However, due to the economy, its police force is now down to 38 full time officer positions. Commander Breese stated that the Los Banos Police Department is pleased with the cooperation it receives from other Westside agencies and the Merced County Sheriff's Office.
• CM3
  Commander Breese provided an informative tour and projects a positive presence and attitude. The Grand Jury also commends the Los Banos Police Department for providing services to other Westside Agencies. Merced County Sheriff's Main Jail and Office Mandated Annual Inspection Introduction The Merced County Grand Jury inspected the main Merced County Jail at 700 W. 22nd Street, Merced on September 15, 2009. This inspection is to be performed annually as prescribed by California Penal Code Section 919b. Members of the Grand Jury met with officers Gina Saldana and Jeff Miller who conducted the tour. They provided a quick overview of the jail operations and a report of the jail's employment and equipment needs. They expressed a concern for the shortage of personnel at the outdated facility.
• CM4
  It should be noted that the personnel are doing a good job in an old, overcrowded jail, which needs improved equipment. Atwater Police Department Inspection Introduction On February 17, 2010 the Merced County Grand Jury contacted Atwater Chief of Police, Richard Hawthorne and conducted an inspection of the facilities located at 350 E. Bellevue Road, Atwater, California. The inspection of the department and its operation was conducted pursuant to Section 925a of the Penal Code.
• CM5
  The Police Department is cramped for space, but operates very effectively and is lead by a very capable leader. The department is involved in numerous programs to assist them in keeping a safe community for their citizens. Gustine Police Department Inspection Introduction The Merced County Grand Jury, under the authority of Section 925a of the Penal Code, made an appointment with interim Chief of Police, Jeff Schindler on Tuesday, October 13, 2009. The purpose of the inspection, facility is located at 682 3rd Avenue, Gustine, was to review and report on the operations and methods in which the department performed its duties.
• CM6
  The Livingston Police Department is well maintained, and its officers and personnel are doing an excellent job and should be commended. Merced Police Department Inspection Introduction The Merced County Grand Jury pursuant to 925a of the Penal Code, made an appointment on September 22, 2009 with Commander Floyd Higdon of the Merced City Police Department, located at 611 W. 22nd Street, Merced. The purpose of the visit was to investigate and report on the operations and methods in which the department performed its duties.
• CM7
  Before the conclusion of this investigation, a change occurred within the Sheriff's administration. Due to a retirement, a new Undersheriff and Commander were promoted. Both men stepped forward and agreed "this is not going to happen on my watch". They took immediate action, enacting changes to return the employee to the Deputy II duties and ended the overtime as compensation for the position. Complaint 09-10-08 Merced County Child Support Office The Grand Jury received a complaint that the Merced County Child Support Office was not returning calls made by complainant. The Grand Jury declined to investigate this complaint because complainant had already sent letters to the Merced County District Attorney's office, California Child Support Office, Arizona Child Support Office, and the Arizona Attorney General's office. Complaint 09-10-09 City of Los Banos Manager City of Los Banos Chief Financial Officer City of Los Banos Mayor The Grand Jury received a complaint that the City of Los Banos has been mismanaged and has had two embezzlement cases in the last 16 months under the current administration. There was insufficient time to investigate this complaint thoroughly, so it was referred to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury. Complaint 09-10-10 John Latorraca Correctional Facility The Grand Jury received an anonymous letter to investigate the John Latorraca Correctional Facility for overcrowding. The Grand Jury declined to investigate this complaint, since the John Latorraca Correctional Facility is mandated to receive an annual inspection according to California Penal Code Section 919b. Complaint 09-10-11 Dos Palos Oro Loma Joint Unified School District The Grand Jury received a complaint alleging misappropriation of district funds against district personnel of the Dos Palos Oro Loma Joint Unified School District. The Grand Jury declined to investigate this complaint because the allegations were already being investigated by the Dos Palos Police Department. Complaint 09-10-12 Merced City Police Merced County Public Defender's Office The Grand Jury received a complaint alleging police brutality against the Merced City Police and not receiving fair representation by appointed public defender. The Grand Jury declined to investigate this complaint because the allegations were already being investigated by the Merced City Police Department. Complaint 09-10-13 City of Los Banos Manager City of Los Banos Chief Financial Officer City of Los Banos Mayor The Grand Jury received a complaint that the City of Los Banos has been mismanaged and has had two embezzlement cases in the last 16 months under the current administration. There was insufficient time to investigate this complaint thoroughly, so it was referred to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury. Complaint 09-10-14 Workforce Investment Board of Merced County The Grand Jury received a complaint of discrimination against the Workforce Investment Board of Merced County. The Grand Jury declined to investigate this complaint because complainant had already filed a complaint with the United States Department of Justice Office for Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section. Complaint 09-10-15 Delhi Unified School District Board of Trustees Complaint The Merced County Civil Grand Jury received a request for an investigation in a complaint regarding the Delhi Unified School District Board of Trustees, alleging there was a violation of the Brown Act. Method Members of the Grand Jury interviewed members of the Delhi Unified School District Board of Trustees, the Superintendent of the Delhi Unified School District, and the individual who made the original complaint.

Comments 1

• CO1
  Very truly yours, Wish all the MICHAEL L. PRO Public Defender MLP:jh STRIVING FOR EXCELLENCE John Volanti, M.P.H. Director of Public Health MERCED *** DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Administration 260 E. 15th Street Merced, CA 95341-6216 (209) 381-1200 (209) 381-1215 (FAX) www.co.merced.ca.us/health Equal Opportunity Employer August 24, 2009 Angelo Lamas County Executive Office 2222 M Street Merced, CA 95340 Dear Mr. Lamas, The Department of Public Health has reviewed the 2008/2009 Grand Jury Report and there are no issues in the report that pertain to matters under the control of our department. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, John Volanti, M.P.H. Director of Public Health STRIVING FOR EXCELLENCE MERCE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Paul A. Fillebrown Director COUNTY 715 Martin Luther King Jr. Way Merced, CA 95340-6041 (209) 385-7602 (209) 725-3989 Fax www.co.merced.ca.us Building Services Countywide Transit Parks and Recreation Road Fleet Management DATE: July 17, 2009 County Surveyor Solid Waste Professional Services TO: Presiding Judge Carol Ash Building & Safety Castle Airport Paul A. Fillebrown Director of Public Works FROM: Equal Opportunity Employer SUBJECT: Comments/Responses to the 2008-2009 Grand Jury Report MEMORANDUM The following is the response by the Public Works Department to the 2008- 2009 Grand Jury Report: John Latorraca Correctional Center: Since completion of the arsenic treatment system in April 2008, bottled water has been ordered to be used three (3) times. Two (2) of the bottled water orders occurred during scheduled media replacement servicing and only one (1) bottled water order was unplanned due to an anomalous increase in arsenic levels in the potable water system. The system has been operational and properly removing arsenic for 15 months, except for the two (2) instances when the treatment media needed to be replaced. The infrequent need to use bottled water is caused by the lag time between sampling and test results since there aren't any accurate, instant arsenic test methods. Variations in arsenic levels from the three (3) wells is a naturally occurring event that can not be controlled and treatment processes are adjusted when discovered. Upon completion of the permanent infrastructure improvements, significant increases in storage capabilities of treated water will likely eliminate the further need for even occasional use of bottled water at the facility. PAF:II Dee Tatum, County Executive Officer CC: M:\Word Files\LETTERS\MULTILET\MEMOS\MASTERS\GRAND JURY LETTERS VAR YEARS\GRANDJURY2009.doc STRIVING FOR EXCELLENCE MARK N. PAZIN COUNTY OF MERCED OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF-CORONER In accordance with the Penal Code, the Sheriff's Office is responding to the "Inspection of Gustine Police Department" and specifically to the comments Chief Richard I. Calderon made regarding "refused service." Two points must be immediately made prior to reviewing the history of communications service prior to 2006. First, members of the Merced Grand Jury never attempted to speak with me and should have concerning the "radio communication" and second, Chief Calderon is absolutely wrong if he stated or inferred to the Merced County Grand Jury that the "Merced County Sheriff's Office removed their radio communication" as written on Page 7 of the Grand Jury Report. Chief Calderon should have given the Grand Jury a document, dated February 27, 2006, in which then Chief of Gustine, Don Hutchins executed the City of Gustine's "right" and issued to the Merced Sheriff's Office a written thirty (30) day notice to "terminate the contract" as it pertains to "radio communication." Chief Calderon either neglected, disregarded or is unaware of the fact once Turlock Police Department became Gustine Police Department's Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), all services such as, but not limited to, warrant checks, inputting, regular radio inquiries, etc., were transferred to Turlock Police Department per contracted services. Further, Chief Calderon failed, by not explaining to the Grand Jury the necessity and proper usage of a 24/7 PSAP, how this interfaces with the Original Reporting Agency Identifier (ORI) and Time Activated Message Forwarding (TAMF) as it relates to "radio communication." Another point which needs clarification, but not placed in the Grand Jury Report, was the fact there was Department of Homeland Security money set aside for Gustine Police Department to purchase radio equipment at no expense to the City of Gustine at Sheriff Pazin's request. The strategy was for Gustine Police Department returning to interoperability within Merced County and OES/Region V. It should be noted, the "interoperability" issue was explained to Chief Calderon and all his predecessors, since 2006. Not only is the City of Gustine radio service out of county, it is also out of region, as it pertains to the Office of Emergency Services (OES) and is in conflict with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Interoperability guidelines. Another point, not mentioned in the Grand Jury Report was the cost associated with "radio communication." When (then) Chief Hutchins terminated the service in February 2006, Merced County was reimbursed $68,680.56 per fiscal year for "dispatch" services, which also included certain IT functions. Also discussed with all the Gustine Police Chiefs these past years were usage charges for Merced County IT services. The Sheriff's Office absorbed such costs with Gustine Police Department via the "radio communication" contract. This point was made repeatedly to Chief Calderon, who finally understood, and were in the final stages of placing a monetary figure for these IT services so our Office could take a contract to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. It is now understood that Turlock Police Department, in three years of having this contract, have increased Gustine's fee by $40,000, for a total fiscal year contract of $108,000, with a net increase of over 50% in less than three years time. Our Office realizes the very difficult economic times, and for example, since 2006, has charged Dos Palos Police Department, approximately $68,000 per fiscal year for "radio communication" with a negligible increase for the aforementioned service. Chief Calderon is also wrong when he mentioned "wanted persons" are "not entered into NCIS" (actually a typo on Grand Jury Report, should be NCIC) when actually Chief Calderon was not aware or did not mention to the Grand Jury, the Merced County Courts involvement, how warrants are generated and how the ORI and PSAP's are intertwined to ensure information is entered properly. The Grand Jury used the word "reprehensible" as it pertains to "cooperation from county law enforcement to Gustine Police Department." What is actually appalling is an official "one sided" document from the Grand Jury written and submitted to the Superior Court, without speaking with the other principals in this matter. The Sheriff's Office takes its law enforcement role seriously within the County as evidenced by these facts of "cooperation", which Chief Calderon conveniently omitted or neglected to share with the Grand Jury. Over the past three years, the Merced Sheriff's Office has, at the request of one of the many Gustine Police Department Chiefs (whoever was in this position at the time) responded to death inquiries, conducted laborious internal affairs investigations and assisted in patrol, during a difficult time of recruitment and retention in Gustine over the years. These investigations required overtime absorbed by the Sheriff's Office as part of "mutual assistance" to another law enforcement agency. Documents can be reviewed upon request attesting to this fact. In conclusion, our Office has cooperated at every level with the Gustine Police Department over the past months as evidenced by a series of "thank-you letters" from Chief Calderon for law enforcement work done within the City of Gustine. MARK N. PAZIN COUNTY OF MERCED OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF-CORONER As required per the California Penal Code, the Merced County Sheriff's Office is responding to the Merced Grand Jury's Review of the "Main Jail" located at 700 W. 22nd Street. Our Office concurs with the recommendation of the Grand Jury and will work closely with the Board of Supervisors to implement positive changes. As required per the California Penal Code, the Merced County Sheriff's Office is responding to the Merced County Grand Jury's Review of the John Latorraca Correctional Facility located at 2584 W. Sandy Mush Road. Again, our Office agrees with the findings as it relates to the Correctional Facility on Sandy Mush Road and decisions are based on "the almighty dollar." Our Office has explored expansion of the Correctional Facility, reviewed "sprung structures," applied for AB 900 financing and secured our internal recreation yard with added fencing. Our Office will continue to review innovative funding sources and work with the Board of Supervisors in the upcoming fiscal year. 5.0 2222 M STREET • MERCED • CALIFORNIA • 95340 • (209) 385-7451 MERCED COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT MARIA L. AREVALO /| - Plan Administrator ASSOCIATION 3199 "M" Street Telephone 209-725-3636 Merced, California 95348 Fax 209-725-3637 July 9, 2009 To: Presiding Judge, Merced County Superior Court. From: Maria L. Arevalo, Retirement Plan Administrator Re: 2008/2009 Merced Grand Jury Report Dear Judge Carol Ash, I have received and reviewed the Merced 2008/2009 Grand Jury Report and have determined that there are no issues requiring a response by the Merced County Employees' Retirement Association. Sincerely, Maria L. Arevalo Retirement Plan Administrator Cc. County Executive Office 403 "F" STREET ★ Los Banos, CA 93635 209-826-5166 * Fax 209-826-8737 DATE: July 10, 2009 TO: Honorable John Kirihara Presiding Judge, Merced County Superior Court Merced County Executive Office 2222 M Street Merced, CA 95340 SUBJECT: Acknowledgment of 2008/2009 Grand Jury Report Please note I have received and reviewed the 2008/2009 Grand Jury Report. There are no issues in the report which pertain to matters under my control. Thank you, 8008 Karen D. Adams, CPA MERCED Treasurer-Tax Collector-Clerk 2222 "M" Street COUNTY CLERK Merced, CA 95340 (209) 385-7307 TREASURER - TAX COLLECTOR (209) 725-3905 (Fax) Karen D. Adams, CPA http://www.mercedtaxcollector.org August 11, 2009 TO: Honorable Judge John Kirihara, Superior Court Presiding Judge Karen D. Adams, CPA., Treasurer-Tax Collector-Clerk FROM: SUBJECT: 2008-2009 GRAND JURY REPORT I received and read the 2008-2009 Grand Jury Report. I have no comments regarding any of the findings or recommendations contained in the report. Thank you! Andrea T. Baker Director DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE INVESTMENT Joanne Presnell Assistant Director 1880 Wardrobe Avenue Merced, CA 95341-6407 (209) 724-2000 (209) 725-3592 Fax www.co.merced.ca.us/index.asp?NIB=92 Equal Opportunity Employer MEMORANDUM July 15, 2009 To: Honorable Carol Ash, Presiding Judge Merced County Superior Court Attn: Angelo Lamas, Management Services Analyst From: Andrea T. Baker, Director, Department of Workforce Investment Subject: Acknowledgement of the 2008/2009 Grand Jury Report I am acknowledging receipt of the Grand Jury report of 2008/2009. I have reviewed the report and have concluded that there are no issues that pertain to matters under my control included in the report. WIF 00-21B Revised 06/07 STRIVING FOR EXCELLENCE MERCED Board of Supervisors John Pedrozo September 29, 2009 Supervisor, District One The Honorable John Kirihara Hubert "Hub" Walsh, Jr. Supervisor, District Two Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Superior Court of California, County of Merced Michael G. Nelson 670 West 22nd Street Supervisor, District Three Merced, CA 95340 Deidre F. Kelsey Supervisor, District Four RE: Board of Supervisors Grand Jury Response dismay Jerry O'Banion Supervisor, District Five Dear Presiding Judge Kirihara: The Board of Supervisors appreciates the Merced County Grand Jury's responsibilities Demitrios O. Tatum County Executive Officer and commitment to public service. Pursuant to Penal Code 933, responses from elected and appointed officials have been received and appropriately forwarded. The following acknowledgements and information is respectfully submitted relating to matters under the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors. Mandated Inspections - Main Jail and John Latorraca Correctional Facility Merced County Administration Building The Grand Jury conducted an inspection of the Main Jail located at 700 W 22nd Street in 2222 "M" Street Merced, CA 95340 The Grand Jury recommended that the Board of Supervisors consider the Merced. (209) 385-7366 shortage of correctional officers and the dangerous conditions that the officers work in. (209) 726-7977 Fax www.co.merced.ca.us The Board respects the responsibilities that these officers have to face in their line of duty Equal Opportunity Employer regarding dangerous inmates and disturbances, and the difficulties that they face in these positions, which safeguard the general public. The Board also commends the efforts of the Correctional staff that serve at the Main Jail and John Latorraca Correctional facilities Safety for these officers and for the public have always been important to this Board, and it is of concern to us that the Grand Jury considers adding 10 Deputies, 12 Correctional Officers, and 5 Sergeants (3 Operations, 2 Corrections) to the Sheriff's Department during the past five years to be "negligible." In fact, these increases, which come at a cost to the County of $2.46 million per year, represent a 16% increase to the number of full-time operational deputies and sergeants that we have on the street, and a 17.7% increase to the number of full-time correctional officers and sergeants that we have in our jail facilities. In addition to these full-time staff increases, the extra-help budget has increased by more than $700,000 in the past five years from $55,000 in FY 2004/05 to $800,000 in FY 08/09. In FY 08/09, the actual expenditure for these extra-help staff totaled $825,326, a $450,000 increase from the previous year. Using this funding, the Sheriff's Department has been able to hire staff for the facility equivalent to 10 additional full-time officers and 5 additional staff. In the future, if staffing concerns are a question for the Grand Jury, County representatives would like an opportunity to address the Grand Jury's questions prior to the completion of the Grand Jury's investigation to offer a full background on the staffing issues that face the County. The Grand Jury also recommended that the Latorraca facility be remodeled to accommodate increases in the prison population. The Board of Supervisors will work with the Sheriff to identify how the John Latorraca facility can be expanded and identify funding Striving for Excellence Merced County Board of Supervisors Grand Jury Response September 29, 2009 Page 2 alternatives. In March of 2008, the Merced County submitted a proposal and funding application to the California State Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for an additional ninety six beds and associated support facilities at the John Latorraca Correctional Center, however, Merced County's was not among the counties awarded. The Board hopes that the Grand Jury understands the totality of the County's budget situation, as it heads into a multiple-year decline in resources. The County has several revenue sources which are local, and which fund the public safety departments such as the District Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, Corrections, and County Fire, as well as other County departments including Public Works, Planning Department, Agriculture Commissioner and Administration, including the Treasurer-Tax Collector, Auditor-Controller, and Assessor. All of these departments, including our public safety sector, are mainly the responsibility of our local jurisdiction and are funded through property tax, sales tax and other local revenue sources. These local resources must also fund part of other departments which get the bulk of their funding from the state and federal government, including the Human Service Agency and Public Health Department. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2008/09, local resources totaled $122.3 million, including $40.2 million in our fund balance, which is one time funding. For FY 2009/2010, local resources total $97 million, prior to the use of any reserves directed by the Board of Supervisors. That represented a 20% drop in our local resources, including a $5 million loan to the State, as required by Proposition 1A. With the foresight of the Board of Supervisors, the County has a reserve, which has been used this year to help cover the cost of the loan to the State, as well as to ensure that the cost of local responsibilities are covered. The Board is proud to say that despite the 20% decline in revenues this year, the Sheriff's Department including Corrections staff at the jail facilities, the District Attorney's Office and the Public Defender's office were not asked to reduce their staffing levels. Thanks to the ongoing fiscal discipline of the Board, we were able to maintain all of our employees in this important public safety sector, which remains a top priority of the Board of Supervisors. The Grand Jury also mentioned the water filtration system and that the system was off-line much of the time. The water filtration system has been in operation for 15 months, and during that period bottled water has been ordered three times; twice for scheduled media replacement. Infrastructure improvements for the water filtration system should be completed in the March 2010, which would permit the system to store significantly more treated water and eliminate the need for bottled water at the facility. Mandated Inspections – Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Complex The Grand Jury also conducted a mandated inspection of the Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Complex. The Grand Jury seemed to be satisfied with their visit to the facility. No written report of the Grand Jury's findings were included in the final Grand Jury report, despite the visit and the item being listed in the report's table of contents. The Merced County Board of Supervisors commends the men and women who serve at the Juvenile Correctional Complex and is proud to have such dedicated staff and strong management at the facility. Complaint 08-09-09 The Grand Jury investigated a complaint regarding the Housing Authority of the County of Merced where there was a complaint alleging appointees were biased and had conflicts of interest. Response The Board of Supervisors takes great care in its appointment of all members to all of the more than 150 Boards, Commissions and Committees where the Board has appointment responsibilities. For this reason the Board has put into place an open and transparent appointment public appointment process. Members of the Merced County Board of Supervisors Grand Jury Response September 29, 2009 Page 3 public are permitted to see any and all persons who are interested in serving in these positions, as well as watch the public interview process in person, on television, and online. The scores of the individual applicants are posted at the meeting, and the Board takes final action in open session to make appointments. As part of the process, applicants are asked to list any potential conflict of interest so that the Board of Supervisors can evaluate this aspect of the application as part of the appointment process. The Grand Jury has criticized the County for appointing two members to the Housing Authority Board who were previously employees of the Housing Authority. Although the Report implied at least that the County should remove the members, the County is only permitted to remove Housing Authority Board members pursuant to the statute. The Board of Supervisors may only remove members from the commission due to inefficiency, neglect of duty or misconduct in office pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 34282. In regard to the Grand Jury's comments finding that the Board "erred in judgment" by appointing a member to the Housing Authority, it is understood that the Grand Jury can criticize the Board's appointment process in terms of legality and prejudice. Outside of those parameters, the electorate is responsible for judging elected officials decisions and decision making ability, in a democracy and under the law. The Grand Jury has not found the Board's decision-making process to be illegal, so we have no further comment in regards to this unfounded statement. In response to the Grand Jury's final recommendation about sufficient safeguard to "stacking" the Housing Authority, the County stands by the application and interview process for its at-large Boards, Commissions and Committee members. We vehemently disagree that this process does not offer sufficient safeguards. Instead, we believe that the democratic process, by which 5 separately elected members of the Board individually cast a public vote for appointments, is a long-standing and well-regarded safeguard to any "stacking" of Boards, Commissions or Committees. It is disconcerting and concerning that the Grand Jury included this statement in its recommendations, since there is no evidence or discussion of the aforementioned "stacking" anywhere in the complaint or in the findings by the Grand Jury, but solely in the recommendations. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this statement in its entirety. Inspection of Gustine Police Department In the Grand Jury's report involving the Gustine Police Department, it was reported that the Merced County Sheriff's Office removed Gustine Police Department from its radio communication system and that service to Gustine has been refused. In addition, it was reported that felony warrants obtained by Gustine are not being entered into the County-wide warrant database. Included in the Grand Jury's recommendation were recommendations to work with the Sheriff's Department and District Attorney to resolve these concerns. Response The Board of Supervisors was surprised in the findings indicated in this portion of the report and was disappointed that neither the Sheriff's Department nor the District Attorney's Office was contacted by Grand Jury representatives to ensure a complete investigation was conducted. In fact, the District Attorney's office has stressed to the Grand Jury in its departmental response that the office has "no responsibility for the administration of the warrant system in Merced County." The Sheriff also responded to this issue separately, detailing the timeline of events which lead to the current separate radio communications systems used by the Sheriff's Department and the Gustine Police Department. Of particular importance is the Sheriff's response indicating that it was the City of Gustine, not the Merced County Sheriff's Department who initiated the termination of the contract with the County for radio communication, not the County or the Sheriff's Department. In addition, the Board is aware that the Sheriff's Department and Gustine Police Department have been working together to ensure that the citizens of Gustine are provided with proper law enforcement to their Merced County Board of Supervisors Grand Jury Response September 29, 2009 Page 4 community, and the Grand Jury's report does not reflect the positive efforts being made by both organizations. The relationship between Gustine Police Department and the County is very much appreciated, and it has provided a vehicle to effectively resolve concerns that come up. The County has attempted to assist the Gustine Police Department in a number of ways, but many of the issues are beyond the County's scope of control. When the Gustine Police Department entered into its contract with the City of Turlock for Public Safety Answering Point services, entering warrants, doing warrant checks and other services became the responsibility of the new contractor.

No Responses Found 1

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