Final Report 2014-2015*

Conclusions 74

• CL1 Page 91
  MUSD By-law 9000 b "Role of the Board"
• CL2 Page 91
  MUSD By-law 9005 "Governance Standards"
• CL3 Page 91
  MUSD By-law 9010 "Public Statements"
• CL4 Page 91
  MUSD By-law 9011 "Disclosure of Confidential/Privileged Information"
• CL5 Page 91
  MUSD By-law 9012 a "Board Member Electronic Communications" MUSD By-law 9210 "Qualifications"
• CL6
  MUSD By-law 9222 "Removal" 7. 93 BYLAW NO. 9000 (a) MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ROLE OF THE BOARD The Governing Board has been elected by the community to provide leadership and citizen oversight of the District. The Board shall ensure that the District is responsive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of the community. The Board shall work with the Superintendent to fulfill its major responsibilities, which include: 1) Setting the direction for the District through a process that involves the community parents/guardians, students, and staff and is focused on student learning and achievement. 2) Establishing an effective and efficient organizational structure for the District by:
• CL7
  93 BYLAW NO. 9000 (a) MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ROLE OF THE BOARD The Governing Board has been elected by the community to provide leadership and citizen oversight of the District. The Board shall ensure that the District is responsive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of the community. The Board shall work with the Superintendent to fulfill its major responsibilities, which include: 1) Setting the direction for the District through a process that involves the community parents/guardians, students, and staff and is focused on student learning and achievement. 2) Establishing an effective and efficient organizational structure for the District by:
• CL8 Page 94
  Ensure opportunities for the diverse range of views in the community to inform Board deliberations. LEGAL REFERENCE Education Code 35010 Power of governing board to adopt rules for its own governance 35160 Board authority to act in any manner not conflicting with law 35164 Actions by majority vote Government Code Financial interest in contract 1090 Disclosure of confidential information 1098 1125-1129 Incompatible activities 54950-54963 The Ralph M. Brown Act 87300-87313 Conflict of interest code Management Resources CSBA PUBLICATIONS CSBA Professional Governance Standards, 2000 Maximizing School Board Leadership: Boardsmanship, 1996 WEB SITES CSBA: http://www.csba.org Board Adopted: BYLAW NO. 9010 (a) MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PUBLIC STATEMENTS The Governing Board of the Manteca Unified School District recognizes the responsibility of Board members in their role as community leaders to participate in public disclosure on matters of civic or community interest, include those involving the District, and their right to freely express their personal views. However, to ensure communication of a consistent, unified message regarding District issues, Board members are expected to respect the authority of the Board to choose its representatives to communicate its positions and to abide by established protocols. All public statements authorized to be made on behalf of the Board shall be made by the Board President, or if appropriate, by the Superintendent or other designated representative. When speaking for the District, the Board encourages its spokesperson to exercise restraint and tact and to communicate the message in a manner that promotes public confidence in the Board's leadership. The Board and District spokespersons shall not disclose confidential information or information received in closed session except when authorized by a majority of the Board. When speaking to community groups, members of the public, or the media, individual Board members should recognize that their statements may be perceived as reflecting the views and positions of the Board. Board members have a responsibility to identify personal viewpoints as such and not as the viewpoint of the Board. In addition, the Board encourages members who participate on social networking sites, blogs, or other discussion or informational sites to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous, and professional manner and to model good behaviors for district students and the community. Such electronic communications are subject to the same standards and protocols established for other forms of communication, and the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act may likewise apply to them. LEGAL REFERENCE Education Code 35010 Control of district; prescription and enforcement of rules Government Code California Public Records Act 6250-6270 54960 Actions to stop or prevent violation of meeting provisions 54963 Confidential information in closed session MANAGEMENT RESOURCES Websites CSBA: http://www.csba.org Board Adopted: · 李子基 “是不是不会的一个一个一个一个人的，我们就是一个人的一个人的，我们就是一个人的一个人的，我们就会会会会会会会。” BYLAW NO. 9011 MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL/PRIVILEGED INFORMATION The Governing Board of Manteca Unified School District recognizes the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of information acquired as part of a Board member's official duties. Confidential/privileged information shall be released only to the extent authorized by law. Disclosure of Closed Session Information A Board member shall not disclose confidential information acquired during a closed session to a person not entitled to receive such information, unless a majority of the Board has authorized its disclosure. Confidential information means a communication made in a closed session that is specifically related to the basis for the Board to meet lawfully in closed session. The Board shall not take any action set forth in Government Code 549563(c) against any person for disclosing confidential information (as defined above) nor shall the disclosure be considered a violation of Government Code 54963 when the person is:
• CL9
  - 168 Follow-Up Report to the 2012-2013 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0312 Getting Rid of Stuff - Improving Disposal of City and County Surplus Public Assets Preface This report contains the methods the 2013-2014 Grand Jury used to determine if the Lathrop City Council responded to the 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report, "Getting Rid of Stuff - Improving Disposal of City and County Surplus Public Assets." The 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommendations were meant to strengthen the City of Lathrop's process for managing its disposal of surplus public assets. The 2013-2014 Grand Jury Finding and Recommendations, as well as the City's December 2, 2014 responses, are presented verbatim. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury follow-up results are presented after the City's response to the recommendations. A complete copy of the original report and the City's response may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: http://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/2013-2014 roster%20and%20reports.html Follow-Up Investigation The 2014-2015 Grand Jury reviewed the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Final Report, City responses, and additional documentation to determine that the City implemented the 2013-2014 Grand Jury
• CL10 Page 30
  The Grand Jury understands that consolidation or reorganization of the fire districts at the sub regional level is difficult and may take years to fully implement. Many of these districts were formed over 70 years ago, are steeped in tradition, and are closely identified with the communities they serve. Lack of leadership, financial problems, and alleged criminal activity as discovered in MRFD show what can happen when there is a lack of oversight and transparency. Although there are many options available to join forces and services of the fire districts, the Grand Jury believes Consolidation of Districts at Sub Regional Level is the best path going forward. Consolidation would provide financial stability, unity of command, equality of employee pay and benefits, and elimination of redundancies. Strategic planning opportunities would be positive aspects to a more efficient delivery of safety, protection, and service to the public. Depending upon the number of board members selected for the new agency more than 87 elected and appointed positions could be eliminated. Many of these positions are not salaried and there would not be a substantial loss of income to individuals who serve on these boards. Many of the board members have served on the board of fire districts for many years. The foremost objective to consider for any consolidation is the level of service. The quality of service for fire protection must be maintained or improved as a result of any changes in organization. Financial considerations also must be given great weight. Governments, including special districts, must consider new ways to do business given the present fiscal constraints. Services must be effective and efficient. 32
• CL11 Page 74
  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 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: Mokelumne Rural Fire District shall respond to Findings F1.1, F1.2, F1.3, F2.1, and F2.2 Waterloo-Morada Fire District shall respond to findings F1.3, and F2.2 Waterloo-Morada Fire District, Collegeville Fire Protection District, French Camp-McKinley Rural Fire District, Liberty Fire District, Montezuma Fire Protection District, Thornton Fire District, Woodridge Fire District, and Clements Rural Fire District shall respond to Finding F2.2 and Recommendation R3.1 and R3.2. The Local Agency Formation Commissioners shall respond to Finding F3.1 and Recommendations R3.1, and R3.2. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Lesley Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at [email protected]
• CL12 Page 37
  The Board needs to improve its oversight approval of large purchases and large disposals of assets. In addition the special student transportation changes need to be implemented promptly to reduce costs. No single staff work product is more central to good decision making than agenda reports. These reports help the Board define projects, understand complex problems, consider alternative solutions, and determine courses of action. Agenda reports present recommendations involving millions of dollars in public assets, and also assure that administrative processes are managed in a fair and open manner. In addition, the reports are used by the public to understand and participate in the decision-making process of the community. Radio, television, and newspaper reporters use the reports to research and explain issues to their respective audiences. Well-written agenda reports, therefore, serve many important purposes. Without clear, complete, and accurate agenda reports, the opportunity for informed public participation in the decision-making process is diminished and the Board's ability to make good public decisions is made more difficult. Questions remain unanswered: Why did the District "need" to purchase the buses? Was it staffs' intention to replace current buses or establish their own fleet in lieu of contracting with Storer Transportation? Why were the buses never put into service? Is it realistic to believe the District will not incur a loss when the buses are eventually sold? The Board decisions to approve the purchase and sale of the (never used) 31 buses based on ill-conceived and incomplete staff analysis illustrates the importance of Board financial oversight. The 31 buses still remain idle. 39
• CL13 Page 38
  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 Unified School District Governing Board of Trustee shall respond to each Finding and Recommendation contained in this report. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Lesley Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at [email protected]
• CL14 Page 46
  Unattended donation bins operated by for-profit organizations are unsightly and can become safety hazards. They deprive local charities of donations that benefit our community, providing services and jobs. They generally do not make clear that the bins are placed by for-profit companies, which confuses donors making charitable donations. Understaffed code enforcement offices and confusion about whose responsibility it is to remove unwanted bins has led to lack of action. Implementation of local ordinances is an important tool in preventing this problem and will generate additional income to the county and its cities that could go toward code enforcement efforts. 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 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 San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors as well as the city councils of Stockton, Manteca, Tracy, Lodi, Lathrop, Ripon, and Escalon shall respond to each Finding and Recommendation contained in this Report. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Lesley D. Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 48
• CL15 Page 31
  Also, please email the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at [email protected]
• CL16 Page 61
  The Grand Jury's investigation found validity in many issues cited in the complaint it received regarding MUD. Continued deterioration of infrastructure (e.g. concrete sewer pipes) due to H2S corrosion is indisputable and delay in treatment for more than two years did not improve the situation. Persistent staff turnover and vacancies cause challenges for MUD, delay progress, and create a stressful work environment. The loss of institutional knowledge from the exodus of former senior staff is incalculable. During its investigation the Grand Jury also became concerned about what appeared to be a lack of communication in MUD, both vertically - from top-to-bottom and from bottom-to-top within the department's three divisions - and horizontally, across divisions. Safety violations have occurred, however, new management appears to be making necessary changes to correct deficiencies by utilization of a professional services contract to expedite development of MUD's safety and training programs. New management has also implemented production standards and productivity has improved. An emphasis has been placed on providing training opportunities for MUD employees. This investment will be lost if MUD continues to lose skilled technical staff to other municipalities and water agencies offering significantly higher compensation. Services provided by MUD are essential. It cannot function optimally without being fully staffed with skilled, experienced employees. Specialists such as engineers, electricians, mechanics, and plant operators are in high demand. In order for MUD to recruit and retain qualified, skilled technical personnel it must regain a competitive hiring position. Planning is now underway for a $150 million wastewater treatment plant upgrade that is necessary due to the facility's age and to improve the treatment process in order to ensure compliance with deadlines under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit. In accordance with the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance Consent Decree, MUD needs to complete the CCTV requirement of the entire sanitary system by December 31, 63
• CL17 Page 62
  2015. MUD will then need to analyze all the data collected, prioritize, and organize it into a Capital Improvement Program. California is entering into a fourth year of drought, making water more precious each day. Paying more than $1 million a year in overtime and more than $1 million a year in Stockton East Water District pumping tax, due to a lack of qualified MUD personnel, is not a long term solution and is ultimately counterproductive for the workforce, as well as the groundwater. Water, wastewater, and stormwater services are invaluable, yet typically taken for granted by users. Though much of its underground infrastructure is "out of sight, out of mind", its function is crucial to the citizenry and inattention can result in perilous consequences. 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 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 contained in this Report. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Lesley D. Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at [email protected] Appendices Appendix A: Map of Southern Industrial Collection Systems 7 & 8 Appendix B: Delta Water Supply Project Intake Pump Station; elevation changes on non-pile supported areas of the levee. Appendix C: Effects of H2S corrosion on utility vault at Van Buskirk Park. 64
• CL18 Page 63
  427 447 43 Esn HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, @ OpenStreetWap contributors, and the GIS user community 39
• CL19
  36 ESSS Poe Chen 388 438 S Stodao Aetropol 405 43R 45R 41R 35R Industrial Dr. DC 350 450 420 380 Ralph Ave. O 45P 38P Duck Creek 43P dy. 42P Bhols 37 El Dorado St. Slough Fairm 45N 44N Tumpike Rd. 6 2Miles tumpike Rd 44M Bus Houston Ave 17 121 44L 17 351 38 WathSt E 116 4 1 2K 2 36 Collection System ANY pusa ŝ 2" and Above 6" and Below 1 iameter Tillie Lewis Dr. River pho 0.5 33 Pipe D 33 쐴 ppendix A: Map of Southern Industrial Collection Systems 7 & 8 65
• CL20 Page 62
  Appendix B: Delta Water Supply Project Intake Pump Station; elevation changes on non-pile supported areas of the levee. The Intake Pump Station (IPS) on the San Joaquin River west of Interstate 5. A concrete slab has shifted due to soil settling at the IPS. Buckled asphalt at the Intake Pump Station caused by settling ground. Ú 66
• CL21 Page 65
  Appendix C: Effects of H2S corrosion on utility vault at Van Buskirk Park. Photos above and at the right are close-ups of corrosion on the two-year-old utility vault doors in Van Buskirk Park. A corroded utility vault in Van Buskirk Park 67
• CL22 Page 67
  San Joaquin County Grand Jury CITY OF STOCKTON South Stockton Quality of Life As the South Side Goes, So Goes Stockton 2014-2015 Case No. 1414 Summary South Stockton, comprising an area generally south of the Crosstown freeway but excluding Weston Ranch, has an estimated population approaching 100,000 residents. The Grand Jury initiated an investigation of that area prompted by a guided tour and the review of a series of newspaper articles highlighting the issues and the effects of long term neglect of the area. South Stockton suffers from extensive blight, poverty, deteriorating housing, slumlord residential ownership, and vacant lots, a lack of neighborhood services, and widespread drug dealing and crime. Among the findings of the Grand Jury are: South Stockton, for many years, has been neglected and underserved by the City People outside . and inside South Stockton perceive the area being an unsafe place to do business, shop or live 69
• CL23 Page 68
  Code enforcement is inadequately staffed to
• CL24 Page 68
  Stockton deal with the problems of South Stockton, llage enforcement is reactive rather than proactive Among the recommendations of the Grand Jury are: Stockton intry Club Garde
• CL25 Page 68
  City resources should be equitably
• CL26 Page 68
  distributed based on the needs of each City Council district · The City, in its present and future budgets, should provide the necessary resources to increase the staff of both Code Enforcement Stockton and Stockton Police Department (SPD) necessary to adequately address the J (50 longstanding neglect affecting South Stockton South Stockton is generally south of the Crosstown freeway (Hwy. 4), but excluding Weston Ranch.
• CL27 Page 73
  The investigation by the Grand Jury demonstrates that South Stockton, an area of greater poverty and crime than most other areas of Stockton, has not been served well by City Hall in any sustained and meaningful way. City government cannot do it all. It will take herculean efforts by South Stockton civic, social, and religious leaders too, but City government should take the lead. Only the City has the resources, police power and platform for public communication to effect change. South Stockton deserves its share of the City assets. In fact, given years of neglect in this part of the City, where about 75
• CL28 Page 74
  one-third of Stocktonians live, needs more than its share of City resources until the area awakens to become a vibrant and vital part of the City that all citizens want and South Stockton residents deserve. 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 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 of the findings and recommendations. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Lesley D Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also please email the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at [email protected] 76
• CL29 Page 75
  San Joaquin County Grand Jury Manteca Unified Board of Trustees: Board Behavior Creates Conflict 2014-2015 Case No. 1417 Summary After the November, 2014 election, Manteca Unified School District (MUSD) changed ... drastically. Long-time incumbents were replaced by two unknown candidates, Ashley Drain and Alexander Bronson. The election of Sam Fant two years earlier began a transition away from a Board of Trustees largely made up of long-time Manteca Unified residents. During the 2012 election Deborah Romero was voted into office and has since been elected President of the MUSD Board of Trustees (Board). The remaining three trustees have served MUSD as follows: Evelyn Moore for 17 years, Nancy Teicheira for 13, and Mike Seelye for 11. The newer trustees and the long-time members clashed almost immediately, and as learned during this investigation, these conflicts had toxic effects on District operations. After receiving multiple complaints, the 2014-2015 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury began an investigation into MUSD Board behavior and its negative impact on the District. Among the findings uncovered during the investigation: Behavior of some Board members created an atmosphere of fear among employees at many schools and at the District office
• CL30 Page 75
  Coercion by some trustees caused established Board policies and procedures, including
• CL31 Page 75
  safeguards, to be circumvented by some administrators 77
• CL32 Page 76
  · Interference of some Board members with employees' duties, violated Board policies and Bylaws. Spending for legal services directly related to Board members' behavior skyrocketed At least two Board members exercised perceived power inappropriately although all trustees acknowledged that a single Board member has no individual power Among the Grand Jury's recommendations:
• CL33 Page 76
  By September 30, 2015, a policy should be adopted by the MUSD Board of Trustees to
• CL34 Page 76
  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. By September 30, 2015, the MUSD Board should adopt a policy that calls for immediate action when a trustee violates Board by-laws. This would include public discussion at the next board meeting, and/or moving to censure the trustee found to be in violation.
• CL35 Page 125
  The 2014-2015 Grand Jury determined that the majority of Reclamation Districts and LAFCo responded pursuant to statute and in a timely manner to the findings and recommendations made by the 2013-2014 Grand Jury. The Grand Jury appreciates the Reclamation Districts' and LAFCo'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 123
• CL36 Page 31
  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 San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. The Local Agency Formation Commission shall respond to the 2014-2015 Finding 1. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Lesley D. Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email a copy of the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at: [email protected]. 124
• CL37 Page 113
  Follow-Up Report to the 2013-2014 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0413 San Joaquin County Human Services Agency: Fostering Administrative Efficiency Preface This report contains the methods the 2014-2015 Grand Jury used to determine if the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors responded to the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report, "San Joaquin County Human Services Agency: Fostering Administrative Efficiency." The 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommendations were meant to strengthen the San Joaquin Human Services Agency (HSA) administration of the Foster Care program. The 2013-2014 Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations, as well as the agency's August 26, 2014 responses, are presented verbatim in this report. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury follow-up results are presented after the agency's response to each recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the agency's response may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: http://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/2013-2014_roster%20and%20reports.html
• CL38 Page 131
  The 2014-2015 Grand Jury determined that the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors responded pursuant to statute and in a timely manner to the findings and recommendations made by the 2013-2014 Grand Jury. The Grand Jury appreciates the County'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). 129
• CL39 Page 31
  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 San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to the 2014-2015 Finding 1. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Lesley D. Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email a copy of the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at: [email protected]. 130
• CL40 Page 113
  Follow-Up Report to the 2013-2014 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0713 Stockton Unified School District: Do After-School Programs Compromise Student Safety? Preface This report contains the methods the 2014-2015 Grand Jury used to determine if the Board of Trustees of the Stockton Unified School District (SUSD) responded to the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report, "Stockton Unified School District: Do After-School Programs Compromise Student Safety?" The 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommendations were meant to strengthen how the District works with its Community Partners to provide after-school services to SUSD students. The report focused on hiring practices of the Community Partners. The 2013-2014 Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations, as well as the District's August 13, 2014 responses, are presented verbatim in this report. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury follow-up results are presented after the District's response to each recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the District's response may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: http://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/2013-2014 roster%20and%20reports.html
• CL41 Page 137
  The 2014-2015 Grand Jury determined that the District Board of Trustees responded pursuant to statute and in a timely manner to the findings and recommendations made by the 2013-2014 Grand Jury except for the privacy issues stated above. The Grand Jury appreciates the District'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). 135
• CL42 Page 113
  Follow-Up Report to the 2013-2014 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0813 Stockton Unified School District: Swiftly Hired Preface This report contains the methods the 2014-2015 Grand Jury used to determine if the Board of Trustees of the Stockton Unified School District (SUSD) responded to the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report, "Stockton Unified School District: Swiftly Hired." The 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommendations were meant to improve District police personnel hiring practices. The 2013-2014 Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations, as well as the District's August 13, 2014 and February 24, 2015 responses, are presented verbatim in this report. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury follow-up results are presented after the District's response to each recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the District's response may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: http://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/2013-2014_roster%20and%20reports.html
• CL43 Page 113
  Follow-Up Report to the 2013-2014 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 1113 Stockton City Council and the Brown Act: The Law Applies to Everyone Preface This report contains the methods the 2014-2015 Grand Jury used to determine if the Stockton City Council responded to the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report, "Stockton City Council and the Brown Act: The Law Applies to Everyone." The 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommendation was meant to strengthen the City's computerized security functions. The 2013-2014 Grand Jury Findings and Recommendation, as well as the City's August 27, 2014 responses, are presented verbatim in this report. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury follow-up results are presented after the City's response to the one recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the City's response may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: http://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/2013-2014 roster%20and%20reports.html
• CL44 Page 141
  The 2014-2015 Grand Jury determined that the Stockton City Council responded pursuant to statute and in a timely manner to the findings and recommendation made by the 2013-2014 Grand Jury. The Grand Jury appreciates the City'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). 146
• CL45 Page 113
  Follow-Up Report to the 2013-2014 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 1213 Tracy Municipal Airport: Development vs. Safety Zones Preface This report contains the methods the 2014-2015 Grand Jury used to determine if the Tracy City Council responded to the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report, "Tracy Municipal Airport: Development vs. Safety Zones." The 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommendations were meant to strengthen the City of Tracy's internal policies and procedures. The 2013-2014 Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations, as well as the City's September 2, 2014 responses, are presented verbatim in this report. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury follow-up results are presented after the City's response to each recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the City's response may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: http://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/2013-2014 roster%20and%20reports.html
• CL46 Page 153
  The 2014-2015 Grand Jury determined that the Tracy City Council responded pursuant to statute and in a timely manner to the findings and recommendations made by the 2013-2014 Grand Jury. The Grand Jury appreciates the City'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). 151
• CL47 Page 113
  Follow-Up Report to the 2013-2014 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 1613 Agency Approvals of Responses to Grand Jury Reports: Do They Know What They Approve? Preface This report contains the methods the 2014-2015 Grand Jury used to determine if San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and the seven cities of the County responded to the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report, "Agency Approval of Responses to Grand Jury Reports: Do They Know What They Approve?" The 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommendation was meant to enhance the deliberative process of public agencies when considering their responses to Grand Jury reports during open meetings. The 2013-2014 Grand Jury Findings and Recommendation, as well as the eight agency responses received between July 15 to December 3, 2014, are presented verbatim in this report. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury follow-up results are presented after each agency response to each recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the agency response may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: http://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/2013-2014 roster%20and%20reports.htm 153
• CL48 Page 114
  Follow-Up Investigation The 2014-2015 Grand Jury reviewed the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Final Report, agency responses, agendas, minutes, and video recordings (where available) to determine that the agencies implemented the 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommendation. Findings, Recommendation, and Agency Responses Stockton City Council Members Do Not Agree With Their Own Responses 1.0 2013-2014 Finding 1.1: "A majority of Stockton City Council Members stated that they disagreed with official responses they had previously approved on August 13, 2013, which raises concerns of whether members read the report and responses." Agency Response: "The respondent partially agrees and partially disagrees with this finding. Without understanding the detail of the disagreement it is impossible to respond to the finding. There is no data provided to help determine what portions of the report were called into question and if it was a minor detail or a major policy implication. Five reports were submitted to the City by the Grand Jury in 2012- 2013. These reports contained a total of 40 findings and 33 recommendations. This led to a lengthy staff report with multiple attachments and complex responses, particularly to a report that outlined the City's financial status (Case No. 0112 - Recovering from Stockton's Financial Sinkhole - Don't fall back in). The complexity of reviewing various reports may have led to confusion on the part of Council to address any issues regarding opposition to the responses." 2013-2014 Finding 1.2: "A majority of Stockton City Council Members stated that they disagreed with official responses they had previously approved on August 13, 2013, which raises concerns about why they did not question the responses at the public Council Meeting when their responses were approved." Agency Response: "The respondent partially agrees and partially disagrees with this finding. Although, the City encourages dialogue and discussion, without understanding the detail of the disagreement it is impossible to respond to the finding." 154
• CL49 Page 157
  2.0 How Responses to Grand Jury Reports are Approved Board of Supervisors 2013-2014 Finding 2.1: "Over the last four years, almost all responses by the County and the Cities were approved by unanimous votes after little or no discussion by the elected officials or the public." Agency Response: "Partially disagree, Each of the three responses from the County Board of Supervisors over the past four years was, in fact, approved by unanimous vote (no Board response was required in 2011). However, in both 2010 and 2013, Board members removed items from the consent agenda in order to ask questions of staff before ultimately voting to approve responses. For example, in 2010, dialogue was held regarding the issue of voting by mail, and in 2013, several questions were posed regarding surplus assets, group homes, and crime impacts. In fact, the Board directed staff to modify language in the proposed response in order to clarify its priorities on criminal justice." 2013-2014 Recommendation 2.1: "All legislative bodies publicly explain the reasons for its response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations prior to voting to approve their response." Agency Response: "The recommendation will not be implemented. County staff are the subject matter experts upon whom the Board relies to implement programs, manage resources, and facilitate day-to- day operations, all within the Board's general policy guidance. As such, staff is in the best position to draft responses, which are sometimes technical in nature, to Grand Jury reports for Board consideration. It is wrong to assume that just because there are no questions or discussion about an item, that Board members have not reviewed the material or do not understand the issue. Hopefully, it is just the opposite, and the absence of discussion is the product of proposed responses that are clear and concise, and that are representative of the Board's policies. Ultimately, regardless of whether items are placed on the consent agenda or scheduled for discussion, both Board members and the general public have an opportunity to ask questions and comment or express concerns about an item prior to a vote being taken. Therefore, it is unnecessary to have the Board reiterate separately its concurrence with proposed responses prepared by County staff." The 2014-2015 Grand Jury reviewed the August 26, 2014 agenda, minutes, and video recording of the Board of Supervisor's Meeting. The agency's response was listed as item #19 of the Consent - General Government portion of the agenda. This consent item was approved with no discussion. No further action is required. 155
• CL50 Page 158
  City of Escalon 2013-2014 Finding 2.1: "Over the last four years, almost all responses by the County and the Cities were approved by unanimous votes after little or no discussion by the elected officials or the public." Agency Response: "The City agrees with the finding." 2013-2014 Recommendation 2.1: "All legislative bodies publicly explain the reasons for its response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations prior to voting to approve their response." Agency Response: "The City agrees with the recommendation. The agenda item will be placed under Administrative Matters to allow for discussion prior to voting." The 2014-2015 Grand Jury reviewed the July 21, 2014 agenda and minutes of the City Council Meeting. The agency's response was listed as item #7 of the "Administrative Matters" portion of the agenda. This item was approved by unanimous vote. No further action is required. City of Lathrop 2013-2014 Finding 2.1: "Over the last four years, almost all responses by the County and the Cities were approved by unanimous votes after little or no discussion by the elected officials or the public." Agency Response: "Council disagrees with this finding as it pertains to the City of Lathrop. Grand Jury responses are prepared by the City Attorney's office and presented to Council in open session and voted on at its regularly scheduled public council meetings after what is deemed by Council as sufficient discussion. Nonetheless, in order to encourage public discussion, City Staff plans to list future Grand Jury Reports in the "Scheduled" portion of the agenda instead of the "Consent" portion of the agenda. Council requests Grand Jury replies to this and Council's future responses. Council would like those replies to contain an evaluation of City's responses including a statement by the Grand Jury explaining whether it agrees with the City's response." 2013-2014 Recommendation 2.1: "All legislative bodies publicly explain the reasons for its response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations prior to voting to approve their response." Agency Response: "The recommendation has been implemented as follows: City Council has requested the listing of future Grand Jury Reports in the "Scheduled" portion of Council's agenda instead of the "Consent" portion of the agenda. Council seeks Grand Jury replies to this and Council's future responses. Council would like those Grand Jury replies to contain an evaluation of the City's response including a statement by the Grand Jury explaining whether it agrees with the City's response." 156
• CL51 Page 159
  The 2014-2015 Grand Jury reviewed the August 4, 2014 agenda, minutes and video recording of the City Council Meeting. The agency's response was listed as item #5.7 on the agenda. This item was approved by unanimous vote after a presentation by the City Attorney and a question and answer period. Council Members commented on the matter. No further action is required. City of Lodi 2013-2014 Finding 2.1: "Over the last four years, almost all responses by the County and the Cities were approved by unanimous votes after little or no discussion by the elected officials or the public." Agency Response: "Lodi agrees with this finding in part and disagrees in part. Lodi agrees that the majority of its responses were approved unanimously. Lodi further agrees that there was little literal discussion about the approvals. However, focusing exclusively on literal discussion misapprehends the majority of the legislative process. Legislatures speak through majority assent towards a proposition. That proposition must necessarily be in written form. Each of Lodi's responses over the four-year period were fully reasoned and explained in staff reports and draft responses. Council, following review and consideration, adopted each of those reasoned responses." 2013-2014 Recommendation 2.1: "All legislative bodies publicly explain the reasons for its response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations prior to voting to approve their response." Agency Response: "The City already implements this recommendation. The reasoning behind the response is fully detailed in the staff report to Council and letter responding to the Grand Jury. Both are published as part of the City's agenda in advance of the Council meeting and, following Council review and consideration, adopted by the Council." The 2014-2015 Grand Jury reviewed the December 3, 2014 agenda and minutes of the City Council Meeting. The agency's response was listed as item C-5 of the Consent Calendar portion of the agenda. This item was approved by unanimous vote. No further action is required. City of Manteca 2013-2014 Finding 2.1: "Over the last four years, almost all responses by the County and the Cities were approved by unanimous votes after little or no discussion by the elected officials or the public." Agency Response: "Over the last four years, the Manteca City Council has been asked to provide responses to three Grand Jury reports. On two of those occasions, the draft responses were placed on the Consent Calendar. Both times, the items were requested to be pulled by individual Council members for additional questions/comments. The responses were then approved by the Council. On the third occasion, the draft response was placed elsewhere on the Council agenda for discussion. On that occasion, the City Manager introduced the item, and the Mayor asked the other Council members if they had questions or comments on the item. With no additional questions or comments by the Council, the response was approved." 157
• CL52 Page 157
  2013-2014 Recommendation 2.1: "All legislative bodies publicly explain the reasons for its response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations prior to voting to approve their response." Agency Response: "The City Council disagrees with making this a requirement of the legislative body. As demonstrated in past Council meetings where draft responses were presented, individual City Council members have asked questions or commented on the draft responses that were presented. Any member of the City Council or the public can speak to any item on the Council agenda, including questioning the draft response, seeking clarification about the draft response, or expressing opposition to the prepared draft response. Items presented at City Council meetings are done so under the "deliberative privilege" process – the Council members can elect to deliberate/discuss the items or they can elect not to comment further." The 2014-2015 Grand Jury reviewed the July 15, 2014 agenda and minutes of the City Council Meeting. The agency's response was listed as Section E - Mayor and Council portion of the agenda. This item was approved by unanimous vote. No further action is required. City of Ripon 2013-2014 Finding 2.1: "Over the last four years, almost all responses by the County and the Cities were approved by unanimous votes after little or no discussion by the elected officials or the public." Agency Response: "After review of the City Council of the City of Ripon's process for reviewing and approving responses to Grand Jury Reports, the City disagrees with the Grand Jury's categorical finding that because "little or no discussion by the elected officials or the public" of its Grand Jury responses occurs at City Council meetings, the elected officials "accept whatever their staff propose". While this may be the case in other municipalities, it has not historically been true in Ripon. Because of varying complexity of the issues presented in Grand Jury Reports, and due to City staff's in-depth knowledge of City matters, City staff first reviews Grand Jury Reports and prepares draft responses with supporting materials for review by the City Council. Additionally, the City Attorney's Office reviews the reports and draft responses for any legal or policy issues that should be addressed. The report, draft responses and supporting materials are then distributed to the City Council in advance for their review, in sufficient time to provide them with ample opportunity to prepare any questions or suggested modifications. During the review period, City staff works cooperatively with the City Council in providing any answers to questions raised by individual Council Members. Because of this preliminary review process, where the City Council is provided with the information for review in advance, the responses are placed on the consent calendar, where an opportunity for discussion is provided to both the Council and the public. If no modifications are required, the responses are approved. If any Councilmember, or any member of the public wishes to pull the proposed responses from the consent calendar for discussion, they are given the opportunity to do so at the City Council meeting." 2013-2014 Recommendation 2.1: "All legislative bodies publicly explain the reasons for its response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations prior to voting to approve their response." Agency Response: "The City shall address all future Grand Jury Reports and potential responses in the 158
• CL53 Page 161
  following manner. First, the City Council will agendize the Grand Jury Report and the City's potential response as a discussion item at a Council meeting. This will provide both the City Council and the public with an opportunity to review and discuss the Report and weigh in on the City's potential response. Direction will be given to staff at the initial meeting so staff can prepare a final draft response for consideration at a subsequent meeting. Next, the City Council will place the Report and final draft response as a consent item at a subsequent meeting. At the subsequent meeting, the City Council and the public will again have the opportunity to review and discuss the Report and the proposed response, if they desire to do so. In addition to the normal review and input process exercised by the City in responding to Grand Jury Reports, the City Council shall make every effort at the public meeting(s) where Grand Jury Reports and responses are agendized to first state whether they wholly or partially agree or disagree with the draft responses and their reasoning behind their decision prior to voting on the responses." The 2014-2015 Grand Jury reviewed the August 5, 2014 agenda and minutes of the City Council Meeting. The agency's response was listed as item #4-A of the Consent Calendar. This item was approved by unanimous vote. No further action is required. City of Tracy 2013-2014 Finding 2.1: "Over the last four years, almost all responses by the County and the Cities were approved by unanimous votes after little or no discussion by the elected officials or the public." Agency Response: "The City agrees that, over the last four years, its responses to Grand Jury Reports have been approved by unanimous votes. However, elected officials and the public have participated in some discussion regarding such responses. Over the last four years, the City of Tracy responded to two Grand Jury Reports. Both were approved with unanimous votes of the City Council. One report was approved on the consent calendar with no discussion. The other report was considered on the City Council's regular agenda and it was discussed by both the City Council and the public." 2013-2014 Recommendation 2.1: "All legislative bodies publicly explain the reasons for its response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations prior to voting to approve their response." Agency Response: "This recommendation will be implemented. The City will place future responses to Grand Jury Reports on the City Council's regular agenda for discussion and consideration. In addition to a written staff report, staff will also provide a verbal report, so the City Council and public better understand the City's response." The 2014-2015 Grand Jury reviewed the September 2, 2014 agenda, minutes and video recording of the City Council Meeting. The agency's response was listed as item #9 on the agenda. This item was approved by unanimous vote. No further action is required. 159
• CL54 Page 162
  City of Stockton 2013-2014 Finding 2.1: "Over the last four years, almost all responses by the County and the Cities were approved by unanimous votes after little or no discussion by the elected officials or the public." Agency Response: "The respondent agrees with this finding." 2013-2014 Recommendation 2.1: "All legislative bodies publicly explain the reasons for its response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations prior to voting to approve their response." Agency Response: "The respondent agrees with the recommendation. The Legislation Environmental Committee will develop a policy for Council approval on how future Grand Jury responses will be presented to Council to include follow-up briefings on the responses submitted to the Grand Jury. Until this policy is developed, Grand Jury Report Responses will be placed on New Business as separate items on the public City Council meeting agenda in order to allow for any needed discussion." The 2014-2015 Grand Jury reviewed the August 12, 2014 agenda, minutes and video recording of the City Council Meeting. The agency's response was listed as item #15.2 – New Business on the agenda. This item was approved by unanimous vote. No further action is required.
• CL55 Page 162
  The 2014-2015 Grand Jury determined that each agency responded pursuant to statute and in a timely manner to the findings and recommendation made by the 2013-2014 Grand Jury. Openness and transparency are essential to public trust and improving government functions. The Grand Jury appreciates the agencies' 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). 160
• CL56 Page 163
  Follow-Up Report to the 2012-2013 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0112 Recovering from Stockton's Financial Sinkhole - Don't Fall Back In Preface This report contains the methods the 2014-2015 Grand Jury used to determine if the City of Stockton responded to the 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report, "Recovering from Stockton's Financial Sinkhole - Don't Fall Back In." The 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommendations were meant to strengthen how the City of Stockton manages its financial resources. The 2013-2014 Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations, as well as the City's August 26, 2014 responses, are presented verbatim. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury follow-up results are presented after the City's response to each recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the City's response may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: http://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/2013-2014_roster%20and%20reports.html
• CL57 Page 173
  The 2014-2015 Grand Jury determined that the Lathrop City Council responded pursuant to statute and in a timely manner to the finding and recommendations made by the 2013-2014 Grand Jury. The Grand Jury appreciates the City'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). 171
• CL58 Page 163
  Follow-Up Report to the 2012-2013 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0912 Crime-Budget Cuts + AB109 = Safe Communities Preface This report contains the methods the 2013-2014 Grand Jury used to determine if the City of Stockton responded to the 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report, "Crime-Budget Cuts + AB 109 = Safe Communities". The 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommendation was meant to increase the efficiency in county-wide law enforcement. The 2013-2014 Grand Jury Finding and Recommendation, as well as the City's August 26, 2014 response, are presented verbatim in this report. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury follow-up results are presented after the City's response to the recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the City's response may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: http://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/2013-2014 roster%20and%20reports.html Follow-Up Investigation The 2014-2015 Grand Jury reviewed the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Final Report, City responses, and interviewed City of Stockton staff to determine that the City implemented the 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommendation. 173
• CL59 Page 176
  Finding, Recommendation, Agency Responses and Follow-Up Results 2013-2014 Finding 1: The Stockton Police Department has maintained an aggressive recruitment program but has not been able to significantly increase its staffing due to the number of officers leaving the department. Agency Response: "The respondent agrees with this finding." 2013-2014 Recommendation 1: The Stockton City Council review and implement retention strategies for police officers before December 31, 2014. Agency Response: "The respondent agrees in part with this recommendation. The City agrees that a significant hurdle to reducing crime is the retention of qualified police officers. The Police Department is actively engaged in researching potential retention strategies. These strategies have been reviewed with the City Council and the Police Department has employed those efforts that are best suited to our situation. These strategies are being measured for their effectiveness and new strategies are being developed and considered." The 2014-2015 Grand Jury determined that the City of Stockton is actively researching potential retention strategies. A few of the immediate recruitment strategies now being implemented include providing an online interest application for upcoming testing, offering orientations and practicing physical agility courses, engaging applicants more regularly throughout the hiring process, forming community partnerships, recruiting nationally, and including more special assignment opportunities (i.e. Neighborhood Blitz, more Field Training Officers, Academy Recruitment Training Officer, and other recruiting positions, as well as some Ceasefire related positions.) There has been a better working relationship between labor unions and the City and open communication continues and is encouraged. The City also offers employee appreciation special events and awards, an overall wellness program, and the Chief is meeting with all staff considering leaving. Long-term strategies include a storefront recruiting station, expanding volunteer programs to mentor and prepare individuals, Sentinel and Junior, and targeting local schools. No further action is required.
• CL60 Page 170
  The 2014-2015 Grand Jury determined that the City of Stockton responded pursuant to statute and in a timely manner to the finding and recommendation made by the 2013-2014 Grand Jury. The Grand Jury appreciates the City'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 174
• CL61 Page 31
  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). 175
• CL62 Page 163
  Follow-Up Report to the 2012-2013 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 1112 District Board Ignores the Peoples' Right to be Informed Preface This report contains the methods the 2013-2014 Grand Jury used to determine if the San Joaquin County's Mosquito and Vector Control District responded to the 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report, "District Board Ignores the Peoples' Right to be Informed." The 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommendations were meant to strengthen the Board of Trustees accounting practices and transparency. The 2013-2014 Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations, as well as the District's May 8, 2015 responses, are presented verbatim. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury follow-up results are presented after the District's response to the recommendations. A complete copy of the original report and the District's response may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: http://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/2013-2014 roster%20and%20reports.html Follow-Up Investigation The 2014-2015 Grand Jury reviewed the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Final Report, District responses, and additional documentation to determine that the District implemented the 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommendations. 177
• CL63 Page 128
  Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses and Follow-Up Results 2013-2014 Finding 1: "Consideration of a "Fund Balance Policy" has not been an agenda item for the trustees." Agency Response: "The District agrees that this is a correct statement of fact." 2013-2014 Finding 2: "The District did not include the 2012-2013 audited financial reports on their website as they stated they would." Agency Response: "The District disagrees that this is a correct statement of fact." 2013-2014 Recommendation 1: "Prior to October 1, 2014, the District adopt a Fund Balance Policy." Agency Response: "The initial recommendation of the Grand Jury was that an explanation of the District reserve fund and its purposes be included as part of the District budget. The current custom and practice of the District is to provide information regarding the funds as part of the budget resolution. That information combined with the notes to the yearly audit do provide detailed information regarding the various funds including the reserve funds. I have attached a copy of the budget resolution, Resolution 14/15-1 and a copy of pages 17 through 21 of the financial statements. The Board believes that this meets the recommendations of the 2012-2013 Grand Jury report. At the time the District was considering adopting a standalone policy for reserve funds and was working with its outside auditor to create such a policy. However, the auditor retired. The position of auditor went out to bid and a new contract was obtained. Due to the interruption, consideration of a fund balance policy was not completed. The Board feels that between the annual budget resolution and the financial statements, a full explanation of the funds purposes and use is available. However, this practice is not contained in a separate stand-alone policy document. Staff will continue this effort with the District's outside auditor to create and include a fund balance policy that sets forth the District's current practice of the types of funds allowable and the purposes of any restrictions on those funds." The 2014-2015 Grand Jury received and reviewed Resolution 14/15-1, San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District Approving the Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget and Related Fund Designations and Balances, as well as the Notes to Financial Statements dated June 30, 2014. No further action is required. 2013-2014 Recommendation 2: "Prior to October 1, 2014, the District add the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 audited financial reports to its website." Agency Response: "The District did add a Fiscal year 2012-2013 audited financial report to its website and did so in July of 2014. It was placed in the category of Board Information. On review Management determined that it should be more prominently placed. The audited financial report is now 178
• CL64 Page 181
  available under a "Quick Links" heading available on the website. The Board believes that this provides the public with easy access to the audit and meets the recommendation of the Grand Jury." The 2014-2015 Grand Jury determined that the audited financial reports for the San Joaquin County Mosquito & Vector Control District are located at simosquito.org, which is the District's website. No further action is required.
• CL65 Page 181
  The 2014-2015 Grand Jury determined that the Board of Trustees of the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District responded pursuant to statute and in a timely manner to the findings and recommendations made by the 2013-2014 Grand Jury. The Grand Jury appreciates the District'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). 179
• CL66 Page 183
  Section V resentations Tours and Presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ours an
• CL67
  TOURS 9/12/2014 Older Adult Services and County Mental Health Services Bus Tour of South Stockton 9/17/2014 9/18/2014 Stockton Unified School District Police Department 10/8/2014 San Joaquin County Jail and Honor Farm 10/22/2014 Deuel Vocational Institute Prison and Dairy Farm Stockton Municipal Utilities District (MUD) Delta Water Treatment Plant 11/3/2014 and the Intake Pump Station 11/10/2014 MUD Regional Wastewater Control Facility 1/28/2015 Chaderjian and O.H. Close Youth Correctional Facilities Port of Stockton 2/18/2015 California Healthcare Facility 2/25/2015 3/25/2015 San Joaquin County Juvenile Detention Center 5/6/2015 San Joaquin County Office of Education 6/2/2015 Holding Cells at Manteca and Lodi; Juvenile Court Staging Area PRESENTATIONS James Glaser, executive officer, San Joaquin County LAFCo 8/27/2014 9/3/2014 Steve Moore, sheriff, San Joaquin County Vic Singh, behavioral health director, San Joaquin Behavioral Health 9/10/2014 Eric Jones, police chief, Stockton Police Department 11/5/2014 12/17/2014 John Solis, executive director, San Joaquin County WorkNet 1/14/2015 Sally Wooden, director of marketing, Goodwill Industries of San Joaquin Valley Inc. 182
• CL68
  Section VI About the Grand Jury ...... 184 How the Grand Jury is Organized ...... 184 Desirable Attributes of a Grand Juror ...... 185 Benefits of Being a Grand Juror ...... 185 Qualifications ...... 185 Complaint Procedure ...... 186 To Learn More .................................... Tre
• CL69 Page 186
  About the Grand Jury The San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury's duty is to address citizens' concerns regarding the operation of local government entities. The Civil Grand Jury is comprised of 19 citizens who are impaneled annually for a one-year term. The Grand Jury has a separate and different function than that of a trial jury and does not hear cases in a courtroom. Instead, grand jurors examine and investigate local governmental activities within San Joaquin County. The responsibilities of the civil Grand Jury encompass the examination of all aspects of county government, including school and special assessment districts, to ensure that the county is being governed lawfully, efficiently and that public monies are being handled appropriately. The Grand Jury may conduct investigations of public agencies and the administration and affairs of any city within the county. The Grand Jury is authorized by law to: Inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the county; . Investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of city and county offices, . departments and their functions; Inquire into the allegations of willful or corrupt misconduct of public officials; Investigate into the activities of all school and special assessment districts within the county; . Submit a final report of its findings and recommendations to the Presiding Judge of the Superior 0 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. 184
• CL70 Page 187
  Desirable Attributes of a Grand Juror Grand Jury service is a volunteer position with modest monthly compensation for meetings and round trip mileage. Members receive a wealth of experience and provide a vital service to the citizens of their community. Good health . Open-mindedness . Knowledge of and interest in local government and community affairs Skill in working productively with others in a group setting where respect and patience are essential 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:
• CL71 Page 187
  You will enjoy the satisfaction and pride of doing an important job.
• CL72 Page 187
  There is the experience of being a member of a respected panel. . You will become part of a body of people with the unique authority to see local government workings not available to most county citizens. 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:
• CL73 Page 187
  Be at least 18 years old; . Be a resident of San Joaquin County for at least one year immediately prior to the beginning of . your service; Possess intelligence, sound judgment and good character; . Have sufficient knowledge of English language to communicate orally and in writing; . You cannot be considered for selection: If you are serving as a trial juror in any court in the State of California; . If you have been discharged as a Grand Juror in any California court within the previous year; If you have been convicted of malfeasance in office or any other high crime; . If you are serving as an elected public office ٠ 185
• CL74 Page 188
  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 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 186

Agency Responses 4

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

No Responses Found 1

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