Summary of Responses to the 2011-2012 San Mateo County

Recommendations 1

• R4
  SUMMARY OF RESPONSES The 2012-2013 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury (2013 Grand Jury) reviewed the Final Reports issued by the 2011-2012 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury (2012 Grand Jury) and the formal responses filed by recipients. This practice provides continuity and permits each successive Grand Jury to track the responses made by the affected agencies to the Recommendations of each Final Report. The 2012 Grand Jury issued 12 Final Reports that required responses from a total of 28 individual elected bodies or agencies (Respondents). The 2012 Grand Jury made 177 Recommendations. Most responses stated that that a Recommendation had been implemented, would be implemented, or would not be implemented. Ten Respondents stated that further study of 38 Recommendations would be required. The 2013 Grand Jury wrote "follow-up" letters to these ten Respondents (see below). After including the responses to these follow-up letters, the following final results were tabulated: NUMBER PERCENT OF RESPONSE TOTAL Implemented (Fully or Partially) 96 54% Will Implement 25 14% Requires Further Study As noted above, ten Respondents indicated that "further study" of 38 Recommendations would be required. California Penal Code Section 9333.05(b)(3) provides in this circumstance that these Respondents must conclude such study within "six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report." No Respondent stating that further study of a Recommendation was required updated its response within this six-month period. On March 20, 2013, the Grand Jury mailed follow-up letters requesting updates from the 10 Respondents that stated "further study" (or its equivalent) was required. The letter requested these 10 Respondents to update their responses. Of the Respondents who replied to these letters, seven Recommendations had been implemented, ten Recommendations will be implemented, and seven will not. These results are included in the table above. The 14 "further study" responses noted in the table above result from the failure of the following Respondents to reply to the follow-up letter: Emergency Services Council, Pacifica, San Mateo County (regarding one Final Report), and the Sheriff's Office (regarding two separate Final Reports).2 The Grand Jury did not attempt to contact these agencies that did not fulfill their statutory responsibility by providing the Grand Jury with updated information regarding their "will study" responses. RECOMMENDATIONS Over all, the Recommendations made last term were constructive and the 2011-2012 Grand Jury had a productive and relevant year. We do not consider additional actions as necessary for any of the Final Reports. A note is in order regarding future Summary of Responses to Grand Jury Final Reports. The 2013 Civil Grand Jury changed the format of its reports. Previous years' reports contained sections labeled "Findings," "Conclusions," and "Recommendations." The "Findings" in these reports were statements of facts. The "Conclusions" and "Recommendations" were just that - conclusions and recommendations. In order to conform the Grand Jury reports to those issued by most other California counties, the 2013 Grand Jury adopted the format recommended by the California Grand Jury Association. This format includes the "facts" in the "Discussion" section. Conclusions are now contained in the "Findings" section. Recommendations remain in the "Recommendations" section. Future Summary of Reports should report on responses to the Findings (formerly "Conclusions") and Recommendations of Final Reports. The 2013 Grand Jury opted not to report on the "Findings," i.e. facts, recited in the 2012 Grand Jury Final Reports. Recipients of the 2012 Grand Jury Final Reports were not asked to respond to the "Conclusions" contained in those reports. CLOSING In large measure, the responses received to the Final Reports were well considered and thoughtful. One improvement to be considered would be to require timely follow-up by Respondents when activity and decision-making is deferred. In most cases, when future study and/or action are promised, the Grand Jury is left unaware whether such action is actually taken and to what result. The 2013 Grand Jury thanks all Respondents for careful consideration of the Grand Jury's work on behalf of San Mateo County residents. San Mateo County responded to two letters regarding two Final Reports. The Sheriff's Office responded to one letter regarding one Final Report. REPORT TITLE RESPONDING RECOMMENDATIONS AGENCIES Implementation Status Number of Response Implemented Will Implement Will Study Will Not Implement Recommendations Still No Emergency Yes 2 - Slated for Emergency 2 Action Plans for Services Council consideration at Levee Failures 9/20/12 meeting In San Mateo 3 San Mateo County Yes 1 1 1 County Board of Supervisors 3 3 East Palo Alto City Yes Council 2 Foster City City 3 Yes 1 Council Redwood City City 2 Yes 3 1 Council San Carlos City 3 Yes 3 Council 3 2 San Mateo City Yes 1 Council South San Yes 3 3 Francisco City Council 7 - Slated for San Mateo County Yes 7 consideration at Sheriff 9/20/12 meeting 3 Controlling the San Mateo County Yes 2 - Partial 1 County's Manager Escalating Retirement Costs Can an Electronic San Mateo County Yes 2 2 Monitoring Sheriff Program for Pre- Trial Detainees Help to Reduce Jail Overcrowding? Food-Borne 7 2 San Mateo County Yes 4 1 Illness: A Moving Manager Target Does San Mateo Atherton Town 2 Yes 2 County Need 13 Council Separate Police REPORT TITLE RESPONDING RECOMMENDATIONS AGENCIES Implementation Status Number of Response Implemented Will Implement Will Study Will Not Implement Recommendations 2 East Palo Alto City Yes 2 Council Colma Town Yes 2 2 Council 2 Daly City City 2 Yes Council Foster City City 2 2 Yes Council Half Moon Bay City 2 2 - Contracts with Yes Council San Mateo Hillsborough Town 2 Yes 2 Council San Mateo County Yes 1 1 Board of Supervisors Brisbane City 2 2 Yes Council 2 2 Burlingame City Yes Council 2 Pacifica City Yes 1 1 Council Menlo Park City 2 Yes 2 (1 partial) Council Millbrae City 2 2 - Contracts with Yes Council San Mateo Portola Valley 2 2 - Contracts with Yes Town Council San Mateo 2 Redwood City City 1 Yes 1 Council 2 San Bruno City Yes 1 1 Council San Carlos City 2 2 Yes Council San Mateo City Yes 2 1 1 Council REPORT TITLE RESPONDING RECOMMENDATIONS AGENCIES Implementation Status Response Number of Implemented Will Implement Will Study Will Not Implement Recommendations Council San Mateo San Mateo County 3 Court and Yes 3 Community Office of Education Schools 2 2 The County, San San Mateo County Yes 4 Carlos and Cal Board of Fire, A Missed Supervisors 2 Opportunity? Coastside Fire Yes 2 Protection District Colma Fire District 2 1 - Currently no Yes 1 union representative associated with Fire District Menlo Park Fire 2 2 Yes Protection District 2 Atherton Town Yes 2 - Not included in Council study, lack of knowledge concerning recommendations Belmont City Yes 2 2 Council Brisbane City 2 1 1 - Will be studied if Yes Council city determines the need 1 - Not Applicable to Burlingame City Yes 6 5 (qualified) Council Burlingame Colma Town 2 Yes 2 - Not applicable to Colma Council Daly City City 2 2 - Current Yes Council arrangement satisfactory, will consider if circumstances change East Palo Alto City 2 2 Yes Council REPORT TITLE RESPONDING RECOMMENDATIONS AGENCIES Implementation Status Response Number of Implemented Will Implement Will Study Will Not Implement Recommendations Council disagree, pending representation of "fiscally qualified cities" Half Moon Bay City 2 2 - No Yes Council recommendations are relevant to the City Hillsborough Town Yes 2 2 Council Millbrae City 2 2 Yes Council Pacifica City 2 2 - Not currently Yes Council applicable to City Portola Valley 6 6 Yes Town Council Redwood City City 2 2 Yes Council San Bruno City No Council San Mateo City 2 2 Yes Council 2 2 South San Yes Francisco City Council Woodside Town 2 2 - Not currently Yes Council applicable to Town Yes 2 2 Woodside Fire Protection District Public Pool Safety: San Mateo County 9 5 3 - Recommendation 1 - Excess Yes The Bottom Line Board of 6 may require constraints on several years for Supervisors inspectors complete system San Mateo County 1 - Feasibility of San Mateo County Yes 1 Office of Board of Schedule, and Cost Emergency Supervisors analysis San Mateo County Services: Post-San 5 3 - OES follows Yes REPORT TITLE RESPONDING RECOMMENDATIONS AGENCIES Implementation Status Number of Will Implement Will Study Will Not Implement Response Implemented Recommendations process issues, JIC structure preempts OĖS Coastside Fire Coastside Fire Yes 5 3 1 1 - No consensus on Protection District - Protection District board Going Backward or Forward? Yes 3 - Further analysis 1 - The Annual San Mateo County 4 Flooding of Board of required, no date Considered not Pescadero Creek provided feasible Supervisors Road Whooping Cough San Mateo County Yes 3 3 - Agreement to Immunization Board of post immunization Rates - A San Supervisors rates on the web Mateo County Success Story Issued: June 17, 2013