📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Orange County Grand Jury
• 2010-2011
Review of the Sheriff's Aviation Support Unit
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 7 findings
F1
Page 83
The Orange County Sheriff operates the smallest fleet of helicopters of any county in the southern part of the State.
F2
Page 83
Orange County is the only county in the southern part of the State whose Sheriff’s helicopters lack hoisting capability.
F3
Page 83
Budgeted amounts to maintain the unit are reasonable and have reflected prudent management in view of the economic downturn.
F4
Page 83
The current facilities of the Aviation Support Unit are overcrowded and inadequate to house all aircraft. /2011 77
F5
Page 84
Law enforcement pilot compensation varies considerably between agencies and lacks standardization.
F6
Page 84
No reimbursement program exists to compensate the Orange County Sheriff when county helicopters are operated in support of agencies outside the Sheriff’s jurisdiction.
F7
Page 84
The Sheriff’s Aviation Support Unit lacks a long term plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requires responses from the agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be sub- mitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based upon its review of the Sheriff’s Aviation Support Unit, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following six recommendations:
Recommendations 6
-
R1Page 84As budgetary constraints allow, add a third helicopter to the Aviation Support Unit, with hoist capability.
-
R2Page 84As budgetary constraints allow, replace the two existing helicopters with hoist capable models.
-
R3Page 84Conduct a study of Pilot and Tactical Flight Officer career paths to improve retention and staff longevity within the Aviation Support Unit.
-
R4Page 84Develop and implement a plan for reimbursement from non-contract city operations, within the framework of mutual aid agreements.
-
R5Page 84Conduct a study for regionalization of the Sheriff’s helicopter program to equitably dis- tribute costs and coverage to all citizens of Orange County.
-
R6Page 84Develop and maintain a long term plan for the Aviation Support Unit for acquisition of significant capital items and improvement or relocation of existing operating facilities. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such com- ment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such Review of the Sheriff’s Aviation Support Unit 78 /2011 comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Sections 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implement- ed action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for dis- cussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not rea- sonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall ad- dress all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Orange County
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Orange County
County
Orange County Coroner
Elected County Office