Review of the Sheriff's Aviation Support Unit

Recommendations 6

• R1

  Page 84
  As budgetary constraints allow, add a third helicopter to the Aviation Support Unit, with hoist capability.
• R2

  Page 84
  As budgetary constraints allow, replace the two existing helicopters with hoist capable models.
• R3

  Page 84
  Conduct a study of Pilot and Tactical Flight Officer career paths to improve retention and staff longevity within the Aviation Support Unit.
• R4

  Page 84
  Develop and implement a plan for reimbursement from non-contract city operations, within the framework of mutual aid agreements.
• R5

  Page 84
  Conduct a study for regionalization of the Sheriff’s helicopter program to equitably dis- tribute costs and coverage to all citizens of Orange County.
• R6

  Page 84
  Develop 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