⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 16 findings
F1
Voucher notification letters are unclear and misleading.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
1 Officers participate and complete POST and department training as required by law and District policy.
F2
The complainants were not notified of the results of their complaint according to the sixty (60) day timeline set forth in the SUSD Board policies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Follow District policy pertaining to the filing of complaints and adhere to the sixty (60) day timeline. 3.0 Violation of Board Policy §3.35‐ Background Clearance for all Volunteers A private citizen used his own helicopter to assist the Department occasionally for special functions and general patrol of the schools. During the investigation it was not clear whether the pilot was fingerprinted as a volunteer as stated in Board Policy §3.35. Proof of DOJ clearance through a background check was requested but could not be provided. There is also no record of a tuberculosis (TB) test as is required by District policy. The Grand Jury requested SUSD PD provide the additional insurance documentation that would be required for a helicopter to be used by the Department. No documentation for an insurance rider could be located by SUSD PD. All employees and volunteers who have access to students within the District must be cleared properly to maintain a high level of safety in the schools.
F3
Neither proof of insurance nor a fingerprint clearance through DOJ could be provided. There is also no proof of a TB test for the pilot as required by Board Policy and state law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Follow Board Policy §3.35 and California Health & Safety Code §121545 (mandatory TB test). 4.0 Violation of SUSD Policy 1002.3 The SUSD PD Policy 1002.3 states that all non‐probationary employees are to have a yearly evaluation and other probationary employees will be evaluated monthly. The Grand Jury reviewed personnel evaluations to determine whether they were done in a timely manner in accordance with Department policy. Some files had yearly evaluations completed for the employees but they were not done in consecutive years throughout their employment history. Many of the evaluations indicated employees were doing an outstanding job several years ago, but were subject to severe discipline or termination recently. Evaluations provide a record of employee development, work performance, what is expected of them, and how they are to meet those expectations.
F4
Evaluations have not been done on an annual basis for each employee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Prepare timely evaluations in accordance with the Department Policy Manual. 5.0 Report Processing Employees had been reprimanded because they could not keep up with the volume of paperwork that the Department requires for calls for service. Testimony revealed that the employees believed the report volume put them in a “no win” situation because overtime was not always authorized for completion of their paperwork. The SUSD PD generates several thousand written reports each year concerning incidents at the schools. In 2009, there were 3,836 reports written, in 2010, 4,630 and in 2011 there were 5,754. Other police departments in the County were surveyed and many of them are writing and transmitting their reports electronically from their vehicles, which saves time for the officer.
F5
The small number of officers handling calls for service makes it very difficult to efficiently keep up with the report demand.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Re‐assess the report taking procedure to find an alternate method for documentation of incidents, including the feasibility of electronic transmissions. 6.0 Internal Affairs The SUSD PD internal affairs process has been criticized because of the factions within the organization. The Lieutenant has been assigned to do the internal affairs investigations within the department. Many employees who were the subject of investigations had prior negative ongoing issues with the Lieutenant and felt the investigations were biased. More of the internal affairs investigations are now being outsourced to one of several individuals.
F6
There is a perception of bias for the Lieutenant to investigate internal affairs complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Establish Department Policy to use outside investigators to avoid any perception of bias.
F1.1
The frequency and consistency of training is not current with the Peace Officer Standards and Training and District mandates.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.2
SUSD PD is lacking specific training in dealing with special needs children.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.1
There is a lack of productive two-way communication between employees and management.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.2
Social workers efforts to improve the agency are ignored and joint problem- solving opportunities have turned into accusations. This adds to the workers’ morale. 50
No recommendations for this finding
F2.3
Most employees are not familiar with, or are hesitant to use, the services offered for emotional and psychological counseling through Options, an employee assistance program.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.4
There is no formal in-house critical incident debriefing for the staff.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.1
Information regarding low morale and disconnect with the social workers was removed from the 2010 San Joaquin County Peer Quality Report just one week prior to its submission to the required state agency.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.2
Reports were not made available to staff. This gives validity to the concept of the lack of communication.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.1
There is lack of financial planning and responsibility on behalf of the District’s managing board.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.2
The District lacks a plan for new revenue.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 3
-
CL1An unhealthy atmosphere exists in the Stockton Unified School District Police Department. The Grand Jury is concerned with the application of SUSD Police Policies, and the lack of communication between the management and the police officers. This, in effect, has resulted in a lack of trust, factions within the Department, and differences of opinion about various police policies. With a large population of students enrolled in Stockton Unified School District schools, the responsibilities of their police officers are magnified greatly in order to keep its students safe and secure at school sites. With the current existence of student discipline problems and violence on campus, the Grand Jury strongly urges that SUSD police officers receive specialized training as is recommended in this report. Training police officers will not only help promote an environment of uninterrupted education but also gain the support of parents, educational personnel, and the community. 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 §991, §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 §924.2 and §929). Response Requirements California Penal Code §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 by (within 90 days). Reference Material www.susdpoa.com SUSD Police Department It is a fully accredited police agency operating 24/7, employing full-time officers, dispatchers and other support personnel. The Stockton Unified School District Police Department is a group of professionals dedicated to excellence in safety on and near schools in the city of Stockton. Their main goal is to provide a safe environment for students so they can concentrate on learning and achieving academic success. The mission of the Stockton Unified School District is to protect and serve the community on or near the schools. They strive to provide high quality, professional law enforcement services. www.eeoc.gov EEOC It is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. The laws apply to all types of work situations, including hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and benefits. www.hhs.gov/ocr OCR As the Department’s (Health and Human Services) civil rights and health privacy rights law enforcement agency, OCR investigates complaints, enforces rights, and promulgates regulations, develops policy and provides technical assistance and public educations to ensure understanding of and compliance with non‐discrimination and health information privacy laws. www.post.ca.gov POST The mission of the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) is to continually enhance the professionalism of California law enforcement in serving its communities. Recognizing that effective law enforcement is the cornerstone of a free and safe society, POST is committed to a vision of the future that ensures quality, integrity, accountability, and cooperation; encourages new ideas; explores and uses appropriate technologies; and delivers relevant, client‐based programs and services. Mail or hand‐deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. David P. Warner, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 222 E. Weber Ave., Room 303 Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected]‐joaquin.ca.us . Section III Stockton Unified School District Police Department (Case No. 0111)…………………………………………..15 Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin (Case No. 0211)…………………………………………..24 San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District (Case No. 0311)…………………………………………..38 San Joaquin County Human Service Agency, Child Welfare Service (Case No. 0411)………………………. ………...45 North San Joaquin County Water District (Case No. 0511)…………………………………………. 56 snoitagitsevnI San Joaquin County Grand Jury Stockton Unified School District Police Department 2011/2012 Case No. 0111 Summary The Grand Jury received complaints regarding the management of Stockton Unified School District Police Department (SUSD PD). One complaint (#1) alleged favoritism in assignment of overtime, violations of department policy, and adverse personnel actions, causing frustration and a lack of trust in management. A second complaint (#2) by a parent criticized the method used by a police officer to bring a student with an impulsive‐hyperactive personality under control. Through the Grand Jury’s investigation, we found Stockton Unified School District (SUSD) police officers deal with some District students who have behavioral issues which require additional specialized training and prudent judgment. Many instances of violence in the schools have been noted in the media this year, emphasizing the need for professionalism and highly competent officers in the school system.
-
CL2The Housing Authority plays a vital role in contributing to the well being of low income county residents, therefore, it should be standard policy/practice to treat all applicants fairly and without bias. The Housing Authority needs to be considerate in the way they communicate with the population they serve. The Grand Jury has legitimate concerns that best practices were not followed in this case. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn and 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 §§ 911, 924.1 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 §§ 924.2 and 929). Appendices Appendix A ‐ Statistics on Pulls Appendix B ‐ Voucher Notification Letter (top of the list) Appendix C ‐ Voucher Notification Letter (return to waiting list) Appendix D ‐ Redacted Verification of Disability (related applicant) Response Requirements California Penal Code §§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 by (within 90 days). Mail or hand‐deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. David P. Warner, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 222 E. Weber Avenue, Room 303 Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected]‐joaquin.ca.us San Joaquin County Grand Jury San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District 2011/12 Case No. 0311 Summary The Grand Jury investigated a complaint alleging several issues at the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District (District). The complaint alleges verbal sexual harassment, hostile work environment, management retaliation and nepotism. During the investigation other issues were alleged relating to the secret and illegal spraying of a toxic chemical in the mosquito fish ponds, and failure to report the spraying to the proper reporting agencies.
-
CL3The Grand Jury found several instances of sexual harassment in the form of rude, vulgar and lewd remarks that occurred in the workplace. Other allegations of hostile work environment, management retaliation, illegal spraying, and nepotism were unfounded. The Grand Jury found the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District, like other public agencies, continues to struggle financially with the decrease in property tax revenue, the added workload and additional state regulations. The Board was prudent over the years by maintaining a general fund balance and adequate reserves. These reserves sustain the district at the present time. The District performs a vital public health function in San Joaquin County by working to control the breeding and habitat of mosquitos and other vectors. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn and 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 §911, 924.1 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 § 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code §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 by (within 90 days). Mail or hand‐deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. David P. Warner, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 222 E. Weber Avenue, Room 303 Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected]‐joaquin.ca.us
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.