Grand Jury Report 2017-2018 Full Report

Code Enforcement response to citizen complaints has been ineffective prior to January 2018 resulting in a substantial backlog of complaints to which there has not been a response.

Code Enforcement has been reorganized (since January 1, 2018) to be entirely within the Police Department in an effort to improve responsiveness and code compliance. /// /// 4 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – City of San Bernardino – Code Enforcement

There is no strategic master plan of spending or guiding how specific requests are to be evaluated by the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund Committee.

There is no inventory of assets financed by the IWF; therefore, no current asset records are available for planning the use of monies in the Fund.

PC §4025 stipulates funds are to be used for inmate educational, training, and counseling needs. No program exists to assess these inmate educational, training, and counseling needs; therefore, the effectiveness of these programs cannot be determined. 44 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Inmate Welfare Fund

There is no means of tracking the progress of inmates in regard to education, training, and counseling programs as required in IWF guidelines; therefore, the effectiveness of these programs cannot be determined.

An annual report of the IWF was not presented to the Board of Supervisors for two of the last three years as required by PC§4025.

There is limited training for students regarding offensive student-on-student touching.

Board Policy 5145.7 (Intervention) needs to be rewritten as the phrase “as appropriate” indicates that contacting parents is optional instead of required. RECOMMENDATIONS 18-4: Provide all District personnel with training on sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual battery, defining the elements of each in accordance with Penal Code §243.4. Training should include a third party expert such as personnel from the Crimes Against Children Unit, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. 18-5: Follow a consistent policy regarding the use of campus surveillance cameras, the length of time recordings kept, and the location of stored recordings. 18-6: Develop a checklist of the steps to be taken when a complaint of sexual harassment, discrimination or bullying is received in order that all requirements of AR 5145.7(b) School- Level Complaint Process/Grievance Procedure are met. 30 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Hesperia Unified School District Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures 18-7: Recruit and hire a female officer for the Hesperia Unified School District Police Force. 18-8: Amend Administrative Regulation 5145.7 to include that complainants shall be interviewed by an administrator of the same gender. 18-9: Amend Administrative Regulation 5145.7 (Written Report and Findings and Follow-up) to include parent/guardian receipt of all written investigative reports. 18-10: Develop age-appropriate training specific to Hesperia Unified School District students regarding student-on-student offensive touching behavior and conduct training sessions for the entire student body. 18-11: Amend Board Policy 5145.7 (Intervention) to specifically require notification of parents/guardians of both complainants and other involved students of sexual harassment, assault and/or battery, and obtain written confirmation from the parents/guardians of report notifications. AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS DUE DATE Hesperia Unified School District 18-4 through 18-11 9/27/2018 31 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Hesperia Unified School District Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY EMERGENCY GROUND AMBULANCE CONTRACT #12-254 BACKGROUND This topic was chosen due to a newspaper article which stated that this contract has never gone out for bid. Also, the contract has been extended multiple times. In 1981 San Bernardino County contracted with the primary ambulance service provider and other smaller ambulance providers to conduct a pilot project. As a result of this pilot project, in 1984 the Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency (ICEMA) established an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) plan that included establishing Exclusive Operating Areas (EOAs) as allowed under California Health and Safety Codes Sections. The plan resulted in contracts being established, without going out to bid with the current providers within the pilot project. On April 20, 2004, twenty years later without going out to bid, ICEMA approved a performance based contract with the primary provider that included setting up six (6) EOAs. The contract was written to expire on April 30, 2012, and included six (6) automatic extensions. In 2010, ICEMA entered into discussion with the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers to negotiate contract extensions with the understanding that a bid process would be needed in the near future. Jurisdiction to investigate is under Penal Code 925a; 933.1. METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury reviewed the County’s purchasing policies and procedures, pilot project documentation, the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) contracts, amendments specific to the 32 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Emergency Ground Ambulance Contract #12-254 current provider, various statistical reports and business plans. It held interviews with leaders in various San Bernardino County departments. The contract number 12-254, dated 5/8/2012 and its six amendments were acquired from the San Bernardino County Purchasing Department. The San Bernardino County Grand Jury reviewed the County’s policies and procedures specific to contracts and extensions to validate if the established criteria had been applied to the original contract and the subsequent extensions. FACTS The Contract The primary ambulance service provider has continued to be a contracted provider to the County for 34 years. During this time frame, the contract has never gone out for a bid. Amendment Six (6) extends Ambulance Services contract 12-254 for an additional 18 months for the period of January 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018. Based upon interviews, the time frame needed to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a contract is 18 – 24 months. The Grand Jury’s interviews and review of documentation validates that there are no set policies which prohibit the extension of contracts. The ambulance services contract is extremely complicated due to the required levels of safety. These levels of safety include but are not limited to adequately trained Emergency Medical Technicians, Paramedics and Advanced Life Support (ALS) equipped ambulances. The standard County contract’s life is five years. The Board of Supervisors has the authority to extend any contract. The contract between the primary ambulance services provider and the County has never gone out for bid since 1984. The current contract has performance monitoring requirements and penalties to which current ambulance service providers must adhere. ICEMA receives a fee for the monitoring of the performance of all contracted providers. 33 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Emergency Ground Ambulance Contract #12-254 The following statistics came from page six (6) of San Bernardino County Emergency Ground Ambulance Review dated April 18, 2016 was contracted by the County Board of Supervisors. This review was conducted by Vizient Incorporated. As of April 18, 2016 approximately 80% of the County’s land is uninhabited, 15% is utilized for military purposes, and slightly over 2% of the land is designated for residential housing purposes. The desert region is located in the north and is the largest area in the County. This region includes parts of the Mojave Desert and makes up approximately 93% of the County’s total land area. The ambulance services contract for the nation’s most expansive county of 20,105 square miles has not gone out for bid in its four decades of existence. Based upon the Vizient report, it was suggested that there are several options: renegotiate the current contract, prepare a RFP and put it out for bid, and/or change the EOAs. Per contract Amendment Six (6) dated 12/6/2016, the County intended to draft a RFP which would eliminate the existing EOAs and create a single EOA for the entire County. ICEMA The County’s Board of Supervisors also serve on the ICEMA board. The primary ambulance service provider has been serving San Bernardino County since 1981. In the early 1990’s, the primary provider formed a corporation with regulations written as “Successor Clauses.” The Successor Clauses address the transition from one service provider to another. These regulations allow the provider “Grandfather rights” for successive contracts and extensions, addressed in section 1797.201 of the Health and Safety Code. (See Attachment 1 for grandfathering defined). The eleven Exclusive Operating Areas (EOAs) that the primary provider covers have never gone out to bid. The primary provider has “Grandfathering rights”, covered in the State of California Health and Safety Code, sections 1797.201, 1797.224 and 1797.226. (See attachment 2). 34 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Emergency Ground Ambulance Contract #12-254 Additionally, ICEMA cannot put one EOA out for bid; only the entire contract must be in the bidding process. Ambulance service is considered a critical service as are the police and fire departments in the bidding process, which could take 18 to 24 months. In the Grand Jury’s interviewing process, it became apparent that County leadership thought it would be difficult to provide the necessary level of critical service in a changeover process (Successor Clause). The changeover process (Successor Clause) is covered in section 1797.226 of the State of California Health and Safety Code. The changeover process is addressed as a successor; the successor replaces previous providers (See attachment 2). The bidding process has been discussed for five years by the governing bodies. The primary ambulance service provider has all the most populated EOAs of which eleven of the total twenty- seven were grandfathered. The eleven EOAs are in the following cities: Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino, Redlands, and Victorville. The other ambulance service providers are the San Bernardino County Fire Department, city Fire Departments, and four other private ambulance service providers. The area serviced by the current provider represents approximately 9% of the County’s total geographic area; this region includes over 80% of the total population. A number of factors are involved in selecting an ambulance service provider. The primary provider must maintain a 90 percent response time of 9:59 minutes. Based upon our interviews, it was statedthat San Bernardino County Fire Department could not provide a more cost efficient level of ambulance services. The Fire Department stated that it could provide better service, 35 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Emergency Ground Ambulance Contract #12-254 make a profit and cover the entire County. Currently, the department is not monitored for its response time like the primary provider. Board of Supervisors All decisions regarding the primary ambulance service contract including the extensions are made by the Board. The Primary Provider The current ambulance service providers started servicing San Bernardino County in 1981. Eight (8) ambulance service providers that were servicing the County were acquired by the primary ambulance service provider. The acquisition also included the grandfathered EOAs which the State of California Health and Safety Code 1797.224 allowed. As Health and Safety Code 1797 dictates, if an ambulance provider were providing services in a specific area within a County EOA, they retain it (Grandfathered). The County could lose Grandfathering protection and some control could revert over to the state if the contract were put out for bid under the Health and Safety Codes. FINDINGS F1: The County issues five year contracts and can extend at its discretion. Three of the six extensions were limited to six months or shorter not allowing the time needed for a Request for Proposal (18-24 months). Modifying boundaries of existing contracted EOA’s would warrant for the complete bidding process of the contract. The Health and Safety Code 1797.224 states if the EOAs are amended, the entire contract must go out for bid. 36 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Emergency Ground Ambulance Contract #12-254 F2: The primary service provider currently services eleven EOAs of the twenty-seven EOAs within the County. This represents nine (9) percent of the geographic area and 80 percent of the total population. RECOMMENDATIONS 18-12: Create one Exclusive Operating Area (EOA) that covers the entire County. This would allow one provider to cover the County and require the provider to service populated and rural areas. If one EOA were created to encompass the remaining sixteen EOAs, the current provider could retain grandfathering protection. 18-13: Create a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a new service provider contract. 18-14: Present a new contract to the Board of Supervisors. AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS DUE DATE Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency 18-12 through 18-14 9/27/18 37 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Emergency Ground Ambulance Contract #12-254 ATTACHMENT 1 Grandfather defined: “Provision in a new law or regulation exempting those already in or a part of the existing system which is being regulated. An exception to a restriction that allows all those already doing something to continue doing it even if they would be stopped by the new restriction.” Source: Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition by Publisher’s Editorial Staff West Publishing Company 1979. ATTACHMENT 2 State of California Health and Safety Code Division 2.5, Statutes in Effect as of January 1, 2010. 1797.6. (a) It is the policy of the State of California to ensure the provision of effective and efficient emergency medical care. The Legislature finds and declares that achieving this policy has been hindered by the confusion and concern in the 58 counties resulting from the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Community Communications Company, Inc. v. City of Boulder, Colorado, 455 U.S. 40, 70 L. Ed.2d810,102 S. Ct. 835, regarding local governmental liability under federal antitrust laws. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section and Sections 1797.85 and 1797.224 to prescribe and exercise the degree of state direction and supervision over emergency medical services as will provide for state action immunity under federal antitrust laws for activities undertaken by local governmental entities in carrying out their prescribed functions under this division. [Added by AB 3153 (CH 1349) 1984.] 1797.85. “Exclusive operating area” means an EMS area or subarea defined by the emergency medical services plan for which a local EMS agency, upon the recommendation of a County, restricts operations to one or more emergency ambulance services or providers of limited advanced life support or advanced life support. [Added by AB 3149 (CH 1349) 1984.] 38 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Emergency Ground Ambulance Contract #12-254 1797.201. Upon the request of a city or fire district that contracted for or provided, as of June 1, 1980, prehospital emergency medical services, a County shall enter into a written agreement with the city or fire district regarding the provision of prehospital emergency medical services for that city or fire district. Until such time that an agreement is reached, prehospital emergency medical services shall be continued at not less than the existing level, and the administration of prehospital EMS by cities and fire districts presently providing such services shall be retained by those cities and fire districts, except the level of prehospital EMS may be reduced where the city council, or the governing body of a fire district, pursuant to a public hearing, determines that the reduction in necessary. Notwithstanding any provision of this section the provisions of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1798) shall apply. {H&SC 39} 1797.224. A local EMS agency may create one or more exclusive operating areas in the development of a local plan, if a competitive process is utilized to select the provider or providers of the services pursuant to the plan. No competitive process is required if the local EMS agency develops or implements a local plan that continues the use of existing providers operating within a local EMS area in the manner and scope in which the services have been provided without interruption since January 1, 1981. A local EMS agency which elects to create one or more exclusive operating areas in the development of a local plan shall develop and submit for approval to the authority, as part of the local EMS plan, its competitive process for selecting providers and determining the scope of their operations. This plan shall include provisions for a competitive process held at periodic intervals. Nothing in this section supersedes Section 1797.201. {H&SC 44} 1797.226. Without altering or otherwise affecting the meaning of any portion of this division as to any other County, as to San Bernardino County only, it shall be competent for any local EMS agency which establishes exclusive operating areas pursuant to Section 1797.224 to determine the following: 39 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Emergency Ground Ambulance Contract #12-254 (a) That a minor alteration in the level of life support personnel or equipment, which does not significantly reduce the level of care available, shall not constitute a change in the manner and scope of providing service. (b) That a successor to a previously existing emergency services provider shall qualify as an existing provider if the successor has continued uninterrupted the emergency transportation previously supplied by the prior provider. [Added by AB 3434 (CH 965) 1986.] 40 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Emergency Ground Ambulance Contract #12-254 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT INMATE WELFARE FUND BACKGROUND The Inmate Welfare Fund is administered on behalf of inmates in custody of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. In accordance with California Penal Code (PC) §4025, the San Bernardino County Sheriff is responsible for the establishment and administration of an Inmate Welfare Fund (Fund). PC§4025 stipulates that these funds are to be used solely for the benefit, education, and welfare of county jail inmates. The Fund receives no taxpayer support. Because of the significant value of the Fund and the substantial discretion that the Sheriff has over the Fund for the benefit, education and welfare of inmates within the County Jails system, the 2017-2018 San Bernardino Grand Jury decided to examine the operations, policies and procedures used in the administration of the Fund with an interest in making recommendations that will make these administrative procedures more effective and efficient. California PC §925 states the following: “The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations,accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county including those operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity as officers of the districts. The investigations may be conducted on some selective basis each year, but the grand jury shall not duplicate any examination of financial statements which have been performed by or for the board of supervisors pursuant to Section §25250 of the Government Code; this provision shall not be construed to limit the power of the grand jury to investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county. The grand jury may enter into a joint contract with the board of supervisors to employ the services of an expert as provided for in Section §926.” 41 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Inmate Welfare Fund METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury utilized the following methodologies in the examination of the Sheriff’s Department oversight of the Fund. The Grand Jury reviewed the Sheriff’s Department web page, conducted interviews of members of the department and the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund Committee (Committee) and reviewed data received from the department and financial reports of the Fund. The Committee Guidelines were reviewed and an Inmate Welfare Trust Fund Committee Meeting held Monday, November 27, 2017 was attended by the Grand Jury. The 2017-2018 Grand Jury concentrated its investigation into two areas. It examined the policies and procedures that govern how funds are disbursed by the Committee. Second, the Grand Jury examined how the funds were actually distributed. This amount, or the Fund budget, was examined and analyzed by data provided by the Sheriff’s Department through reports to the Board of Supervisors and from the Committee. FACTS The Fund has a substantial balance ($13,075,562.01 as of August 31, 2017) generated from two primary sources. One source is from the profits of jail commissary operations selling snacks, drinks, and other sundry items to inmates. The second source is from the profits of the inmate telephone services within each institution. The Sheriff’s Department reported to the County Board of Supervisors (October 31, 2017) that the Fund had expenses of $4,417,660.27 in Fiscal Year 2014/15 and expenses of $5,172,606.06 in Fiscal Year 2013/14. The Fund is used to pay the salaries of counselors, teachers and trainers for inmates in County custody as well as for the fixed assets which are used in programs for inmate benefit (e.g. culinary). To examine the policies and procedures that govern how Fund monies are distributed, the Grand Jury attended a San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, Inmate Welfare Trust Fund Committee meeting held on Monday, November 27, 2017. The Committee consists of six (6) 42 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Inmate Welfare Fund civilian members who are appointed by the Sheriff. The members are volunteers who serve an indefinite term until they resign or are replaced. The Committee meets six (6) times per year. During this meeting, an officer representing the administrative arm of the Sheriff’s Department presented five (5) funding requests submitted for consideration. All five (5) funding requests were followed by explanations and descriptions from department staff as to how these expenditures would benefit the welfare of county jail inmates. Four (4) of the funding requests were approved unanimously. One (1) of the funding requests was tabled because it had only one bid submitted and three bids are required. Interviews of members of the Inmate Services Unit and Inmate Welfare Trust Fund Committee confirmed that funding requests submitted to the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund Committee are usually approved. Thus, the acceptance of any request by the Committee is significant. All policies and procedures that govern how the Committee operates, including how funding requests are made and reviewed, are documented in their policies and procedures manual. Because this manual presents the overall plan that governs the organizational administration of the Fund, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury respectfully submits the following: 1. Neither the Inmate Welfare Fund nor the Committee appear on the Sheriff’s Department public web page. 2. The Inmate Welfare Trust Fund Committee Guidelines were last updated on March 17, 2014. 3. There is no strategic master plan for expenditure of inmate welfare funds. 4. There is no inventory of assets that are financed through the Inmate Welfare Fund. 5. There is no program for assessing inmate needs for education and counseling. 6. There is no means of tracking inmate educational and counseling progress. 7. The report of the Inmate Welfare Fund (required by PC§4025) was not submitted to the County Board of Supervisors in two of the last three years. 43 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Inmate Welfare Fund The 2017-2018 Grand Jury learned that the annual financial report of the Fund has not been presented to the Board of Supervisors for two of the last three years. The Grand Jury also discovered that past Committee minutes were not posted on the Sheriff’s Department website. Finally, the Grand Jury learned that one of the trust fund requests approved at the November 2017 meeting was for a Tablet Program. This program can be used to establish a program of tracking recidivism, inmate program endeavors, and other vocational and educational successes. With the use of such a program, the Sheriff’s Department could conduct an assessment of inmate needs for education, training, and counseling for use in administering the Fund. Additionally, the Sheriff’s Department could also track the progress of inmates with regard to education, training, and counseling. FINDINGS F1: Neither the IWF nor the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund Committee appear on the Sheriff’s Department public website. F2: The Inmate Welfare Trust Fund Committee Guidelines were last updated more than four (4) years ago. F3: There is no strategic master plan of spending or guiding how specific requests are to be evaluated by the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund Committee. F4: There is no inventory of assets financed by the IWF; therefore, no current asset records are available for planning the use of monies in the Fund. F5: PC §4025 stipulates funds are to be used for inmate educational, training, and counseling needs. No program exists to assess these inmate educational, training, and counseling needs; therefore, the effectiveness of these programs cannot be determined. 44 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Inmate Welfare Fund F6: There is no means of tracking the progress of inmates in regard to education, training, and counseling programs as required in IWF guidelines; therefore, the effectiveness of these programs cannot be determined. F7: An annual report of the IWF was not presented to the Board of Supervisors for two of the last three years as required by PC§4025. RECOMMENDATIONS 18-15: Revise the Sheriff’s Department public website to indicate the existence of the Inmate Welfare Fund and Inmate Welfare Trust Fund Committee to increase public awareness. 18-16: Review regularly (e.g. every two years) and update (as needed) the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund Committee Guidelines. 18-17: Establish and update a strategic master plan of spending that will guide the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund Committee when considering spending requests. 18-18: Establish and maintain an inventory of assets available to inmates for their benefit to assist the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund Committee in implementation of the master plan of spending (e.g. the remaining life of assets). 18-19: Conduct an assessment of inmate needs (education, training, counseling etc.) for use in guiding expenditures of the Inmate Welfare Fund. 18-20: Establish a mechanism for tracking the progress of inmates with regard to education, training and counseling for use in guiding expenditures of the Inmate Welfare Fund. /// /// 45 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Inmate Welfare Fund 18-21: Establish a practice that will ensure a financial report shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors each year as required in PC§4025. AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS DUE DATE San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department 18-15 through 18-21 8/28/2018 46 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Inmate Welfare Fund VISITS OF JAILS/PRISONS/DETENTION CENTERS WITHIN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BACKGROUND The Grand Jury, per California Penal Code §919b, is mandated as follows: “The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” The term prison applies to State facilities, the term jails applies to County facilities, and Detention Centers can be any of those two or Federal facilities. METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury performed visitations to all three public prisons within San Bernardino County using the Jail Inspection Handbook for Grand Jurors provided by the California Board of State and Community Corrections as noted in the California Grand Jury Association Web site: www.cgja.org. The Grand Jury does not have the time necessary to inspect each facility within the County but can visit each State prison. The Grand Jury did not receive requests to investigate any jail, prison or detention center. The Grand Jury visited the following three State prisons: • California Institution for Men, Chino • California Institution for Women, Chino • Desert View Modified Community Correctional Facility, Adelanto CONCLUSION There were no questions raised as a result of the Grand Jury visits to the State prisons. The Grand Jury was impressed with the professionalism and knowledge demonstrated by all personnel during each site visit. The Grand Jury would like to extend its sincere appreciation to each of the Wardens and staffs for both their hospitality and their cooperation. 47 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Visits of Jails/Prisons/Detention Centers INFORMATIONAL REPORT EDUCATIONAL AND OUTREACH PROGRAM 2017-2018 The 2017-2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury determined there was a need to provide an educational and outreach program to the citizens of the County. A committee was created to focus on reaching out to citizens for the purpose of educating them on the duties and responsibilities of the San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury. The Grand Jury selected the following subjects to include in its educational program:  The duties of the Civil Grand Jury  How to file a formal Citizen Complaint  How to apply for the Civil Grand Jury The Committee developed a PowerPoint® slide presentation (Attachment A) and handouts to be used at booth events as well as speaking engagements. In an effort to reach as many County citizens as possible, the Grand Jury prepared letters of introduction (Attachment B) offering guest speakers and booth participation. The targeted groups during fiscal year 2017-2018 were Chambers of Commerce, Non-Profit Organizations, Service Clubs, Social Clubs, and Senior Centers. The following organizations responded to the Grand Jury with invitations to provide guest speakers or to staff an information booth: Apple Valley Chamber of Commerce Barstow Senior Center Fontana Rotary Highland Senior Center 48 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Educational and Outreach Program Rancho Cucamonga VIP Senior Club (two events) Redlands Kiwanis San Bernardino High School Alumni San Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce San Bernardino County Past Grand Jurors’ Association San Bernardino League of Women Voters San Bernardino Rotary Club Yucaipa Chamber of Commerce Members of the Grand Jury spoke at 12 events reaching a total audience of nearly 500. Additionally, the Grand Jury participated in one booth event and had the opportunity to speak with more than 60 individuals. A number of San Bernardino County departments provided support and resources that enabled the Grand Jury to achieve success in its initial endeavor to educate and provide outreach. Thanks are extended to the following departments:  The County Administrative Department for providing the avenue to post press releases publicizing the outreach program on the County’s social media outlets.  Information Services Department for the updating of the Grand Jury website www.sbcounty.gov/grandjury.  The Telecommunication Services Department for setting up a toll free phone number making it easier for citizens to contact the Civil Grand Jury at 1-855-520-2691. 49 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Educational and Outreach Program ATTACHMENT A 50 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Educational and Outreach Program The county Grand Jury is charged by the California Penal Code to investigate all aspects of county government, including cities and special districts, to ensure the county is being governed honestly and efficiently and that county monies are being handled appropriately… Thispresentationincludes: WHAT IS THE CIVIL GRAND JURY? An overviewof the responsibilities and  The only local independent “watchdog” Jurisdictionof the Civil Grand Jury. investigative body. How to file a Confidential  An arm of the Superior Court. Citizen Complaint.  Voluntary. How to Applyfor the Civil Grand Jury.  19 citizens who serve a one (1) year term. 51 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Educational and Outreach Program Resources for the Civil Grand Jury Responsibilities/Jurisdiction of the Civil Grand Jury The Grand Jury may ask for support  Determines if investigations meet the jurisdiction of and advice from: the Grand Jury. • The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Examples of our jurisdiction: County, Cities, or • Grand Jury Assistant Special Districts. • Legal Advisor / District Attorney  To investigate, examine and report. Honorable • County Counsel Jo P h r n e P s . i d V i a n n g d J e u r d F g e e e r • Attorney General  Conducts field visits and interviews. Responsibilities/Jurisdiction of the Civil Grand Jury continued… Training  Inquiresinto the willfulor corruptmisconduct of public  State of California Grand Jurors’ Association. officersand employees.  Expert Speakers.  Examines records and gathers information.  Report Writing.  Inquiresinto the condition and management of the detention facilitiesin the County.  Code of Ethics.  Issues reports for increasing the accountability and  Investigative and Interviewing Techniques. effectiveness of local governments. 52 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Educational and Outreach Program HOW TO FILE A FORMAL CITIZEN COMPLAINT 1. Mail it with all supporting documentation to the address on the form. A Chance to Improve 2. A complaint committee will review and Your determine if the complaint is withintheir jurisdiction. Local Government 3. You will receive a letter that we received your complaint. However, you may or may not be contacted further. 4. Your name will be kept confidential. Access Website www.sbcounty.gov/grandjury/citizencomplaint FINAL REPORTS / RESPONSE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTS By law, the Grand Jurorscannotdisclose informationas to any investigations. Current Report A juror must recuse themselves if: Employed by an agency within the Previous Reports last three years that is being investigated. Response Accountability Reports If there is an investigation that may involve a family member or friend. Access Website www.sbcounty.gov/grandjury/reports 53 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Educational and Outreach Program Who would make a good Grand Juror?  You are interestedin how local government works and how it can operate more effectively.  You are willingto cooperate with eighteen other jurors.  You can servefrom ten to twenty hours (or more) each week for one year (July 1 through June 30). How to Apply for the Civil Grand Jury Who would make a good Grand Juror continued…  You are willing to learn(or already have) the skills of listening, asking thoughtful questions, reviewingdocuments, open to feedback and assist in writing reports. TOLL FREE 855‐520‐2691  You can exercise strict CONFIDENTIALITY during and after your term as a grand juror. Access Website www.sbcounty.gov/grandjury 54 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Educational and Outreach Program Duplication or use of this presentation is prohibited without the prior express written permission by the San Bernardino County Superior Court. ‐18 Rev 3 Jan 2018 55 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Educational and Outreach Program ATTACHMENT B 56 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Educational and Outreach Program 57 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Educational and Outreach Program N T Y OF SAN BERN A R D O U IN C O G R Quaerite Veritate m R Y A ND J U RESPONSE ACCOUNTABILITY RESPONSE ACCOUNTABILITY RESPONSE ACCOUNTABILITY The Grand Jury is required by Penal Code 933(c) to submit a Final Report to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court with appropriate recommendations and results from investigations conducted by the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury chose to include a section of the Final Report this year which reviewed a 2016- 2017 Grand Jury Final Report on the Apple Valley Unified School District Police Department. A Response Accountability Report contains follow-up interviews and information gathered to determine if the agencies and/or departments have complied with the recommendations and responses in prior reports. The Grand Jury also included a Response Accountability Report on the 2013-2014 Victor Valley Union High School District. 58 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Response Accountability Introduction RESPONSE ACCOUNTABILITY APPLE VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BACKGROUND The 2016-2017 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report contained an investigatory component concerning the Apple Valley Unified School District Police Department (AVUSD- PD). These investigatory components included in depth information collected via physical review of records, as well as interviews with key personnel of the District. Topics of investigation concerned towed vehicles and parameters of jurisdiction of the AVUSD-PD. This data collection process produced multiple recommendations to the District by the Grand Jury regarding the towed vehicles and limits of authority of the Police Department. During this investigation, it was determined in the years 2014, 2015, and 2016 that the school police department towed 727 vehicles. During this same time period, the AVUSD-PD used only one towing company. That tow company provided a list of 217 vehicles that it received from AVUSD-PD. Comparing the two lists resulted in a discrepancy of 510 vehicles. Based upon the discrepancy in the two lists, the 2016-2017 Grand Jury decided to subpoena the tow company to confirm the accuracy and completeness of its list that contained 510 fewer vehicles than the list provided by the AVUSD-PD. Information received under oath from the towing company on March 3, 2017 was that the list of 217 vehicles was complete and accurate and that the tow facility could not physically handle the number of vehicles that AVUSD-PD authorized for towing. This witness was asked to contact the Grand Jury immediately if any additional information was discovered that would account for the missing vehicles. It should be noted that the testimony of this witness did not include any mention of computer, scanner, or any data storage problems within that tow company. 59 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Apple Valley Unified School District Based on the testimony, under oath, of both AVUSD and the tow company, their respective lists of towed vehicles during the exact same time period were complete and accurate. The 2016-2017 Grand Jury was left with the indisputable conclusion that over 500 vehicles were unaccounted for and missing. The AVUSD response to the Grand Jury’s Final Report stated that the Grand Jury’s Findings amounted to a “...sweeping, inaccurate conclusion.” The response further stated, “In a joint effort with the towing company, the District reviewed and confirmed tow records for all 500 of the allegedly unaccounted for vehicles.” The responses received from the AVUSD to the Grand Jury’s Final Report stated that a meeting was held sometime in August 2017 between the school district and the towing company. During the meeting, the two entities were able to reconcile all but ten of the missing vehicles. Representatives from the AVUSD stated they were ultimately able to account for the ten vehicles. The 2017-2018 Civil Grand Jury decided to confirm the meeting between the AVUSD and the tow company, and more importantly, to determine whether the 2016-2017 Grand Jury’s Final Report contained any inaccuracies as mentioned in the AVUSD-PD response. On December 6, 2017, representatives from AVUSD were subpoenaed to appear before the Grand Jury. They were placed under oath and testified to meeting at the tow company’s business address and to reconciling their respective lists. They testified to accounting for all but ten of the missing vehicles. According to their testimony, these ten vehicles were subsequently accounted for after they rechecked their tow list. Information under oath by the same towing company on February 21, 2018 was that there was never a meeting with the AVUSD regarding the towing lists. Based on the conflicting sworn testimony of representatives of the AVUSD and the tow company, the Grand Jury cannot confirm whether a meeting to reconcile the two vehicle tow lists ever took place. 60 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Apple Valley Unified School District The tow company then testified that the list previously given to the 2016-2017 Grand Jury was neither complete nor accurate, and the tow company was having problems with its computers and a broken scanner. After resolving these issues, the tow company found all the vehicles listed on the AVUSD tow list. The tow company indicated that the tow facility put too much faith in its computer storage system. The tow company further testified that the updated list containing most of the missing vehicles was sent to the Grand Jury. Later in the testimony, the tow company confirmed the documents were not sent to the Grand Jury, but were sent to another agency. The 2017-2018 Grand Jury did not receive the updated documents until February 21, 2018, when the tow company brought the documents in response to the Grand Jury’s subpoena. Had these documents been received by the Grand Jury in 2017 as requested, the Grand Jury would have confirmed the missing vehicles were accounted for and there would have been no need to subpoena the tow company in 2018. Based upon the 2018 testimony from the tow company, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury was unable to confirm the AVUSD’s assertion that the 2016-2017 Grand Jury’s Final Report contained inaccurate conclusions. Moreover, the conclusions made by the 2016-2017 Grand Jury were based on sworn testimony of the AVUSD-PD and the tow facility. In response to the 2016-2017 Grand Jury Final Report, the AVUSD signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on August 2, 2017, with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. This MOU memorializes the duties and enforcement parameters of the AVUSD- PD. The MOU also addresses many of the recommendations set forth in the 2016-2017 Grand Jury Final Report. Worthy of note is the fact that 151 vehicles were towed, under the direction of the AVUSD-PD, during the period September 2016 through November 2016. After the 2016-2017 Grand Jury Final Report was released, for the similar period in 2017, only 29 vehicles were towed under the direction of AVUSD-PD. 61 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Apple Valley Unified School District 2016-2017 Grand Jury Recommendations and AVUSD Responses: RECOMMENDATION 17-01: REFUND MONIES Stated:Refund any monies collected by Apple Valley Unified School District-Police Department for Vehicle Release fees. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 17-01 FOR AVUSD: The District respectfully declines to follow the recommendation that AVUSD-PD refund monies for vehicle release fees. The AVUSD-PD’s vehicle release fee complies with VC Section 22850.5 (a) and is further authorized by EC Sections 35010 and 35160. RECOMMENDATION 17-02: DEVELOP A PROCEDURE Stated: Develop a procedure to assure the Apple Valley Unified School District-Police Department notified the legal and registered owners of vehicles towed in the future of their right to a tow hearing. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 17-02: The District has implemented this recommendation. On March 6, 2017, the AVUSD-PD Chief of Police issued a department directive requiring AVUSD-PD dispatchers and records clerks to notify the registered and legal owners of towed vehicles via first class mail within twenty-four hours of the vehicle towing, and of the right to a post-storage hearing using the CHP Form 180. RECOMMENDATION 17-03: REFUND FEES Stated: Refund any towing and storage fees paid by any legal owner or registered owner who was denied the opportunity to request a tow hearing. 62 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Apple Valley Unified School District RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 17-03: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05 (b)(4), the District respectfully declines to implement the Grand Jury’s recommendation to refund all towing and storage fees, but will examine each claim received and consider the merits of each claim on an individual basis. RECOMMENDATION 17-04: RESTITUTION Stated: Provide restitution to any vehicle owner whose vehicle was lien sold as a result of the vehicle being ordered towed by Apple Valley Unified School District-Police Department in excess of their legal authority to do so. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 17-04: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05 (b)(4), the District respectfully declines to implement the Grand Jury’s recommendation to provide restitution to vehicle owners whose vehicles were lien sold as a result of the vehicle being ordered towed by AVUSD-PD. The Report does not state evidence to support the finding that vehicles were towed by AVUSD-PD in excess of their legal authority to do so. In consideration of the Grand Jury’s report and focusing on the District’s primary mission of student and staff safety, the District has amended its citation and tow practices to ensure District officers continue to act within their statutory authority and jurisdiction when issuing traffic citations while also effectively providing traffic safety in and around District schools and bus stops. RECOMMENDATION 17-05: ENGAGE IN A PROPOSAL PROCESS Stated: Engage in a Request for Proposal (RFP) process for any non-district services requested by Apple Valley Unified School District-Police Department. 63 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Apple Valley Unified School District RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 17-05: Although neither required by law nor by the District’s competitive bidding procedures, the District will seek proposals from qualified and responsible vendors to provide tow services for the District on a rotational basis. Tow companies must agree to meet the District’s insurance requirements and vehicle storage security standards and abide by conflict of interest prohibitions. RECOMMENDATION 17-06: CLARIFY JURISDICTION Stated:Clarify to all members of the Apple Valley Unified School District-Police Department their geographical area of responsibility and the limits of their authority. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 17-06: Based on the above noted facts and rationale, the District has implemented this recommendation. As explained in Response to Finding #4, the District has formally executed a MOU with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, similar to their longstanding practice regarding their respective responsibilities in and around District schools. It has also implemented focused traffic enforcement procedures. RECOMMENDATION 17-07: PRIORITIZE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Stated: Prioritize the duties and responsibilities of the Apple Valley Unified School District- Police Department to confirm with their primary duty of protecting school children, school staff, and school property. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 17-07: The District continues its proactive positive efforts to engage all students and encourage thoughtful and respectful conduct by students as they attend to their responsibilities. 64 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Apple Valley Unified School District RECOMMENDATION 17-08: REVIEW MOUs Stated: Review all Memorandum of Understandings with school police departments and the San Bernardino County Sheriff Department to insure that jurisdictional authority has not been exceeded by school police departments. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 17-08: The MOU executed by and between the SBCSD and the AVUSD-PD, which was approved by the AVUSD Board of Trustees on September 7, 2017, confers no more authority on District police officers than is authorized by the Penal and Education Codes. RECOMMENDATION 17-09: FURTHER INVESTIGATION Stated: The appropriate state agency opens an investigation into this matter which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 17-09: By reviewing towed vehicle records of the AVUSD-PD and its towing company, the District was able to account for all of the 727 vehicles towed from 2014 through 2016. 65 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Apple Valley Unified School District RESPONSE ACCOUNTABILITY VICTOR VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT TRACKING OF EQUIPMENT AND CAPITAL ASSETS BACKGROUND The 2013-2014 Grand Jury investigated the Victor Valley Union High School District in the areas of equipment inventory, tracking of capital assets and delays in the actual opening of the new Adelanto High School. The Grand Jury made the following recommendations. RECOMMENDATION 14-07: EMPLOYEE LOG-IN IDENTITIES Stated: Each district employee has a unique log-in name and password when using a computer program. RECOMMENDATION 14-08: TRACKING DISTRICTS ASSETS Stated: Maintain access to the AssetMAXX program that tracks district assets or contract for a similar financial program. RECOMMENDATION 14-9: USING AN ASSET TRACKING SYSTEM Stated: Acquire or use an asset tracking system that meets needs of tracking capital assets and equipment. Either the AssetMAXX program needs to allow for a variety of other headings than for those set on the property accounting ledger, or another software source needs to be utilized with yearly payment of user fees. 66 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Victor Valley Union High School District Tracking of Equipment and Capital Assets RECOMMENDATION 14-10: GUIDELINES FOR ALL INVENTORIES Stated: The District follow guidelines in AR 3440 requiring that copies of all inventories should be kept at the District office or school site and that a physical inventory be conducted annually. RECOMMENDATION 14-11: INVENTORY Stated: Each site administrator or designee maintain an inventory of all equipment. RECOMMENDATION 14-12: TAGGING ASSETS Stated: Each item purchased for $500 or more needs to be asset tagged then processed and submitted to the proper department/school in a timely manner. RECOMMENDATION 14-13: BARCODE READER Stated: Each site dealing with inventory management needs a barcode reader. RECOMMENDATION 14-14: PURCHASE PROCEDURES Stated: The District maintain their policy (AR 3310) of equipment purchases including special orders of equipment valued at $500 or more being sent to the District warehouse prior to distribution to school sites. RECOMMENDATION 14-15: NEW SCHOOL SITE PROCEDURE Stated: As new school sites are opened in the future, the District should have a representative available on site to receive valuable equipment. 67 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Victor Valley Union High School District Tracking of Equipment and Capital Assets RECOMMENDATION 14-16: DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS ITEMS Stated: Adhere to VVUHSD BP 3270 for disposal of surplus items. RECOMMENDATION 14-17: DECLARATIONS OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT Stated: Declarations of surplus equipment need to have methods of disposal noted. If the equipment were purchased through federal funds or matching non-federal funds, it needs to be sold with funds distributed accordingly. RESPONSE AND STATUS The Grand Jury investigation took place in 2013-2014. The District was required to respond at that time but did not do so. The Final Report Response was due 90 days after the issuance of the report. Since the District did not voluntarily comply with Penal Code 933(c), letters were sent out to the District and phone calls were made. Due to the lateness of the response, the Grand Jury was unable to verify the District’s responses. The District represented that changes were made by the District. Many of the exhibits are no longer active or pertinent but the recommendations and changes in procedures as a result of the investigation are being addressed here. The response and status of the 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommendations were received from Victor Valley Union High School District on February 21, 2018 and are as follows: “The Grand Jury findings and recommendations have been carefully reviewed and many of the recommendations have been implemented. The concerns generally relate to identification of fixed assets, equipment and asset inventory, and proper tagging of equipment for inventory purposes.” “The District developed an in-house asset inventory system in 2013. The process of purchasing and accounting for equipment are as follows: 68 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Victor Valley Union High School District Tracking of Equipment and Capital Assets Equipment purchases begin with a requisition prepared by a school or department by an employee with a unique system sign-in code. Requisitions are submitted to the proper manager for purchase authority then forwarded to the business office for account code and budget approval. A purchase order is issued and sent to the vendor. When equipment is received at the warehouse, it is tagged with the appropriate number then delivered to the ordering site. The paperwork is then forwarded to the business office and added to the inventory list. Schools and departments are supposed to also track equipment at their locations.” “The disposal of equipment is required to be Board of Trustee approved. At a regularly scheduled Board meeting, a list of obsolete or damaged assets is presented to the Board by the school or department wanting to dispose of the equipment. Once board approved, the obsolete items are either sold to an outside salvage company such as Recycle International in El Monte, CA (all technology equipment) or stored in a storage unit until a salvage sale is conducted or another salvage company wishes to purchase damaged items. Most of the obsolete equipment is related to computers and technology due to breakage, obsolescence, or new updated technology purchases. The obsolete items are removed from the inventory list. The technology department also keeps separate inventory lists due to the large amount of such equipment in classrooms and schools.” “The school sites and departments are supposed to take inventory counts on an annual basis and notify the business office of changes or errors.” “The District is looking into contracting with an outside inventory specialty company to take a one-time district-wide inventory to verify that the records are correct and updated if necessary. This process should be done at least every other year to ensure accuracy.” “In the case of the loss of equipment and furniture at Adelanto High School during construction, that was an unforeseen problem that will not happen again. If new construction occurs now, all equipment and furniture is kept in a safe storage facility until the construction has been completed.” 69 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Victor Valley Union High School District Tracking of Equipment and Capital Assets “The warehouse and delivery drivers as well as the administrative assistant in charge of the inventory control system have been trained and follow the proper procedures. The school principals and department managers know that keeping track of equipment and furniture is a requirement.” 70 2017–2018 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury – Victor Valley Union High School District Tracking of Equipment and Capital Assets N T Y OF SAN BERN A R D O U IN C O G R Q A uae N rite D Ver i J ta U tem R Y Information regarding the San Bernardino County Grand Jury or an application to serve on the Grand Jury can be obtained by contacting the Office of the Grand Jury 172 West Third Street, Second Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415-0243 Office: (909) 387-9120 Information is also provided on the website at http://cms.sbcounty.gov/grandjury/Home.aspx