Veterans Memorial Restoration: Preserving History and Restoring Pride.*

Published: August 29, 2012 5 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ 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 1 findings

F1 Page 3

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 thereafter.

Related Recommendations (1)

Page 2

It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council approve this response to the 2011-12 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "Veterans Memorial Restoration: Preserving History and Restoring Pride." OUTCOME Approval of this report will satisfy the requirements of Penal Code Section 933 (c), which requires the City Council to respond to Civil Grand Jury reports to the presiding judge of the Superior Court. BACKGROUND Grand Jury Report The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury provided the City with its final report, including findings and recommendations, entitled "Veterans Memorial Restoration: Preserving History and Restoring Pride" (see Attachment A). According to the report: The Grand Jury sought to determine why the repair (to the Veterans Memorial) took so long and what the City of San Jose's (the City) plan is to mitigate future vandalism. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL August 6, 2012 Subject: Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report on Veterans Memorial Restoration The Grand Jury report contains three findings with applicable recommendations. The City has responded to each of those findings and recommendations in accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and (b), which states that the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following with respect to each finding and recommendation:

Additional Recommendations 1

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

R2
Page 3

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented 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 discussion by the officer and head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe 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 reasonable, with an explanation therefore. GRAND JURY FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE CITY'S REPONSE Grand Jury Finding 1 The restoration plan and project status was not communicated by the OCA consistently and accurately to the public.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

San Jose City

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.