2012 - 2013

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18, F19, F20

Comments 36

• CO1
  The Grand Jury observed that there were no security lights on the west side of the building near the emergency exit.
• CO2
  The Grand Jury observed there were no security cameras on the facility grounds.
• CO3
  The Department will look into identification badges for staff working at the Longfield Center. ADMINISTRATION 559-585-2527 + RECEPTION 559·585-2525 + FACSIMILE: 559-582-1152
• CO4
  The Grand Jury observed that the outside drinking fountain was not American Disabilities Act (ADA) approved.
• CO5
  The Grand Jury was informed that the computer room equipment can only be used when trained staff is present.
• CO6
  The basketball courts and the weight room were being used by all ages.
• CO7
  Both parties involved m the joint agreement to build a hospital should have negotiated an agreement with affordable lease rate terms and the buyout terms before engaging an architect and spending any money on design work and other related costs. About $240,000 was spent on design work. There may have been other expenses incurred relating to this project. CDH will not confirm nor deny the validity of the Grand Jury's opinion as to "affordable lease rate"
• CO8
  An area of over one acre will remain unimproved until a future hospital or other structure is built. CDH administration was interviewed and was vague as to plans to enhance this property. CDH partially disagrees with this Finding 10. CDH agrees that the land will be unimproved until a structure is built on the particular real property. CDH disagrees that it was "vague as to plans to enhance this property. " Rather, CDH is presently considering construction of a replacement clinic on this property as part ofi ts Phase Op roject.
• CO9
  If Phase O is to be pursued, all continuing design and plan approval efforts on Phase I (future seismically correct hospital) may not be needed and may be wasted bond money. CDH says those services are part of a negotiated package. Per CDH, the architect still has approximately $80,000 worth of services to deliver. Terminating the Phase 1 design and plan check work will likely yield significant savings to CDH. CDH partially disagrees with this Finding 11. The future hospital is Phase II
• CO10
  If Phase O planning is implemented, new architectural designs will have to be drawn. The current Design/Build agreement does not relate to Phase 0. CDH agrees with this Finding 12.
• CO11
  The Bylaws are not dated nor are they posted on the CDH website. CDH partially disagrees with this Finding 13. Its Bylaws are dated on the front cover sheet.
• CO12
  Any item in the Bylaws can be changed by a simple board vote. CDH agrees with this Finding 14.
• CO13
  The board meeting agendas and minutes are not readily available to the citizens of the district . . CDH wholly disagrees with this Finding 15. The board meeting agendas and minutes are posted prior to all meetings, and minutes are made available to any citizen of the District who requests a copy.
• CO14
  CDH has not been able to locate some financial statements and board minutes for past years. CDH wholly disagrees with this Finding 16. Financial statements and Board minutes can be and have been located on request.
• CO15
  As of this year the board has instituted a policy whereby the administration can contact the Board Chair and an additional board member to get their approval for non-budgeted expenditures that have to be made prior to the next board meeting. Due to reasonable availability of those people, this is a sound policy. The board will now be participating in matters that they seem to have inappropriately avoided in the past. CDH agrees with this Finding 17. Re('.ommendation 17 A lower limit may be more prudent and appropriate. If a higher sum is needed, gaining the needed interim (between posted public meetings) board approval can be readily done in a short time frame based on the new board enacted policy, or by calling a special meeting of the board. The CDH Board is comfortable with its recently enacted policy requesting interim Board approval for non-budgeted expenditures. It will monitor the frequency and amounts of these interim approvals throughout the year and will consider revising the present limit as needed.
• CO16
  An Administrative employee related to a seller appeared to have been inappropriately involved in a real estate transaction. CDH cannot confirm whether there was an appearance of inappropriate involvement by an administrative employee in a real estate transaction.
• CO17
  The instructions in the County Employee Handbook concerning political activities were violated. County employees were asked to distribute campaign materials in violation of the Employee Handbook. Under the Recommendations Section of the Report the Grand Jury states:
• CO18
  There should be a clarification in the Employee Handbook regarding use of personal time on County property. Under the Recommendations Section of the Report the Grand Jury states:
• CO19
  Develop written policies and procedures addressing conflict of interest issues Response: On May 25, 2012 this department received a recommendation by the Grand Jury to implement a written policy and procedure regarding Prosecutorial Conflict of Interest cases. While the department has held a high standard for identifying such conflicts and outsourcing sentencing reports, there was no written policy. To comply with your recommendation, · the following policy will be incorporated into the Department Policy and Procedures: NEPOTISM AND CONFLICTING RELATIONSHIPS PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this policy is to ensure effective supervision, safety, security, performance, assignments and discipline while maintaining positive morale by avoiding actual or perceived favoritism, discrimination, or other actual or potential conflicts of interest by or between members of this department. DEFINITIONS Relative: An employee's parent, stepparent, spouse, domestic partner, significant other, child (natural, adopted or step), sibling, or grandparent. Personal Relationship: Includes marriage, cohabitation, dating, or any other intimate relationship beyond mere friendship. Business Relationship: Serving · as an employee, independent contractor, compensated consultant, owner, board member, shareholder, or investor in an outside business company, partnership, corporation, venture, or other transaction where the Department employee's annual interest, compensation, investment, or obligation is greater than $250. Conflict of Interest: Any actual, perceived or potential conflict of interest in which it reasonably appears that a department employee's action, inaction, or decisions are or may be influenced by the employee's personal or business relationship. Supervisor: An employee who has temporary or ongoing direct or indirect authority over the actions, decisions, evaluation, and/or performance of a subordinate employee. · Subordinate: An employee who is subject to the temporary or ongoing direct or indirect authority of a supervisor. RESTRICTED DUTIES AND ASSIGNMENTS · When the Department will not prohibit personal or business relationships between employees, the following reasonable restrictions shall apply (Government Code §12940(a)). (a) Employees are prohibited from directly supervising, occupying a position in the line of supervision, or being directly supervised by any other employee who is a relative or with whom they are involved in a personal or business relationship.
• CO20
  When personnel and circumstances permit, the Department will attempt to make every reasonable effort to avoid placing employees in such supervisor/subordinate situations. The Department, however, reserves the right to transfer or reassign any employee to another position within the same classification as it may deem necessary in order to avoid conflicts with any provision of this policy. (b) Employees are prohibited from participating in, contributing to, or recommending promotions, assignments, performance evaluations, transfers or other personnel decisions affecting an employee who is a relative, or with whom they are involved in a personal or business relationship. (c) Whenever possible, FTO's and other trainers will not be assigned to train relatives . . FTO's and other trainers are prohibited from entering into or maintaining personal or business relationships with any employee they are assigned to train until such time as the training has been successfully completed and the employee is off · probation. (d) In order to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest, members of this Department shall refrain from developing or maintaining personal or financial relationships with victims, witnesses or other individuals during the course of or as a direct result of any official contact. (e) . Except as required in the performance of official duties or, in the case of immediate relatives, employees shall not develop or maintain personal or financial relationships with any individual(s) who they know or reasonably should know are under criminal investigation, convicted felons, parolees, fugitives, registered sex offenders; or who engage in serious violations of state or federal laws. EMPLOYEE'S RESPONSIBILITY Prior to entering into any personal or business relationship or other circumstance which the employee knows or reasonably should know could create a conflict of interest or other violation of this policy. employees shall promptly notify his/her uninvolved, next highest level of supervisor. Whenever any employee is placed in circumstances which would require the employee to take enforcement action or provide other official information or services to any relative or other individual(s) with whom the employee is involved in a personal or business relationship, the employee shall promptly notify his/her uninvolved, immediate supervisor. In the event that no uninvolved supervisor is immediately available, the employee shall promptly notify dispatch to have another uninvolved employee either relieve the involved employee or minimally remain present to witness the action. SUPERVISOR'S RESPONSIBILITY Upon being notified of or becoming aware of any circumstance(s) which could result in or constitute an actual or potential violation of this poiicy, a supervisor shall take all reasonable steps to mitigate or avoid such violations whenever possible. Supervisors shall also promptly notify the Chief Probation Officer of such actual or potential violations through the chain of command. As a side note, the department has started a review and update of the current manual and will implement this into the revision. SB/dj
• CO21
  Concerning the background pertaining to the resignation of the City Manager, again, there are factual discrepancies. The City Manager was criticized for laying off four employees without advising all Council members prior to such action. While the City Manager possessed such authority to make such layoffs, the Council had indicated to the City Manager that no layoffs were to be finalized until the City Council had been appropriately notified. Several Council members were not notified. The current City Council has no knowledge of the allegation that one of the spouses of a Council member was on the "short list."
• CO22
  The council vacancy and subsequent appointment as documented in the report likewise needs to be corrected. The Council's decision to set a deadline for potential candidates to submit a letter of interest was a procedural or administrative action defining a timeframe in which documents were to be submitted so as to be included in the council agenda packet. By law, any member of the Council may nominate a potential candidate to fill a vacancy when at the appropriate time on the agenda.
• CO23
  The City of Corcoran publishes council agendas and minutes on the City's website as a public service. The City is not required by law to post said documents on the Internet and has only recently initiated this endeavor. Agendas are added to the City's website after they are officially posted at the council chambers and other designated locations. Minutes are posted after they are formally approved or adopted by the Council. In addition to the website and in an effort to assist the Grand Jury with its request, the City Clerk also provided a compact disk (CD) with scanned copies of all available agendas and minutes. Included with the CD was a letter from the City Clerk acknowledging that some of the meeting minutes had not been approved and would be delivered once accepted by the Council. The letter also notified the Grand Jury that minutes from several meetings were admittedly missing and would be provided once they were located. After providing the requested information on the CD, the City Clerk received a phone call that the documents were not able to be retrieved, As such, the City Clerk was asked to fax the agendas and minutes to the Grand Jury and to do so within a two to two and half hour time frame. In the haste of meeting that deadline, various pages as well as complete copies of some of the documents were not captured by the fax machine or inadvertently excluded. Findings and Recommendations Finding No. 1. The Grand Jury states that it "discovered that the CPD Chief revealed closed session information to a citizen." Once the complaint was made public by the CPD chief the right of privacy was waived, and as such the City Council believes that the referenced Government Code was not violated. The Council receives regular training on the legal parameters within which the governing board must act and will continue· to insure that full compliance with the confidentiality of closed session meetings is honored. Finding No. 2. Finding No. 2 states that the City Council failed to follow Section 54963 concerning a closed session item. The matter was properly agendized, but after the closed session commenced, it appeared as though there were, in fact, specific complaints. That portion of the closed session was adjourned and reconvened after proper notice to the employee. Again, the City Council will insure that the Brown Act is consistently adhered to. Finding No. 3. Agreed. Finding No. 4. The City Council is dedicated to having a well run City. With the appointment of the current City Manager, a concerted effort has been made to develop a cohesive team. All necessary steps will be taken to insure each employee works within his or her arena of responsibility. That being stated, the Chief, as with any other sworn officer, has taken an oath to respond to any issue that may be in violation of federal or state laws and it is thereby within his scope to address matters regarding other city agencies · The City does have in place a procedure for citizen's complaints as well as complaints of fellow employees. These procedures will be examined and, if appropriate, changes will be made. Finding No. 5. The City follows applicable law as it relates to vacancies. In this particular instance, the Council voted to allow a late filing of a particular applicant. In the future, the City will take all necessary steps to make sure any extended deadlines are applicable to all citizens. Finding No. 6. The City will continue to improve the City's website by periodically reviewing and testing the inks to agendas and minutes. The City will further ensure that documents posted to the site are complete and accurate. Furthermore, the City is conducting an inventory to determine if there are minutes still pending approval to rectify any gaps in the sequence of meetings. The City respects the Grand Jury for its energy and efforts and further wishes to express its appreciation to the Court for allowing the City to present its position. Respectfully, CITY OF CORCORAN ~---;;~-; };: / ~--: //[(",:. (, KindonMeik City Manager CORCORAN ;:. DISTRICT HOSPITAL August 15, 2012 To the Honorable Judge LaPorte Superior Court of the State of California, Kings County Re: Response to the Grand Jury Report received June 4, 2012 by Corcoran District Hospital Finding 1 A partial accounting of bond money expenditures used for the existing facility amount to over $2,400,000. Some of the more easily identifiable items include $1,000,000 spent for consulting and major repairs, $200,000 for clinical equipment and about $120,000 for a roof replacement this fiscal year. Spending bond monies for purposes such as these may be technically correct but not in the spirit of what the voters thought they were approving. There was $291 ,000 spent for "general purposes" as stated by CDH and about $800,000 was spent on Information Teclmology. As of April 2012, there has been $12,214,000 of bond money spent with limited evidence of physical improvements. Corcoran District Hospital (CDH) partially disagrees with this Finding 1. CDH has not spent "over $2,400,000" for the existing facility, nor has it spent "$1,000,000 for consulting and major repairs". Rather, no bond money was spent on the old building for consulting, and $322, 000 was spent on major repairs, excluding the roof
• CO24
  The Grand Jury found that the complaint, which concerned personnel matters, had no merit. RESPONSE REQUIRED California Penal Code Section 933( c) . Within 90 days of receipt of a report the public agency shall submit its response to the Presiding Judge. 4 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES IN THE WORK PLACE SYNOPSIS While political activities are to be commended, they are not allowed on Kings County government property. WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED Two complaints were filed with the Grand Jury concerning political activities that took place in the County Human Services Department. AUTHORITY California Penal Code 925. The Grand Jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments or functions of the county. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The Grand Jury interviewed many employees of the department mentioned in the complaints. The County Employees' Handbook was also reviewed. BACKROUND AND FACTS The County Employee Handbook, page 30, reads: "Political Activities Participation in political activity is a sign of good citizenship, but certain guidelines must be observed when you are an employee in public service. You may not say or publish anything which implies County endorsement of any candidate. You may not engage in political activities, including soliciting for funds or being solicited for funds, during working hours, on County premises, or while wearing a County uniform. County officials and employees are prohibited from participating in political campaigning while on County time, including distribution of campaign literature, either during work hours or on County property premises. This prohibition includes the displaying of campaign materials on County property, including walls, bulletin boards, doors and County-owned vehicles or equipment." Interviews with some Human Services employees indicated that campaign materials were present in an office including a map designating areas in which 5 employees lived. Some were asked to distribute campaign door hangers in those areas. Several of the employees interviewed complained of feeling pressured to comply and feared retaliation and possible job loss if they refused. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Finding 1 The instructions in the County Employee Handbook concerning political activities were violated. County employees were asked to distribute campaign materials in violation of the Employee Handbook. Recommendation 1 Supervisors and all employees should follow the Employee Handbook and adhere to the policies therein. Finding 2 The Grand Jury found that there was confusion concerning the use of personal time on County property as it pertains to rules in the Employee Handbook. Recommendation 2 There should be a clarification in the Employee Handbook regarding use of personal time on County property.
• CO25
  It is beyond the expertise of the Grand Jury to evaluate the success of this program. RESPONSE REQUIREMENT None 8 COLLEGE OF SEQUOIAS (COS) HANFORD CAMPUS WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED Public interest AUTHORITY California Penal Code Section 933.5. The Grand Jury may examine the books, duties and records of any special purpose assessing district in the county. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION On site visit of the campus led by the Provost. BACKROUND AND FACTS The COS Campus is located in a new facility combined with Sierra Pacific High School and a Hanford City owned athletic complex. The close proximity to the Sierra Pacific campus offers the high school students a chance to take college courses and the COS students share the chemistry labs at the high school. The COS campus was financed by a Kings County bond of 20 million dollars. The college opened in fall of 2010. There are approximately 800 fulltime students attending classes at this time. There are three main structures. The Administration Building (the Hub) contains student services: financial, counseling, registration, medical services, a lounge area, library and general education classrooms. The Vocational Building contains classrooms and labs for instruction in welding, electrical wiring and plant maintenance. In one year of study students are able to receive a certificate in Industrial Maintenance. A second one-year course is offered in Agricultural Business Management which includes management, accounting and agricultural work experience. There are also classrooms enabling teleconferencing classes with the Visalia COS campus. The third structure, called the Public Safety Center, contains the Fire and Police Academies. The Police Academy offers training in the law enforcement field, and graduates receive the Peace Officer Standards and Training certificate. Driving 9 simulators and a force option lab are housed in this building. CPR is taught and there is a weight room. Also in this building are classes in Administration of Justice. The Fire Academy classes are held at night and practical training is done at the Kings County Fire Training Center. Located on the campus is a concrete area to practice driving for the police academy students. There is also an obstacle course and fire engine facility.
• CO26
  The cooperation of Kings County, City of Hanford, the Hanford High School District and COS created a most unusual facility and could well serve as a model for other areas. RESPONSE NOT REQUIRED 10 CORCORAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY LEARNING CENTER WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED Public interest. AUTHORITY California Penal Code Section 933.5 The grand jury may investigate and report it's examination of the books and records of a special-purpose assessing or taxing district as well as such district's method or system of performing it's duties. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION On site visit of the Corcoran High School Technology Center and classrooms escorted by the Vice Principal. BACKROUND AND FACTS The Grand Jury was greeted by the Vice Principal and escorted to the conference room of the Technology Center. The Grand Jury was given an overview of the programs offered, all of which are elective classes. Each student is provided with either an electronic tablet or laptop computer. The first class interviewed was the English Language Development (ELD) class. The class members are being trained to tutor kindergarten and first graders on a one-to-one basis. All of the ELD students are college bound and have an A or B grade point average. A Health Occupation class prepares students for careers in the medical field. This class teaches basic techniques in nursing such as bed making, taking blood pressure, physical therapy, and record keeping. The class is taught by a Registered Nurse. The multimedia program offers classes in web design and creation of web sites. Also offered are classes in newspaper bulletins, how to post on Y ouTube, art graphics and design. An introduction to welding class is available. In this class the students learn how to create designs on a computer and transfer them to a metal cutting machine. Arc and gas welding are also taught. 11 The art class was making papier-mache masks and studying the history of the cultures represented by the masks. Incorporated in the masks were such things as wooden horns, yam and raffia. An Air Force JROTC class teaches all aspects of aviation, weather, flight plans, good citizenship and responsibility. This is not a recruiting class for the military. Each student is issued a uniform which they are responsible to care for and keep in a professional manner. They are required to wear the uniform one day a week. At the end of the term each student has the opportunity to file a flight plan, make a preflight inspection and take a flight in the instructor's aircraft. There is an Agricultural Mechanics class which offers electrical wiring, farm equipment repair and farming techniques. Most of the members of this class are also in Future Farmers of America.
• CO27
  The Stratford Public Utility District has made every effort to inform the District residents of the problem at the WWTF and of the proposed solution. RESPONSE REQUIRED None 16 WOODROW WILSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED Public interest. AUTHORITY California Penal Code Section 925. The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of officers, departments or functions of other districts in the county. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION On site visit of school and interview with the Principal. BACKROUND AND FACTS The Grand Jury was greeted by the Principal and escorted to the school library. The Principal gave a brief overview of his background in the education field. He explained the security precautions that are in place and future plans to insure students' safety. The school has the capability to hold video conferences (WEBINAR) enabling students to interact with outside educational programs. Six mobile computer carts, each containing 30 laptops, are utilized in individual classrooms. The Grand Jury was shown four classrooms that were in session. It was noted that all of the classrooms were locked for safety purposes. The Jury members were allowed to interact with the students, who were well behaved and showed interest in the questions posed by the visitors. The teachers and special education aides were observed to be actively involved with the students. Woodrow Wilson offers two elective classes in videography to students who meet good citizenship and grade point requirements. A $150,000 grant has made this program possible. A 15 to 18 minute school news program is shown each Friday morning in which the videography students write and edit the script, direct, produce, operate all of the video and audio equipment, and have their own newscasters. The program is transmitted to each classroom via video monitors. This classroom and its equipment are monitored by a separate security system. 17 The Grand Jury visited the cafeteria and gymnasium; both were well maintained and were in use at the time of the visit.
• CO28
  A venal State Prison employs approximately 530 inmates in five enterprises. The enterprises bring income into the prison and also train inmates to obtain meaningful jobs upon release. Incomes from these enterprises are: Egg Production $ 5,961,200 Poultry $ 6,221,000 Furniture $ 2,447,882 General Fabrication $ 6,400,000 Laundry $ 728,250 Total revenue $21,758,332 The prison is in the process of installing a security dome to prevent incoming and outgoing cell phone calls by prisoners. It is eighty percent completed as of November 27, 2012. 20 CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED Public interest AUTHORITY California Penal Code Section 919(b). The Grand Jury shall inquire into the conditions and management of public prisons within the county. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The Grand Jury was greeted by the Public Affairs Officer, who gave the Grand Jury information on the operations of the prison. The group was then escorted by two officers on a tour of the prison. BACKGROUND AND FACTS The Grand Jury was escorted around Facility E. The first stop was to a housing unit and then to the education department, gymnasium, medical unit, laundry facility, dining hall, and bicycle repair shop. The bicycle repair shop also rebuilds wheel chairs. Facility E also contained a Native American sweat lodge. The Grand Jury was escorted to the Investigation Services Unit. Upon arrival the group was shown various confiscated items. Some of the items consisted of drug paraphernalia, weapons and cell phones. At its highest, the prison population was at 7200 inmates. Due to AB109, which decreased the number of inmates in a prison, the population is 5500 inmates at the present time and the goal is 5200 inmates. In November of 2012, the prison was cited for 136 violations that were documented in California State Fire and ins.pection reports. The Grand Jury requested a copy of those reports. FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION
• CO29
  The Grand Jury appreciates the courtesies extended to them by the Police Chief and staff. RESPONSE REQUIRED None 23 24 HANFORD LONGFIELD CENTER SYNOPSIS Following up on complaints regarding alleged illegal activities occurring at the Longfield Center, the Grand Jury conducted interviews and visits to the facility. While at the center, the Grand Jury expanded the investigation to include a review of the facilities. WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED The Grand Jury received a written complaint regarding alleged illegal activities at the center. AUTHORITY California Penal Code Section 925a. The Grand Jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The Grand Jury interviewed the complainant, representatives of Hanford Parks and Recreation Department, the Hanford Police Department, and a member of the Hanford City Council. The Grand Jury also toured the facility. BACKGROUND AND FACTS The Longfield Center is a recreational facility owned by the City of Hanford and managed by the Recreation Department. There was a complaint of illegal activities at the Longfield Center, including gang recruitments, drug use and sales, and prostitution. According to the complaint these activities were occurring at various times. The complainant also stated known sex offenders were inside the facility. The complainant felt unwelcome upon entering the facility and was warned by a visitor in the facility not to enter the weight room because "there are hard core prisoners who are gangs, rapists, child molester". The complaint further alleged that access to the computer room was denied due to lack of qualified staff and that the younger children could not use the basketball courts because there was no schedule available. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25 Finding 1 The Grand Jury found no illegal activities at the Longfield Center. Recommendation 1 None Finding 2 The Grand Jury observed that staff left a set of keys unattended in the door lock to the computer room. Recommendation 2 Management may want to revisit safety and procedural issues with staff. Finding 3 The Grand Jury observed that there were no security lights on the west side of the building near the emergency exit. Recommendation 3 The Parks and Recreation Department may want to consider installing security lights around the outside of the facility. Finding 4 The Grand Jury observed there were no security cameras on the facility grounds. Recommendation 4 The Parks and Recreation Department may want to consider installing security cameras around the facility. Finding S The Grand Jury observed that staff did not have any visible identification. Recommendation 5 26 Management may want to consider issuing visible identification badges. Finding 6 The Grand Jury observed that the outside drinking fountain was not American Disabilities Act (ADA) approved. Recommendation 6 Compliance with the ADA is recommended. Finding 7 The Grand Jury was informed that the computer room equipment can only be used when trained staff is present. Recommendation 7 Management may want to consider training all staff to maximize service to the public. Finding 8 The basketball courts and the weight room were being used by all ages. Recommendation 8 This approach serves the public well. It is our hope this will continue. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury found, through observations at the Longfield Center, that there was no evidence of illegal activities alleged in the complaint. RESPONSE REQUIREMENT: Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Kings County within ninety days from date of receipt. 27 28 ~~/HANFORD CALIFORNIA 93230 PARKS & RECREATION 321 N. DOUTY STREET, SUITE 8 ·; MAYOR r: LOU MARTINEZ ),: VICE-MAYOR GARYPANNETr -" - ,R'I:LtlVED COUNCIL MEMBERS JOLEEN JAMESON JIM IRWIN RUSS CURRY GTY M.AJ\IOGER DARREL L PYLE March 27, 2013 CITY ATICRNEY RORFFff M. nown Kings County Grand Jury 1400 W. Lacey Blvd. Hanford, CA 93230 RE: Response to Grand Jury Report Findings and Recommendation at Longfield Center Dear Grand Jury: I am in receipt of the Grand Jury's findings and recommendation in regards to the "Hanford Longfield Center" which was hand delivered to the City of Hanford Parks and Recreation Department on March 6, 2013. I have reviewed the report and prepared this response to the report's findings and recommendations as required. }finding 1: I am unaware of any illegal act1v1t1es at the Longfield Center and concur with the recommendations of the Grand Jury. The Parks and Recreation Department works in cooperation with the Hanford Police Department - Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) officers at the center to try and educate and mentor the youth so that they know how to avoid and stay away from gang related activities. Finding 2: The Longfield Center staff has since received training on the proper procedures regarding facility safety and security. Finding 3: The Building Maintenance Division was contacted in regards to installing security lighting for the west side of the Longfield Center for a proposal of costs to try to add the lighting at the emergency exit. The proposal will assist the department in budgeting for this security measure. Finding 4: The Information Technology Division has been contacted in regards to installing security cameras around the perimeter of the facility for a proposal of costs. The proposal will assist the Department in budgeting for this security measure. Finding 5: The Department will look into identification badges for staff working at the Longfield Center. ADMINISTRATION 559-585-2527 + RECEPTION 559·585-2525 + FACSIMILE: 559-582-1152 Finding 6: The Department will get cost proposals for an outside ADA complaint drinking fountain to install at the Longfield Center. The proposal will assist the Department in budgeting to address the ADA requirement. Finding 7: Since the addition of the computer room at the Longfield Center staff has been trained on the operation of the computer room. Staff has also been instructed to open the room and monitor the use of the equipment and assist the users as needed on the operation of the equipment. Finding 8: The Longfield Center is open to age six (6) and above for the use of the computer room, and the basketball courts with a parent or guardian. The pool room is open to those twelve (12) and above, and the weight room can only be used by those sixteen (16) and above. If you need clarification or additional information, please contact me at 585-2527. Scinlc.~ r~, /) / ~ _ ,,U44q1r~ J. Dean Johns Parks and Recreation Director R:\WORK-JD's\Grand Jury Response letter March 27, 2013.doc HANFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED Public Interest AUTHORITY California Penal Code Section 925a. The Grand Jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION Onsite visit at the Hanford Police Department, with the Police Captain. BACKROUND AND FACTS The Grand Jury was greeted in the lobby and escorted to the dispatch center. There are three dispatchers, one is assigned to handle all calls concerning the City of Lemoore. The other two handle Hanford calls. The Grand Jury toured the building which included the holding cells, report writing room, gym, evidence room, briefing room, interview rooms, conference room, computer servers, and supervisors' offices. The Captain explained that the building is at maximum capacity and has no space for expansion. The Grand Jury was taken to another building which houses the Detectives' offices and the Records Department. There is a fenced outdoor area for stolen bicycles and cars.
• CO30
  The Grand Jury found, through observations at the Longfield Center, that there was no evidence of illegal activities alleged in the complaint. RESPONSE REQUIREMENT: Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Kings County within ninety days from date of receipt. 27 28 ~~/HANFORD CALIFORNIA 93230 PARKS & RECREATION 321 N. DOUTY STREET, SUITE 8 ·; MAYOR r: LOU MARTINEZ ),: VICE-MAYOR GARYPANNETr -" - ,R'I:LtlVED COUNCIL MEMBERS JOLEEN JAMESON JIM IRWIN RUSS CURRY GTY M.AJ\IOGER DARREL L PYLE March 27, 2013 CITY ATICRNEY RORFFff M. nown Kings County Grand Jury 1400 W. Lacey Blvd. Hanford, CA 93230 RE: Response to Grand Jury Report Findings and Recommendation at Longfield Center Dear Grand Jury: I am in receipt of the Grand Jury's findings and recommendation in regards to the "Hanford Longfield Center" which was hand delivered to the City of Hanford Parks and Recreation Department on March 6, 2013. I have reviewed the report and prepared this response to the report's findings and recommendations as required. }finding 1: I am unaware of any illegal act1v1t1es at the Longfield Center and concur with the recommendations of the Grand Jury. The Parks and Recreation Department works in cooperation with the Hanford Police Department - Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) officers at the center to try and educate and mentor the youth so that they know how to avoid and stay away from gang related activities. Finding 2: The Longfield Center staff has since received training on the proper procedures regarding facility safety and security. Finding 3: The Building Maintenance Division was contacted in regards to installing security lighting for the west side of the Longfield Center for a proposal of costs to try to add the lighting at the emergency exit. The proposal will assist the department in budgeting for this security measure. Finding 4: The Information Technology Division has been contacted in regards to installing security cameras around the perimeter of the facility for a proposal of costs. The proposal will assist the Department in budgeting for this security measure. Finding 5: The Department will look into identification badges for staff working at the Longfield Center. ADMINISTRATION 559-585-2527 + RECEPTION 559·585-2525 + FACSIMILE: 559-582-1152 Finding 6: The Department will get cost proposals for an outside ADA complaint drinking fountain to install at the Longfield Center. The proposal will assist the Department in budgeting to address the ADA requirement. Finding 7: Since the addition of the computer room at the Longfield Center staff has been trained on the operation of the computer room. Staff has also been instructed to open the room and monitor the use of the equipment and assist the users as needed on the operation of the equipment. Finding 8: The Longfield Center is open to age six (6) and above for the use of the computer room, and the basketball courts with a parent or guardian. The pool room is open to those twelve (12) and above, and the weight room can only be used by those sixteen (16) and above. If you need clarification or additional information, please contact me at 585-2527. Scinlc.~ r~, /) / ~ _ ,,U44q1r~ J. Dean Johns Parks and Recreation Director R:\WORK-JD's\Grand Jury Response letter March 27, 2013.doc HANFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED Public Interest AUTHORITY California Penal Code Section 925a. The Grand Jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION Onsite visit at the Hanford Police Department, with the Police Captain. BACKROUND AND FACTS The Grand Jury was greeted in the lobby and escorted to the dispatch center. There are three dispatchers, one is assigned to handle all calls concerning the City of Lemoore. The other two handle Hanford calls. The Grand Jury toured the building which included the holding cells, report writing room, gym, evidence room, briefing room, interview rooms, conference room, computer servers, and supervisors' offices. The Captain explained that the building is at maximum capacity and has no space for expansion. The Grand Jury was taken to another building which houses the Detectives' offices and the Records Department. There is a fenced outdoor area for stolen bicycles and cars.
• CO31
  29 The Grand Jury appreciates the courtesies extended to them by the Police Captain and the staff. RESPONSE NOT REQUIRED None 30 LEMOORE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED Public interest. AUTHORITY California Penal Code Section 925a. The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION Onsite visit at the Lemoore Police Department, with the Chief of Police. BACKROUNDANDFACTS The Grand Jury was greeted in the lobby by the Chiefs Secretary and escorted to the conference room. The Chief was waiting for the Grand Jury in the conference room, and he provided an overview of the Police Department operations. He then escorted the panel on a tour of the entire facility. The Grand Jury was shown the site where the future Dispatch Department will be located. The Police Department is served by VIPs (Volunteers in Policing) who conduct traffic control, and assist in the Records Department. There is an indoor simulation shooting range used during inclement weather.
• CO32
  The Grand Jury appreciates the courtesies extended to them by the Police Chief and the staff. RESPONSE None required 31 32
• CO33
  HANFORD CITY COUNCIL WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED The 2011/2012 Grand Jury received a complaint that was passed on to the 2012/2013 Grand Jury alleging among other issues, "Continued waste of public funds and fiscal irresponsibility by the City Council". AUTHORITY California Penal Code 925 (a). The Grand Jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city in the county. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The Grand Jury interviewed former City Council members, Hanford City staff members, examined past and present minutes of council meetings, attended Hanford City Council meetings, reviewed documents concerning the hiring of the present City Attorney, and compared legal costs of comparable South Valley cities. BACKROUND AND FACTS Of the seven complaints given by the complainant, the solicitation, hiring and salary of the current City Attorney was the only one investigated. In late 2006, the City sent Requests for Proposal (RFP) stating requirements for filling the City attorney vacancy with a requirement stating, among others, "7 years representing general law & charter cities." The RFP was specific but as stated in the RFP, "The city council reserves the right to reject all proposals, to request additional information concerning any proposal for purposes of clarification, to accept or negotiate any modification to any proposal following the deadline for receipt of all proposals, and to waive any irregularities if such would serve the best interests of the City as determined by the city council." The Grand Jury, during interviews with staff and former council members, found that hiring a local firm was a high priority in selecting legal counsel. Of the eleven firms submitting proposals, the firm hired was one of two applicants without the required" ... minimum of seven (7) years in municipal law experience representing general law and/or charter cities ... ", was the only local firm, and submitted the most expensive proposal. 33 Until the April 2011 Agreement for Legal Services, the practice had been to hire specialized law firms in addition to the contracted city attorney. The stated reason for changing that policy was the belief that one firm handling all city business would cost less than the fees paid to the city attorney plus the several firms used for specialized legal services. The billings for legal services for the last ten fiscal years (FY) prepared by the City of Hanford's finance department on October 9, 2012 are: $329,643. for FY 2001, four attorney firms $451,363. for FY 2002, four attorney firms $264,831. for FY 2003, three attorney firms $365,017. for FY 2004, four attorney firms $237,981. for FY 2005, three attorney firms $355,288. for FY 2006, five attorney firms $728,967. for FY 2007, seven attorney firms $624,678. for FY 2008, five attorney firms $455,188. for FY 2009, three attorney firms $543,641. for FY 2010, three attorney firms $570,974. for FY 2011, two attorney firms $659,576, for FY 2012, one attorney firm The Grand Jury notes that despite one firm having been contracted in 2011 to cover all legal services, expenditures have increased. The Grand Jury investigated legal fees in comparable South Valley cities and, although different cities have different legal problems, Hanford showed substantially higher legal fees were paid to its City Attorney. FINIDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The Hanford City Council hired a law firm without the municipal experience required in the RFP. The firm hired was also the most expensive of the proposals submitted by 10 other law firms, and was the only local firm submitting a proposal. According to interviews, it appears that the reason the firm was hired was because it was the only local firm submitting a proposal. Recommendation 1 In the future, the City of Hanford should hire a law firm in compliance with its RFP to maintain the integrity of the bidding process whereby the best services are obtained for the least cost. 34 Finding 2 The City of Hanford is spending more on legal services than other cities of comparable size in the South Valley. Recommendation 2 The City of Hanford staff should confer with the staff of other cities of comparable size concerning legal fees charged, to find possible savings.
• CO34
  Expending city funds locally is considered to be a good idea, but should not be the primary determining factor. REPLY REQUIRED Section 933( c) . Within 90 days of receipt of a report the public agency shall submit its response to the Presiding Judge. 35 36 HANFORD HISTORICAL RESOURCE COMMISSION SYNOPSIS The reason for preserving and maintaining the various historical areas of Hanford is to preserve a link to the past. Hanford Municipal Code Title 17 Zoning, Chapter 17 .36 states; " ... the protection, enhancement, preservation and use of structures in districts of historic, architectural and engineering significance located within the city to be of cultural and aesthetic benefit to the community. It is further found that respect of the heritage of the city will enhance the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of the city." WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED Public interest AUTHORITY California Penal Code Section 925a. The Grand Jury at any time may examine the books and records of incorporated city or joint powers agency located within the County of Kings. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The Grand Jury interviewed former Hanford City Council members, former members of the Hanford Historic Commission, the Hanford City Manager, the Director of Main Street Hanford, the Executive Director of Hanford Conference and Visitor's Agency, and examined past records, documents and municipal codes. BACKROUND AND FACTS Some Hanford residents in the late '70s took it upon themselves to form a group to save the historic buildings in the City of Hanford. This was prompted after the demolition of the Hanford High School. The Citizens Advisory Committee on Civic Center buildings' usage was appointed on November 7, 1977 to provide the City Council with recommendations concerning the usage of buildings within and in the vicinity of the Hanford Civic Center. 37 In 1979 a petition was drafted to save the historic Kings County Courthouse in the downtown area. In October 1980, the City of Hanford established the Historic Resource Commission, its members, powers and duties by Ordinance 967. The Hanford Historic Resource Commission met for the first time on February 3, 1983 to adopt rules for transactions of Commission business. Ordinance 967 authorized the Commission to make the final decision on project proposals requiring a permit within the Hanford Historic District, unless appealed to the City Council. On October 16, 2001 the Hanford City Council held a public hearing to consider an amendment to ordinance 967 which would repel the establishment of the Historic Resources Commission and remove all references to it. During the public comments none spoke in favor and seven spoke in opposition. On November 6, 2001, despite public opposition, the Hanford City Council terminated the Historic resources Commission. FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION
• CO35
  Former City Council Members remarked that if they were to vote today on the repeal of the Historical Resource Commission they would oppose it. RESPONSE REQUIRED California Penal Code Section 933(c). Within 90 days of receipt of a report the public agency shall submit its response to the Presiding Judge. 38 ~1P/ 1Hf A N JF O R JD CALIFORNIA 93230 CITY OFFICES 319 NORTH DOUTY STREET MAYOR LOU MARTINEZ VICE-MAYOR GARY PANNElT COUNOLMEMBERS JIMIRWIN April 3, 2013 JOLEEN JAMESON RUSS CURRY ClTYM<'NOGER DARREL PYLE aJYJ(flffiNEY ROBERT M. DOWD The Honorable Thomas DeSantos Presiding Judge Kings County Superior Court 1400 W. Lacey Blvd. Hanford, CA 93230 Re: Hanford City Council, Grand Jury Report of February 6, 2013 Dear Judge Desantos: The City of Hanford (City) hereby responds to the 2012-2013 Grand Jury Final Report (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A") regarding the retention in 2007 of Griswold, LaSalle, Cobb, Dowd and Gin, L.L.P. (Griswold LaSalle) as the City Attorney for the City. Foremost, we must note that our City Manager has worked with many law firms over his twenty (20) plus years as an employee of vaiious government entities and finds the legal advice and responsiveness of Griswold LaSalle to be the very best he has experienced. We, of course, were not the City Council when Griswold LaSalle was originally retained, but based upon their performance today, it was an excellent choice made by the then City Council. We observe that the Grand Jury interviewed various individuals in order to reach its findings; however, they failed to interview anyone from Griswold LaSalle. We would have thought the Grand Jury would have found it beneficial to interview our lawyers to get a better understanding regarding their retention and the work they have been requested to perform over the years. We will try and explain herein what the Grand Jury would have learned if they had conducted such an interview. We note generally that the Grand Jury concluded: (1) Griswold LaSalle lacked "municipal experience" when hired; (2) Griswold LaSalle was retained because it "was the only local" law firm applicant; (3) Griswold LaSalle was the "most expensive" of all applicants; and (4) the City is "spending more on legal services" then other comparable Cities in the South Valley. We must respectfully disagree regarding the Grand Jury's findings. Finding 1. Municipal Experience: On a daily basis, the City deals with laws, regulations, and legal issues not limited to cities. Some legal matters involve specific government issues but many do not. ADMINISTRATION 559-585·2515 9 PERSONNEL 559-585·2520 ~ FACSIMILE: 559·585·2595 April 3, 2013 Page2 As to laws, regulations, and issues involving government-related matters, Griswold LaSalle worked for decades for public agencies before being retained by the City---far more than the seven (7) years requested by the RFP. The governmental bodies included clients such as: the State of California, Kings County Water District, Kings County Housing Authority, Lake Don Pedro Community Services District, Riverdale Public Utilities District, Laton Community Services District, Kettleman City Community Services District, Hanford Elementary School District, Central Union School District, etc. Griswold LaSalle also represented numerous private sector clients that regularly dealt with cities and other government agencies, through which Griswold LaSalle addressed "municipal" and other government issues, including laws and regulations, which caused the law firm to have expertise in such areas. Before retention by the City, Griswold LaSalle had many years of experience with "municipal issues," including the Brown Act, Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, Public Records Act, Conflicts of Interest, Robert's Rules, Government claims regarding torts, personnel and negotiations, real estate transactions, construction law, public bidding and contracts, prevailing wage, drafting and interpretation of ordinances, zoning and land use, redevelopment, Subdivision Map Act, municipal general and precise plans, CEQA, NEPA and environmental laws and regulations, landlord-tenant and unlawful detainer actions, Proposition 218 and property related fees, risk management and insurance, constitutional issues such as free speech and due process, and municipal bonds. All of those areas are important to the City and are just a small sampling of areas in which Griswold LaSalle possessed more than seven (7) years of experience at the time of its hiring. Griswold LaSalle has been able to draw upon its extensive expertise in numerous areas oflaw, including "municipal law" to assist the City. Through its RFP, the City sought a law firm with more than seven (7) years of experience in legal matters in which the City normally engages, and Griswold LaSalle was a law firm that greatly exceeded such threshold requirement. Additionally, Griswold LaSalle worked as the "acting City Attorney" for the City for almost one (1) year before going through the RFP process and being retained as the City Attorney. In essence, the Council had almost one (1) year to "drive the car before purchasing." Only Local Firm: Griswold LaSalle was the only law firm from Hanford that responded to the RFP. Fortunately for Hanford, the Council retained Griswold LaSalle. Our City Attorney's office has thirty one (31) full time and ten (10) part time employees. Much of the money paid Griswold LaSalle by the City remains in the City. Additionally, we have found the lawyer team of Griswold LaSalle always available to meet on the shortest of notice ---- a luxury one would not have with a law finn located outside of Hanford. Griswold LaSalle was not hired because they were a local firm - they were hired because the Council believed them to be the best lawyers for the job, and they just happened to be local, which is a plus. April 3, 2013 Page 3 Finding 2. Most Expensive: We understand that all applicants generally had an "open ended" proposal----a fee for basic services and an hourly rate for non-routine work. Such proposals are common because one cannot predict what legal needs will arise. Also, it is critical to note that Griswold LaSalle, like any other attorney who could have been retained, only performs the work his/her client requests to be performed. Spending More on Legal Services: We do not know what jurisdictions the Grand Jury used in the "South Valley" for its comparisons, but our review shows the City is in line with comparable jurisdictions. We have reviewed the 2010/11 financial reports for Visalia, Tulare and the County of Kings regarding the amount paid for their lawyers, and note in those reports: Visalia at $1,160,018.00; Tulare at $778,480.00; and the County of Kings at $1,062,661 (see Exhibits "B," "C," and "D," respectively). Therefore, we find the legal expenses for the City to be in line with "South Valley" comparisons. We hope the foregoing is of assistance in better understanding the referenced Grand Jury Report. Sincerely, HANFORD CITY COUNCIL /IZ<~I - <: --1\ .. By: LOU MARTINEZ,'Mayor and'~p-u:qcilmember ... _, . _/,,. ' · ,·. I . . . . /'' . ~ . ;, -) . - .-, ~ (. - .. --· ., ' ,, ; , By . .__ __ / .L.t:l· L,··1- 1 ,.<:---;.,. . • ,( ., -./ ____I_ __ _ GARY PA.NtfJffT,1Vice-Mayor and Councilmember '') I ·' /' By: ..__ \. --.) .. \ i ...........,, .,.J: RUSS CURRY, Cou:n'dlmember /) ., </' {. .. ,. _~-c_ ·: ·: _____________ _ c By: JIM IRWIN, Councilmember I --~ ,_)----·~.,... ;., <-.. ,_\ __ .-..,. -_ ., ,. -- ------·- B y: '·._ -·---·~iv c: t ; . - , : . . . . . f l , _ _. ).. 1 ,.. ,..,JJ L - ·I,• .??'. , . ' , 1 '/-'V ,I. .. { • c_.~ ~-- ) ( _ _ ....... ·-··-·· JOLEEN JAMESOvN , Councilmember I/ HOMELESSNESS IN KINGS COUNTY SYNOPSIS In Kings County there are many homeless people, mostly male. As a group they do not appear to be a police problem. Neither the cities within Kings County, nor the County have ordinances regarding the homeless. WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED Several stories in the Fresno Bee concerning the problems created by homeless people in Fresno prompted the investigation. AUTHORITY California Penal Code Section 925 -The Grand Jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments or functions of the county. California Penal Code Section 925a - The Grand Jury may at any time investigate and report on the operations of any incorporated city in the county. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The Grand Jury interviewed and questioned officials from the county and the cities of Hanford, Lemoore, Corcoran and A venal. The Grand Jury also interviewed an official from a local charitable organization, and attended a police-sponsored conference regarding the homeless in A venal. A Y outube.com video regarding homelessness in Hanford was also viewed. BACKGROUND AND FACTS After receiving testimony from the individuals noted above, it appears that most of the homeless in Kings County prefer to stay in Hanford. One of the other cities actually puts them on a bus to Hanford where more services are available through charitable organizations. The homeless, who are predominantly male, make use of 39 several organizations which give them free lunch six days a week, and frequent breakfasts. One organization intends to offer showers and laundry facilities in the future. There are about 200 homeless in Hanford. Many of them sleep in city parks though, technically, the parks close at midnight. Others sleep on private property or abandoned buildings unless and until the property owner objects. The law enforcement agencies do not have a great deal of trouble caused by the homeless because they tend to police themselves. None of the public agencies have ordinances dealing directly with the homeless, nor do they plan to at this time.
• CO36
  Homelessness is sometimes temporary due to economic problems, although the majority are chronic homeless. RESPONESREQUIRED None 40 LEMOORE RECREATION CENTER (LRC) WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED Public Interest AUTHORITY California Penal Code Section 925(a) The Grand Jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city in the county. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The Grand Jury visited the LRC and interviewed the Parks and Recreation Director. BACKROUND AND FACTS The LRC was originally a large yam factory (Candlewick). It was purchased at the cost of $2.1 million by the City of Lemoore in 2002. Subsequently a portion of the facility was sold to a private party for $1. 7 million. The building has been covered by solar panels and is divided into a public works and maintenance facility, a recreation complex and a public food distribution warehouse. Available to the public at this time is a variety of indoor recreational opportunities: a teen center, basketball courts, a dance room, a playground, a walking track, a boxing ring, a soccer field, and a practice rink for roller derby. The recreational facility can be rented by individuals. Currently, a large covered parking lot with solar panels is being developed to provide adequate parking. Future plans include the addition of an air rifle range, a commercial kitchen, expansion of the summer camp program, and recreation department offices. As funds become available additional heavy duty ceiling fans will be purchased and installed.