Alameda City Council Interference

Conclusions 10

• CL1
  17 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ Alleged Threat to Fire City Manager Two months into the fire chief recruitment, tensions were high throughout City Hall because the fire labor organization was making a very strong push for its internal candidate. The relationship between the city manager and fire labor leader was strained because of rumors that the city manager was recruiting an outside candidate, and the labor-backed candidate might not be chosen. Union representatives began recruiting current and former city officials to reach out to the city manager in a show of support for its candidate. This put the city manager in a difficult position, and, in her opinion, threatened any chance for a fair and transparent recruitment process for a department head position which controlled a $33 million annual budget and managed 90 firefighters. On August 1, 2017 one Alameda councilmember (CM1) accompanied the Alameda police chief to a number of neighborhood gatherings on National Night Out. The nationwide event is intended to strengthen community-police partnerships and bring neighborhoods together to make them safer. CM1 responded by stating that the city manager better “do the right The police chief and CM1 had worked with each other thing” and if not, there were for years, and it was common for the chief to partner already two councilmembers ready to fire the city manager. up with someone on the city council for such events. At the end of the night, CM1 brought up with the police chief the issue of the fire chief hiring process. The conversation led the police chief to acknowledge that the labor candidate had a steep hill to climb, because he lacked a college degree and command experience. CM1 responded that the city manager better “do the right thing”; if not, there were already two councilmembers ready to fire her. The police chief knew the city manager was frustrated with the outside interference but thought her concerns that her job might be in jeopardy were overblown. That was certainly no longer the case after this conversation. Had this statement been made directly to the city manager, it would be difficult to interpret it as anything other than a threat to the city manager’s job and as pressure to select CM1’s candidate, who also happened to be the labor union’s choice. Such pressure would be a direct violation of the city charter’s provision preventing councilmembers from trying to influence the city manager during the hiring process. It is impractical to have expected the police chief to keep these provocative comments private. The police chief reports directly to the city manager and, just like the fire chief, is hired and could be fired by the city manager. By all accounts, the city manager and police chief had a very positive working relationship and city business oftentimes required them to speak several times a day. Everyone on the council knew this. It would also be in the police chief’s best interests to give his boss a heads up that one councilmember appeared to be lobbying other members of the council to fire her if they did not get their way on the fire chief hire. Ultimately, there is evidence that the police chief did report this conversation to the city manager. 18 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ CM1 has repeatedly denied making such statements. After thorough investigation, the Grand Jury does not find these denials credible. The police chief immediately reported the conversation to the city manager and later recounted the same story to a local newspaper. His story was also consistent throughout multiple investigatory interviews. The police chief had no apparent motive to fabricate this story. He had been working for the city for 26 years and had been chief for the last four. It An elected official operating in a appears the police chief had no interest in supporting any council-manager form of government should not be specific fire chief candidate, and that he had no specific criticizing his or her city manager problems working with CM1. Considering CM1’s strong about internal governmental operations to one of the preference for the labor-backed candidate, close manager’s subordinates. relationship with the Alameda fire labor leader, and the fact that CM1 was supported in reelection efforts by the labor group, the police chief’s version of the conversation is more credible. If the allegation were true, it is unclear whether CM1 made the statement expecting that it would be passed on to the city manager as a threat or he just did not have the capacity or good judgement to withhold his opinion to someone so close to the city manager. If intended to pressure the city manager in the hiring process, it was unethical. If just a spontaneous declaration of CM1’s feelings, it displayed bad judgement and a poor understanding of good governance. An elected official operating in a council-manager form of government should not be criticizing his or her city manager about internal government operations to one of the manager’s subordinates. Criticisms should be made directly to the city manager. Relaying a threat to fire the city manager to one of her subordinates is absolutely inexcusable. Meeting Between Two Councilmembers and City Manager On August 16th, CM1 and a second councilmember (CM2), who were the closest allies of the fire labor leader, made an appointment and met privately with the city manager. The city manager was already aware of CM1’s statement to the police chief claiming the city manager’s job was in jeopardy. While not informed about the reason for the meeting, the city manager assumed that the two councilmembers were interested in lobbying for the labor-backed candidate and that they may also directly confront the city manager with CM1’s warning. The city manager was so concerned about the ongoing pressure regarding the hiring process and threats to her employment that she decided to covertly record the conversation. The Grand Jury listened to the recording during its investigation. CM2 had sought advice from a consultant hired by the council to aid in the city manager’s performance review about how to provide input to the city manager about the fire chief hiring process. The consultant advised that a city manager would appreciate constructive input during a face-to-face conversation but the city council should avoid interfering in the process and that formalizing their opinions in a letter of recommendation would be inappropriate. 19 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ The meeting lasted approximately 55 minutes and focused on the city manager’s relationship with the labor leader and why CM1 and CM2 preferred the labor-backed candidate. During the meeting, the city manager made it clear she felt like there was significant inappropriate interference in the recruiting and hiring process. The city manager stated, “….and I am a little disappointed in we agreed initially that this would be an open and fair process without any pressure. And it’s been the opposite. From the fire side, and including this meeting, ….. that’s not what we agreed to, with [the fire labor leader] and I.” While the councilmembers were careful not to make any direct threats, their message was clear. They supported the labor- backed candidate and pressed the city manager on that point. They appeared to be doing the labor leader’s They [CM1 and CM2] appeared bidding although they claimed the meeting was their idea. to be demanding that the city manager give the labor leader CM1 parroted the labor leader’s claims against the city daily access and input into the hiring process. manager and her staff. Those concerns included: 1) a perception by the labor group that the labor candidate was not being given a fair shot at the job, 2) a comment by a senior staff person that the city is run by the city manager, not by the fire labor leader, and 3) a rumor that the city manager was actively recruiting a candidate from a fire department outside of Alameda and had lied about that when speaking to the fire labor leader (that candidate did not ultimately even apply for the position). Both CM1 and CM2 pressed the city manager over and over to build a closer relationship with the labor leader even though they acknowledged that the leader was difficult to work with. At one point, CM1 said, “You don’t have to do everything he says, but he needs to be able to trust you and at this point he doesn’t. And that bothers me. So I want you guys to try to fix that.” They appeared to be demanding that the city manager give the labor leader daily access and input into the hiring process. CM2 stated that the labor-backed candidate understood the budget process, would be good to work with during difficult financial times, and could convince the firefighters to come along on important issues. CM2 felt one other internal candidate would be a total disaster and another internal candidate might be a short timer who was “gonna spike his pension.…” When speaking about the poor relationship between the labor leader and the city manager, CM2 stated at one point, “But whatever happened, we need to be on the same page now about what the expectations are, and what’s gonna happen and how we’re gonna move forward and what the process is gonna look like…” The city manager responded by saying that she hoped the labor candidate did well and that would be the easiest solution. CM1 chimed in, “And if he does and you pick him, I mean, you’ll have to be able to tell the folks that think you were pressured that you weren’t.” Both councilmembers also acknowledged that they were very close personal friends with the labor leader. In fact, they drove together to the labor leader’s wedding the weekend before and apparently discussed how they would approach the city manager at the meeting. The councilmembers again hounded the city manager to be in constant contact with the labor leader 20 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ and repair any trust issues. In fact, CM2 suggested that the city manager “build in an automatic email to him that just says there has been no change today, or whatever.” At the end of the meeting, CM1 stated, “And just to be clear…I know I didn’t tell you who to hire, and I don’t think [CM2] did either, so just to be clear [laughs loudly].” These joking words were intended to erase 55 minutes of pressure to hire the labor candidate and appease the labor leader. It should be noted that the city manager protested several times during the meeting that she did not appreciate the pressure, yet CM1 and CM2 did not even acknowledge these comments in a meaningful way. The city manager felt the meeting and lobbying efforts destroyed the transparency of the hiring process. If the charter section is intended to prevent back room discussions and give the public confidence that the hiring process was fair and open, these discussions seemed to violate that intention. The Grand Jury concluded that CM1 and CM2’s complaints about the city manager’s handling of the process were either CM1 wrote a letter to the city inaccurate or irrelevant. Except for interference by the manager offering strong councilmembers and the firefighter labor organization, Grand support for the labor-backed candidate. CM1 did so using Jury witnesses were generally complimentary of the city letterhead and signed it in professionalism and thoroughness of the fire chief hiring an official capacity as a member of the Alameda City process. The labor-backed candidate actually advanced to the Council. final round of interviews, in part, because the fire labor leader participated on the interview panel and was the only panel member who ranked him as a first choice. The real issue for CM1 and CM2 appears to be the city manager’s unwillingness to select the labor-backed candidate outright. . Letter of Recommendation by Councilmember on City Letterhead On July 31, 2017 CM1 wrote a letter to the city manager offering strong support for the labor candidate. CM1 did so using city letterhead and signed it in an official capacity as a member of the Alameda City Council. It was a clear attempt to influence the city manager in the hiring process. The letter speaks to the candidate’s strengths and qualifications and stressed that the city had historically benefitted when individuals are promoted from within the department to leadership positions. The outside investigator’s report concluded that the letter went beyond a typical character reference. During the meeting between CM1, CM2 and the city manager, CM1 acknowledged being asked to write the letter in support of the labor-backed candidate and was provided with “talking points” by an executive board member of the firefighter’s labor group. The letter was one of many and part of an organized effort by some within the fire labor organization to support their candidate. The labor organization was certainly within its right to lobby for its candidate. Part of its lobbying effort included approaching councilmembers, 21 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ community leaders and other elected officials to request recommendation letters in support of its candidate. At least two councilmembers (including CM2) refused to do so, in part, because it was not appropriate. CM1’s letter was a direct and very public violation of the charter provision prohibiting councilmembers from attempting to influence the city manager in making an appointment. Performance Review Amid the tumultuous fire chief hiring process, the council sought to complete performance reviews of their direct reports. In May of 2017 the city council directed the city attorney to hire a governance expert to help the council with performance evaluations of top city management, including the city manager. The consultant had extensive experience serving as a city manager for five California cities and had also served in leadership roles, taught, and published articles for several city management professional organizations. Hiring a consultant to facilitate management evaluations allows for independent collection of information from the governing body with the promise of constructive discussion leading to a consensus by elected officials on the review in a timely manner. The process started slowly due to scheduling conflicts and disagreements among councilmembers about how to do the evaluations. Once consensus was obtained, the consultant began to move through the evaluation of the city manager by individually interviewing councilmembers and having the manager prepare a self-evaluation. In July the councilmember interviews were completed and summaries along with the city manager’s self-evaluation were distributed to all parties. All that was left was a closed session discussion between council and the city manager. During that closed session, the council could follow-up with questions on the self-assessments and presentation of goals and priorities to staff. During the interviews, it became evident to the consultant that selection of the fire chief was an issue of interest for CM1 and CM2. It was clear that CM1 supported a specific candidate and tried to connect the issue to the city manager’s evaluation. CM2 also brought up the fire chief selection process and inquired about how to communicate with the city manager. While city leaders were still trying to agree on a date when the council could meet to present the finalized performance review and discuss them with the city manager, the issue of the fire chief hiring process again became an issue. On August 24, 2017 the city attorney sent an email to the entire city It is ironic that CM1 described the city attorney’s informative, non- council, including the mayor and copying the city threatening email reminding council about their roles during the hiring manager, the assistant city manager and the process as interference and performance review consultant. The email reminded intimidation while denying that any of his conduct rose to the level of the elected leaders about the city manager’s role in trying to influence the city manager. the hiring process and included the wording of Charter section 7-3 (council may not interfere in the 22 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ process). The email made no accusations but merely advised the council of their legal obligations. It was sent, in part, because the performance review consultant expressed his concern that some on the council were particularly interested in the fire chief selection and two councilmembers had already communicated with the city manager about the selection. It was reported that one councilmember thought the email was helpful and that it was the first time they had even heard about the charter provision. CM1 had a very different reaction. CM1 responded to the city attorney, describing the city attorney’s message as “disturbing and inappropriate.” Because the consultant was copied on the original memo, CM1 accused the city attorney of participating in interference and intimidation of the council regarding the city manager’s review. It appears CM1 understood that the consultant was uncomfortable with councilmember involvement in the fire The consultant saw it as an effort by at least two chief hiring process. His response struck a tone of outrage and councilmembers to hold the was certainly defensive. CM1 felt strongly that he had a right evaluation over the city manager until the fire chief to bring up what he described as a “legitimate performance- position was filled. Because of this behavior, the consultant related matter” which included the city manager. In short, it terminated his firm’s contract appeared he was openly disregarding the city charter and with the city prior to completion of any of the reviews. using the performance review process as leverage. Rather than using the evaluation process as a tool to communicate expectations, goals and priorities, it appeared that the process was being hijacked to accomplish individual councilmembers’ goals of installing their preferred candidate for fire chief. It is ironic that CM1 described the city attorney’s informative, non-threatening email reminding council about their roles during the hiring process as interference and intimidation while denying that any of his conduct rose to the level of trying to influence the city manager. Consultant’s Resignation After significant consternation and attempts by CM1 to delay scheduling the council’s closed session meeting to present the city manager’s evaluation, the meeting was finally set for September 19. While all participants were present and It is quite telling that an outside prepared, the meeting did not go as the consultant had consultant with years of city planned. The Grand Jury heard testimony that CM1 and management experience terminated his contract with CM2 raised issues about the evaluation process prior to the city, foregoing full payment the city manager being invited into the closed session for his future services, because he did not want to participate meeting even though the procedure had been thoroughly in an unethical misuse of the described to the whole council on previous occasions. performance review process. Disagreements ensued even though it appears the city and consultant followed industry best practices. The Grand Jury also heard testimony that at least one other elected official was unhappy with the 23 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ summaries of the council interviews although no specifics were provided to the Grand Jury. Ultimately, the city manager’s review was put off for ambiguous reasons. The consultant saw it as an effort by at least two councilmembers to hold the evaluation over the city manager until the fire chief position was filled. Because of this behavior, the consultant terminated his firm’s contract with the city prior to completion of any of the reviews. It is quite telling that an outside consultant with years of city management experience terminated his contract with the city, foregoing full payment for his future services, because he did not want to participate in an unethical misuse of the performance review process. Fire Chief Selection By the beginning of October, the city manager had completed interviewing the fire chief finalists, and, resisting the intense pressure, selected a qualified candidate. By all accounts, the new fire chief is performing quite well and has a positive working relationship with council, the current city manager and the fire labor organization. City Manager letter to Council In conjunction with the selection of the new fire chief, the city manager chose to report in a letter to the Alameda City Council dated October 2, 2017 the problems she encountered during the process and The city manager chose to report on the problems she encountered accused unnamed councilmembers of “intense and during the process and accused un- named councilmembers of “intense unrelenting” pressure to hire the labor-backed and unrelenting” pressure to hire the candidate. The city manager claimed that such labor supported candidate. The city manager claimed that such conduct conduct directly violated the Alameda City Charter directly violated the Alameda City section 7-3, which prohibited councilmembers from Charter which prohibited councilmembers from attempting “to attempting “to influence the city manager in the influence the city manager in the making of any appointment.” Notwithstanding this making of any appointment.” claim, the city manager looked towards the next department head appointment – the public works director position had to be filled. The city manager hoped to choose the most experienced and qualified person for the position without going through the same intense scrutiny. The letter outlined a number of events and specific claims, as described in this report. Ultimately, the city manager would not fill the public works position. The interaction with council during the fire chief hiring process and the decision to choose a candidate not supported by the firefighter’s labor leader were attempts to stand on principle. The decision to make the October 2nd letter public raised the stakes even further. While the letter did not name the councilmembers in question, it described CM1’s letter of recommendation and the meeting between CM1, CM2 and the city manager as inappropriate attempts to influence the hiring process. The local newspaper followed up with an article and 24 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ Op-Ed piece identifying both councilmembers by name. Any intention by the city manager for the letter to merely serve as a reminder to avoid such interference in the future was quickly disappearing. During public comment at the next city council meeting, a number of speakers, including the fire labor leader’s wife, either attacked the city manager, her job performance both in Alameda and at her prior job in another county or commended CM1 and CM2 for all their good work in the community. The battle intensified. Department Head Letter in Support of City Manager Following the attacks on the city manager during the council meeting, many of the department heads who reported to the city manager felt it was important to stand up together in support of the city manager. At the next council meeting, the police chief, with department heads standing behind him, read a letter outlining the accomplishments of the city manager and her team. While they did not attack CM1 or CM2 in any way, CM2 felt it was inappropriate for the management team to defend the city manager and step into the controversy. Hiring Outside Counsel to Investigate City Manager’s Allegations As a result of the accusations laid out in the city manager’s October 2nd letter and the resulting public outcry, the city council hired an outside law firm to provide an independent legal analysis of alleged violations of Alameda City Charter section 7-3. The firm conducted a thorough investigation and asked the council to schedule a closed session meeting to address potential litigation based on the facts and circumstances contained within the report. It was certainly a legitimate concern, and closed session is the normal forum for discussion about potential litigation. CM1 and CM2, who were the subjects of the investigation, participated in the closed session meetings regarding the independent investigator’s report. Not only were they present in the meeting to accept the report, but the councilmembers and city attorney participated in editing facts leading to conclusions. This included clarifications, corrections and even deletions. After the closed session discussions, the independent investigator prepared a second report (13 pages) which told a shortened version of the story for distribution to the public, much shorter than the original 70 page report. The Grand Jury is concerned that the report’s “independence” was damaged after the subjects of the The Grand Jury is concerned that the report’s “independence” was investigation participated with the rest of the council damaged after the subjects of the in modifying or editing the final report in closed investigation participated with the rest of the council in modifying or session. The report was described to the public as an editing the final report in closed independent investigation to determine whether session. councilmembers violated the city charter, whether members of the council committed malfeasance and 25 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ finally whether there should be a recommendation that the councilmembers in question should be removed from office. The subjects of the investigation should never have participated in helping to edit the report before it was released to the public. The former city manager certainly did not get to participate in editing the report. “[T]he common law doctrine against conflicts of interest ... prohibits public officials from placing themselves in a position where their private, personal interests may conflict with their official duties.” (64 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 795, 797 (1981); accord, 70 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 45, 47 (1987). Surely, CM1 and CM2’s personal interests were at stake when providing edits to the report and deciding what gets released to the public. Why was a second, much shortened report prepared? Why were both reports ultimately released? Were there efforts to release only the shortened report? The Grand Jury was provided an explanation by two witnesses who stated that because CM1 and CM2 were not named in the city manager’s letter, the whole council could participate. This argument falls short. It took reporters little to no time to figure out who the city manager was referring to. CM1 was the only councilmember who wrote a letter of recommendation and CM1 and CM2 were the only members of the council who met with the city manager about the process. These were the only council-related complaints in the letter. Further, most of the report that was related to elected officials was focused on CM1 and CM2 and called them out by name. The Grand Jury also heard testimony that there was direction by some on the council for the independent investigator to prepare the second shorter report, which would be the document released to the public. The second report comes to similar conclusions but appears to be much less critical of the two councilmembers. The Grand Jury also heard testimony that plans to release only the shortened document were leaked to the public. In part, as a result of public outcry, the council ultimately released redacted versions of both reports along with a summary of the changes. The Grand Jury believes that the two councilmembers who were subjects of the accusations should not have participated in the acceptance and editing of the report. Costs to the City of Alameda The fallout from the 2017 Alameda Fire Chief hiring process and surrounding events has been significant. The Grand Jury heard testimony from multiple witnesses One elected official’s that morale within City Hall was already eroding when some disrespectful treatment councilmembers and staff began to take sides in this matter. toward staff or willingness to side with special interests There were claims of retaliation. A number of senior staff left over the common good of the city, some of whom were standing behind the police chief the community can poison the halls of government and at the council meeting along with their colleagues. Witnesses damage reputations. said that many of the people who left did so at least in part because of the fire chief recruitment incident. Scandals such as these can discourage talented public servants from taking jobs with a city government in 26 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ turmoil. One elected official’s disrespectful treatment toward staff or willingness to side with special interests over the common good of the community can poison the halls of government and damage reputations. Turnover is expensive for the city, both financially and in terms of intellectual property, institutional knowledge, experience, and continuity of projects. In approximately one year, the city lost the following staff:  City Manager  Assistant City Manager  City Attorney  Assistant City Attorney  Alameda’s Base Reuse and Transportation Planning Director The city council agreed to separate from the former city manager in May 2018. The former city manager received $257,400 in severance payments paid over one year, along with health benefits for 18 months. The city paid an additional $519,709 separation payment in the form of an annuity to be split over two installments in August 2018 and February 2019. Furthermore, the city was responsible for paying the former city manager’s $125,000 attorney’s fees. This agreement was approved by the council with a 3-2 vote with CM1 and CM2 dissenting. The city also paid for outside counsel to investigate these matters and prepare the two reports. In addition, the city hired outside counsel to represent the city’s interests after the independent investigator’s work was completed. CM1 and CM2 also hired personal attorneys to represent them and have started the process to obtain reimbursement from the city for those fees. They contend their legal counsel was required to defend their actions which took place in the scope of their roles as councilmembers so taxpayers should be responsible for those costs. All of this may have been prevented if the city provided the council with more training relating to governance and their ethical obligations. New councilmembers are provided a cursory orientation, a copy of the city charter and are usually invited to attend an annual conference hosted by the California League of Cities. They also complete online ethics training every two years as required by California law, although this training does not in a meaningful way cover the topics that Alameda faced during this controversy. Many municipalities rely on their mayors or presidents of their governing bodies to provide leadership and guidance when other councilmembers overstep their authority. This certainly was not the case in Alameda. Other government agencies adopt a code of conduct or council handbook to document accepted practices and expectations of elected leaders and staff. A unified effort to follow basic principles of good governance often results in an effective government. While a councilmember handbook can help orient new electeds, a strong document outlining roles and responsibilities defined by state law, the organization’s charter and municipal codes 27 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ can also be an essential resource and training guide to experienced electeds and city staff. Cities like Walnut Creek and Yuba City have developed robust council handbooks that describe rules surrounding conflicts of interest, detail meeting procedures and speak to proper interactions between elected officials and staff. Alameda could benefit from such guidance. First Amendment vs. Good Governance Woven through the discussion of the city charter’s limits on council interference is the argument that the First Amendment rights of individual councilmembers could supersede the city charter. Legal counsel representing the elected officials accused of interfering with the fire chief’s hiring process cite a whole host of court opinions supporting open and free expression by public officials. Many cases stand for the proposition that the First Amendment provides important protections to legislators ensuring that they may take positions on controversial political issues with minimal limits on their speech and without the fear of being removed from office for being outspoken. Yet, much of the same case law acknowledges that legitimate limits on speech can exist. Many of these limits on speech and expression were built into the law through legislative action and the initiative process to combat corruption and protect the integrity of governmental process. The Political Reform Act of 1974 was adopted by California voters after the Watergate scandal. Among other things, it regulates campaign finance and conflicts of interest. Elected officials may not participate in certain governmental decisions when they have personal financial interests at stake. The Brown Act also places limits on free and unfettered speech of elected officials. It places strict limits on electeds meeting behind closed doors to discuss the public’s business. It helps ensure that deliberations and actions of public bodies are conducted openly and subject to public scrutiny. The firm hired by the city to investigate the Alameda councilmembers thoroughly and thoughtfully examined these free speech issues within its final report. Ultimately, the report validated the Alameda charter provision limiting council interference in the city manager’s hiring authority. The investigator relied on case law which supported the position that speech related to internal power struggles within the workplace is not a public concern. Speech involving the internal workings of a public agency which is not a matter of public concern does not have unlimited constitutional protection. The investigator concluded that “[s]peech by a councilmember that directly interferes with the authority vested in the city manager is well within this category of unprotected expression.” The Grand Jury agrees with such reasoning. Charter provisions which prohibit council interference in the administrative responsibilities of the city manager are quite common. The city of Oakland’s charter section 218 makes it a misdemeanor for council to interfere in the administrative affairs of the city administrator. The city of Mountain View’s charter also includes a council non-interference section which ultimately 28 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ led to a councilmember’s removal from office in 2002. Both San Francisco and Hayward also have non-interference policies. This report should serve as an object lesson to all local public agencies within Alameda County to review their charters and codes of conduct. The ability to run for and hold elective office is a valuable right of citizenship. The voters are given the power to evaluate and choose candidates who meet basic prescribed qualifications. Those officeholders are bestowed with great powers to govern, set community policy and spend public funds. Understandably, removing an elected official from office for misconduct is difficult. Before overruling the will of the voters, the law requires that it is shown that the official has committed willful or corrupt misconduct. The Grand Jury has the authority to issue a formal Accusation to start the process to remove someone from office. Such authority comes with great responsibility. Ultimately, the Grand Jury would be usurping the will of the voters because a public official has committed such malfeasance in office that they must be removed before voters have a chance to make their judgement at the ballot box. Here, in the Grand Jury’s opinion, CM1 committed more significant violations of the charter. We also acknowledge that most of the facts laid out in this report were available to the voters last November when CM1 was on the ballot for reelection. Voters did not reelect CM1 to a new four-year term on the council. However, CM1, as the runner-up, was awarded a term-shortened spot due to another councilmember’s election as mayor, which created a vacancy on the council. While the Grand Jury believes that the conduct described in this report did, in fact, violate the city charter, it also believes it does not warrant moving forward with formal Accusation proceedings.
• CL2
  This story began with the then-fire chief announcing his retirement in March of 2017. What resulted was a fiasco that cost the city well over a million dollars, the loss of multiple talented and hard to replace senior staff, and a government body with a very damaged reputation. The Alameda City Charter clearly bestows the power to hire administrative staff on the city manager. At the same time, it makes clear that city councilmembers must not attempt to influence the city manager during this process. While these governing documents are important, a well-functioning municipality relies on the strength and fortitude of its leaders, both elected and appointed, to stand up against external pressures to skirt the tenants of good government. The external pressure exerted during the fire chief hiring process and the resulting actions by two councilmembers represented the very conduct that good government advocates were trying to eliminate when city charter amendments preventing council interference began to pop up throughout the nation. Cronyism and back room deals are corrosive and can destroy the public’s trust in the fair administration of government. While the fire labor organization had every right to lobby for their candidate, it was unethical to lobby councilmembers to intervene and influence 29 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ the city manager when the city’s governing document expressly prohibited such council interference. The resulting damage caused by the actions of elected officials and staff that followed is undeniable.
• CL3
  The culture in OUSD’s administrative offices must change in order to provide its students with the quality of education they deserve. OUSD is wasting millions of dollars well in excess of its projected annual deficits. Drastic action is required to “right the ship” and this must begin at the top. OUSD needs to bring comprehensive and modern best business practices into district offices and leadership. Staff need regular training inculcating these throughout the organization. If staff refuses to buy into these plans, they must be held accountable. OUSD can no longer afford to be philosophical. Restoring financial stability requires sacrifices throughout the organization. Stringent controls, adherence to contracting procedures, updated policies, and school consolidations are immediate priorities. Yet staff cannot be expected to buy into these changes if the elected Board continues to lead by reaction. Failure to put into place a strategic plan and have the courage to carry it out will ensure that the district continues to sputter with under-enrolled schools and shoestring budgets. Over one thousand school districts in the state operate competently with the state’s current funding structure. Oakland is not one of them even though it receives significantly more funding than the median district in the region. The Board has “kicked every can down the line” and rarely acted with a sense of urgency on many vital issues. The state of the district today is the inevitable result. This report has detailed repeated examples of mismanagement, favoritism, disregard for authority and poor controls. Policy and procedures are ignored causing one poor decision after another. Moreover, lack of accountability is rampant. Those who have attempted to instill better methods are ignored or quickly pushed aside. Well-intentioned policies such as individual school autonomy or hiring local businesses cannot continue at a premium in the face of dismal finances. OUSD cannot afford them. The Board and OUSD’s senior management have a monumental task in front of them. Full support from the Board, OUSD’s leadership, management, and employees, as well as recently added support from the Alameda County Board of Education is needed to make progress possible.
• CL4
  Elected officials at all levels have, as one of their most important duties, the continued safety of their constituent residents and the protection of both public and private property. The Grand Jury recognizes that its role is not to critique policy decisions by public officials such as the Board of Supervisors. In this particular case, therefore, it is not commenting on how the BOS decided to best prepare its first Representative government responders for recovery after acts of terrorism or natural is messy. However, the Alameda County Board of disasters. Instead it is questioning the contradiction that while Supervisors failed in managing this process. As almost all members of the BOS explicitly stated that they did not one supervisor put it, “If we want to terminate the Urban Shield program, their mishandling lose this grant, I will have nobody to blame but of the process by which the program was reviewed led inexorably myself.” to that termination, and the absence of any replacement program to provide this critical training to first responders. For years, the Urban Shield grant approval process had been contentious and controversial. BOS and ad hoc committee meetings were well-attended and boisterous. Representative government is messy. However, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors failed in managing this process. As one supervisor put it, “If we lose this grant, I will have nobody to blame but myself.” Challenged with the annual mandate to approve the continued acceptance of the DHS grant, the Board of Supervisors tossed responsibility to solve the many Urban Shield controversies first to a task force, then to an ad hoc committee. The use of ad hoc committees is a well-accepted practice and functions well so long as objectives and deliverables are clear and well-articulated. In this case, they were not. Selection of committee members was questionable at best. With few exceptions the AHC members confirmed their established biases with intractable opinions and votes. Most telling of all was the committee’s disregard of explicitly stated criteria in the DHS grant application. In meeting after meeting the AHC labored over recommendations destined to doom grant approval. The March 12, 2019 Board of Supervisor‘s meeting revealed a board confused by the AHC’s recommendations. Despite the year-long wrangling, legal counsel testimony, and ACSO input, 67 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ the BOS proceeded to adopt recommendations from an ill-conceived committee literally rejecting $5.6 million in vital preparedness and support money, leaving the county and Bay Area residents less safe. Of perhaps even greater concern is the fact that, in examining a subject as important as public safety, the Board of Supervisors did not rely on expert advice from relevant professional county departments. Instead, it mistakenly relied on unchallenged misstatements of fact and inherently flawed and poorly constituted advisory committees.
• CL5
  The imbalance of supply and demand for safe and secure independent living homes for vulnerable adults can only be corrected through a fundamental change in the business model. Because profits are so low in this industry, the money needed for repairs, capital investments and suitable client services often do not exist. At the same time, demand for group living is so great that there is a need for these businesses to grow and prosper. Thus, proactive attention to identification and inspection of rental units, education of operators, subsidies for home maintenance and repairs, and peer reviews must be elements for better housing of vulnerable adults. County government is well aware of the growing independent living crisis. The Healthy Homes Department’s Independent Proactive attention to Living Facilities pilot project and the nascent Alameda County identification and inspection of rental units, education of Independent Living Association, both with the support of the operators, and subsidies for Health Care Services Agency, are well-intentioned attempts to home maintenance and repairs, and peer reviews identify and evaluate independent living homes and educate and must be elements for better train operators. Likewise, the ad hoc county Strike Team has housing of vulnerable adults. responded to some group home emergencies. Although these projects have worthy goals, a compelling framework, and great potential, their effectiveness has been limited by lack of resources, coordination and focal leadership. To better meet the housing needs of our most vulnerable citizens, county government must implement an effective countywide program that creates a census of independent living facilities, maintains reasonable quality standards for residents, trains and supports operators to maintain high-quality homes, strives to maintain existing inventory, and attracts new independent living facilities into the market.
• CL6
  Protecting the interests and well-being of children who enter Alameda County’s foster care system is a daunting responsibility. Our investigation disclosed a generally encouraging picture of how well the Social Services Agency’s Department of Children and Family Services has carried out that responsibility, while also revealing some significant opportunities for improvement. On the plus side, the Grand Jury commends DCFS’s dedicated management and staff for pursuing sound family preservation and reunification initiatives, for making steady and substantial progress in drawing down the number of Alameda County children living in traditional foster care settings, and for overseeing a foster care system that in recent years has incurred relatively few substantiated cases of foster child abuse and neglect. On the less flattering side of the ledger, the Grand Jury concludes that:  Too many of the county’s children have been, and continue to be, placed in out-of-county foster homes, despite substantial evidence that such placements are generally not in the best interests of the children,  Child welfare social worker caseloads are too high, despite clear evidence that excessive caseloads interfere with the delivery of high quality child welfare services, and  DCFS has dragged its feet in implementing the Child and Family Team approach mandated in California’s 2015 legislative overhaul of the foster care system, despite compelling evidence that embracing CFT would serve the best interests of our children. The problems identified in this investigation do not look to be intractable. The Grand Jury believes that DCFS can and will make good progress on all fronts. ________________________________________________________________ Acronyms CCR Continuum of Care Reform CCWIP California Child Welfare Indicators Project CDSS California Department of Social Services CFT Child and Family Team CWDA County Welfare Directors Association CWLA Child Welfare League of America DCFS Department of Children and Family Services FFA Foster Family Agency SSA Alameda County Social Services Agency TDM Team Decision Making UFF Upfront Family Finding 97 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
• CL7
  The Grand Jury commends these three departments for the progress they have made in using results-based accountability and performance metrics to improve the management and oversight of CBO contracts. The Grand Jury encourages county staff to keep up the effort of using these RBAs for evaluating contract performance. _________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS None RECOMMENDATIONS None RESPONSES REQUIRED None 106 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ SANTA RITA JAIL: INTAKE, RELEASE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES INTRODUCTION On December 11, 2018, the Alameda County Grand Jury visited Santa Rita Jail located at 5325 Broder Boulevard, Dublin, CA. The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office operates the jail as a short- and long-term secure detention facility for adults. Santa Rita Jail can hold 3,489 inmates; on the day of inspection, 2,115 inmates were being held. In 2018, on an average day, 89% of inmates were male and 11% were female. The jail’s projected budget for FY 2019 is $128.7 million, funded by $8.8 million in revenue and the remainder from Alameda County. Authorized staffing at the jail is 502, with 63% sworn officers. Santa Rita is one of the largest jails in the United States, and is the only California jail accredited by the American Correctional Association. In 2018, the press reported some troubling incidents regarding Santa Rita inmates:  An released inmate died at the nearby Dublin/Pleasanton BART station within a few hours of her late-night exit from Santa Rita in July 2018; and  A pregnant inmate gave birth alone in an isolation cell in July 2017. Given these situations, instead of conducting a traditional facility-wide inspection, the Grand Jury chose to review and document the current inmate intake, release and grievance procedures at Santa Rita Jail. The Grand Jury met with the jail’s senior management and medical teams, then inspected the intake and release areas. Jail staff provided the statistical information in this report; the Grand Jury was not able to verify the data independently. Staffing and Training The Intake, Transfer and Release (ITR) department operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. On average, 35 sworn employees (mostly deputy sheriffs) and 25 non-sworn employees staff the ITR. About 34% of the sworn and 20% of non-sworn ITR positions on an average day are filled through mandatory The jail’s projected budget for overtime. This reflects Santa Rita’s reliance throughout the FY 2019 is $128.7 million. On the day of the Grand Jury’s jail on overtime to cover absences due to leaves, staff on loan, inspection 2,115 inmates were being held. and vacant positions. As of December 2018, only 78% of all sworn officer positions were filled and on-site, compared to 90% of non-sworn staff positions. New ITR employees are matched with a training officer to learn about booking and jail policies and procedures, which are outlined in the ITR Manual. Some positions, such as records 107 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ specialists, receive on-the-job training for specialty services. The ITR Manual is reviewed and updated annually and is available to staff online. Sworn officers must meet the Peace Officers Standards and Training minimum requirements for continuing professional training. This consists of 24 hours of Standards and Training for Corrections over a 2-year cycle. Deputies must also undergo training in areas such as racial profiling, domestic violence prevention and others. Nursing staff is available 24/7 at the jail, with three registered nurses available in the ITR department at all times. Physicians are on site from 8 am to 5 pm every day except Sunday and are on-call at all other times. Intake Procedures Police transport arrestees to Santa Rita Jail and take them to the jail’s ITR department. On average the department books about 60 to 100 persons per day. About 35% of arrestees are then admitted as inmates and taken to a housing area. The remaining 65% of arrestees are cited and released without being admitted to the jail. Examples of the latter are arrests for misdemeanors without violence and arrests involving driving under the influence, although the latter are not released until they are sober. Persons who would normally be cited and released in the field but whose identity cannot be verified are also taken to the jail for citation. The booking lobby appeared clean and well-maintained. An inmate work crew is assigned nearly 24 hours per day to clean the booking area, with holding cells cleaned at least once every 2 hours. A total of 60 employees staff the booking area and work 12-hour shifts. Interpreter services for non-English speakers are provided by staff certified in specific languages or by the AT&T Language Line. The typical intake or booking procedure consists of: ⦁ The arresting officer hands over paperwork at the counter. ⦁ The intake staff asks a series of questions regarding health to screen for obvious medical, psychiatric, and alcohol/drug impairment. Medical or mental health staff speak to the arrestee if there are any concerns. ⦁ The arrestee is patted down for contraband. ⦁ The arrestee is photographed against a wall in the lobby and given an armband with his or her name and photograph. ⦁ The arrestee turns over all belongings or cash, which are inventoried and documented with a signed Automated Justice Information System form for return upon release. An inmate may authorize release of possessions to someone on the outside of the jail. ⦁ Jail staff then classify the arrestee according to risks and threats, such as gang membership, to assist in safe placement within jail housing. 108 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ ⦁ A deputy sheriff takes the arrestee through a security scanner and another contraband search is performed in a secure area. Arrestees are then fingerprinted. Next, the arrestee changes into jail garments in a private room, and their clothing is bagged, documented and secured for return upon release, unless retained as evidence. ⦁ Medical staff then individually screen the arrestee. See “Medical Assessments” below for more details. Impaired arrestees are placed in one of four sobering cells to recover. ⦁ While in the booking area, arrestees are allowed to make a total of three telephone calls to their own or a court-appointed attorney, a public defender, a bail bondsman, a relative, or other person. Two additional calls may be placed by custodial parents to arrange child care. Staff provide each admitted inmate with a copy of the “Inmate Rules and Information” handbook in English or Spanish. This document includes a description of Santa Rita’s grievance procedures. Admitted inmates are provided with clothing, linens, and a kit containing a toothbrush, toothpaste, comb, shaving cream, shampoo and body wash. The entire intake process usually takes between 6 and 8 hours, depending on the inmate’s condition, cooperation, health needs, etc. Arrestees are provided bag lunch meals during the intake process as needed. Medication is administered during intake if an existing prescription can be verified. Medical Assessments Staff pre-screen all arrestees for physical and mental health, including whether the arrestee uses prescription or other drugs and whether he or she is experiencing suicidal feelings. This initial medical assessment takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes if there are no medical or mental health issues. A more extensive history and physical screening is provided within two weeks for inmates who are accepted into custody. In 2016, Alameda County signed a $135 million three year contract with California Forensic Medical Group to provide medical services at Santa Rita Jail and at Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility in Oakland. Physical Health Staff ask arrestees about chronic conditions, intoxication, recent trauma or accidents, pregnancy, high blood pressure and high blood sugar levels. Staff verify prescriptions reported by inmates with local pharmacies before administering medication. Health records for inmates who have previously been in the facility within the last three years are available electronically. Persons who are suspected of having tuberculosis or who refuse a tuberculosis test are placed in a respiratory isolation room with negative airflow to prevent possible infection contagion of the 109 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ jail population and staff. Inmates who arrive with lice are medically isolated for the duration of treatment. Behavioral Health The behavioral health unit is staffed from 7 am to 11 pm, with specialists on-call during the night. Every morning, staff is given a printout of the previous day’s bookings. Behavioral health staff consult with about 50% of the jail population. Sometimes Behavioral health staff consult this is the first time an inmate receives mental health with about 50% of the jail services. Behavioral health inmates are housed population. Sometimes, this is the first time an inmate throughout the facility but separate housing exists for receives mental health services. inmates with severe mental health issues. Drug Use Medical staff screen newly admitted inmates for drug use and for risk of withdrawal from drugs. The jail provides a nationally accredited drug treatment program, including methadone maintenance. Pregnancy According to staff, inmates who identify themselves as pregnant are prioritized for booking; no pregnancy test is required. Pregnant inmates are provided with prenatal vitamins and with a special diet containing about 600 additional calories per day. They are also offered a denim jacket and sleeping accommodations in a lower bunk and bottom tier. Many pregnancies among inmates are considered high-risk. Women may choose to wear an orange armband to clearly identify them as pregnant. All new pregnant inmates are scheduled to see an obstetrical provider within 24 to 72 hours. The provider determines the frequency of appointments thereafter. Certain tests, Deputies are required to defer to medical providers regarding like ultrasounds, are referred to outside providers. pregnant inmates and are never supposed to downgrade Pregnant inmates who are opioid users are initially medical decisions. housed in the outpatient housing unit for monitoring and clearance prior to their discharge to the general population. High risk pregnant inmates requiring frequent blood sugar or blood pressure monitoring are also housed in the outpatient housing unit. Deputies are required to defer to medical providers regarding pregnant inmates and are never supposed to downgrade medical decisions. The deputies are trained to alert medical staff when inmates complain of potential pregnancy-related complications such as cramping. Jail staff maintained that they were unable to comment on the circumstances of the inmate who gave birth in an isolation cell in 2017 due to pending litigation. 110 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ The OB/GYN clinic at Santa Rita Jail was one of the first built at a jail when Santa Rita was constructed in 1989. The current medical contract with California Forensic Medical Group calls for specialty services for pregnant inmates. For example, doula (birth coach) services are offered through a memorandum of agreement with Highland Hospital in Oakland. Suicide Prevention The jail medical intake assessment includes mental health and suicide risk, with further classification as active (likely to attempt suicide) or passive risk (hopeless/helpless). Suicidal inmates may be provided with medication or behavioral treatments, or both. Suicide prevention services are provided by the Alameda County Behavioral Health Department. Suicidal inmates are subject to enhanced observation every 15 minutes, documented in a log book. High risk items and clothing are temporarily removed from their possession. A deputy can initiate placement of an acutely suicidal inmate in a padded safety cell and a safety garment for no more than 72 hours. If an arrestee or inmate is determined to be a danger to self or others, authorized staff may transfer the person to the John George Pavilion psychiatric facility for up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention. Medical Records Medical screening forms, checklists and guidelines are saved on the inmate’s electronic medical record. Sometimes assessments are written on paper then scanned into the patient’s record within 48 hours. The electronic record system was introduced approximately three years ago; paper records of inmates who were in the jail prior to that time are returned from storage and scanned. Procedures As part of its inspection the Grand Jury inquired as to release procedures for a variety of situations including: release on bail, release at completion of sentence, release on parole, release of women, and release by court order after court appearance that day. Following are key elements of release procedures. The release procedures for each of type of release are generally the same: ⦁ Prior to release, staff completes a warrant check to ensure that there are no outstanding warrants or other issues on the individual prior to release. ⦁ The ITR sergeant reviews and approves the inmate’s file, which is then passed to the staff conducting the physical release of the inmate. ⦁ The inmate is escorted to the ITR area, if not already there, and provided with his or her personal clothing to change into. Clothing will be supplied if necessary. 111 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ ⦁ The person’s identity is confirmed by the release deputy through both thumbprint verification and responses to several qualifying questions asked by the releasing staff member. ⦁ The individual is then released from custody and proceeds out of the ITR area. ⦁ Personal property and money are then returned to and signed for by the inmate in conjunction with the AJIS form signed upon intake. If property is missing or damaged, an inmate can file a property claim. ⦁ Indigent inmates are provided with a bus pass or BART ticket and given directions to local transit if a friend or relative is not available to pick them up. ⦁ The person then exits through the public lobby. If the individual is being transferred to another facility or jurisdiction, proper legal documentation requesting custody must be completed. The same procedures are conducted as with a release, after which the individual is transferred to the custody of the requesting agency. At the time of release, medications ordered by medical staff are provided to the inmate by medical staff or a prescription is provided for use at their own pharmacy. There is no formal policy for notifying relatives, legal counsel, parole officers, or others, that an individual is scheduled for release. However, release dates are public information and can be obtained via the inmate locator website. Victim Information and Notification Everyday (VINE) is a method that allows the public to sign up for notifications upon an inmate’s release. While the VINE system could be used by other agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office does not provide information directly to ICE. Based on recent incidents, including the drug overdose death of one person who was released in the early morning hours, the Grand Jury inquired about policies related to time of release. In general, there is no Detainees have the right to be released as soon as predetermined time frame for those being released. Those possible on their release date, which could be soon who have completed their sentence and have a scheduled after midnight. release date are generally released after 8:00 a.m. on said release date. However, they have the right to be released as soon as possible on their release date, which could be soon after midnight. All inmates to be released as a result of bail, case dismissal, or similar issues may leave upon completion of the release process and approval by the ITR sergeant, regardless of time of day. The process generally takes four to six hours to complete depending on the daily workload and volume in ITR. Inmates who are released too late to make transit connections are allowed to stay in the lobby overnight if they do not have a ride. At the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, which is two miles away, the last BART train leaves at 12:44 a.m., and the earliest at 4:58 a.m. (6:00 a.m. on Saturdays and 7:55 a.m. on Sundays). 112 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ The Alameda County Probation Department is currently developing a “Ride to Reentry” program to provide on-demand transportation home for inmates 24 hours/day and 7 days a week from Bay Area jails and to/from probation appointments. A request for proposals for those services was released, The Alameda County Probation and should be awarded by mid-2019. In addition, the Department is currently developing a “Ride to Reentry” program to provide county’s behavioral health department is planning to on-demand transportation home for inmates 24 hours/day and 7 days a place an RV/trailer on or next to jail property to week. provide immediate behavioral health services and referrals for recently released inmates. Grievance Procedures Grievance procedures were discussed with jail command staff prior to and during the December 11, 2018 Grand Jury visit. During 2018, a total of 2,445 grievances were filed. In the course of the same year, 127 grievances were affirmed, 1,532 denied, 669 withdrawn/resolved, and 519 are still in process. Note that some of these grievances were filed in a prior year. The Grand Jury also examined the specific nature and types of grievances and their outcomes for the month of November 2018. In recent years inmates have filed approximately 250 grievances each month, resulting in about 3,000 grievances that are active at some time during each year. Grievances cover a variety of topics but are limited to conditions of confinement or to any incident of sexual assault or harassment, or the threat thereof. Conditions of confinement include medical care, food, mail, staff conduct, classification, and commissary, Americans with Disabilities Act issues, and similar areas of complaint, including Title 15 issues. Title 15 is the section of the California Code of Regulations that addresses crime prevention and corrections and includes minimum standards for local detention facilities such as Santa Rita Jail. Different grievance procedures apply to incidents of sexual assault or harassment, or the threat thereof, and could lead to criminal charges. The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 led to 2012 standards that govern how allegations of sexual misconduct must be handled. Signage throughout the facility encourages inmates to immediately notify any staff member if there is sexual harassment or assault. Written Grievance Procedures A written grievance procedure for inmates at Santa Rita Jail and Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility is included as section 16.03 in the Sheriff’s Detention and Corrections Policy and Procedures Manual. The policy was last reviewed and updated in November 2018. The complete policy is not provided to inmates, but the grievance filing procedure is explained in the Inmate Rules and Information handbook. Inmates will usually submit general complaints through the 113 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ grievance process, but sometimes submit message requests or ask to speak with a sergeant or watch commander in person. In addition to grievances, inmates may submit other types of complaints, just like any citizen could, per Section 148.6 of the California Penal Code. As noted above, somewhat different procedures apply to standard grievances (pertaining to conditions of confinement) and to emergency grievances (sexual assault or harassment). Generally, if the allegation is against a deputy and is non-criminal, it will be investigated by a sergeant and forwarded to internal affairs unless the investigator determines that it is unfounded. If the allegation is against an inmate and is non-criminal, it will be immediately investigated by a deputy. If the allegation is criminal in nature, it will be investigated as a crime and documented in a sheriff’s office report. Filing a Grievance To file a grievance, an inmate requests an inmate grievance form ML-51 from any deputy. After the inmate fills out the form describing the grievance, he or she can turn it in to any deputy. Deputies try to resolve the grievance informally prior to entering it into the system. Examples of grievances that are quickly addressed include an inmate sleeping through a meal or missing their medication. If the deputy cannot resolve the issue immediately with the inmate, the deputy assigns a tracking number, provides the inmate with a copy and turns in the form to the grievance unit. Once the grievance unit receives the grievance, it is entered into the Wide Area Information, Transfer and Essential Reporting system, which records the inmate's name, personal file number, grievance number, duty station, deputy, date received, and type of grievance. Investigation of Grievances The grievance is then assigned to an investigating grievance deputy. The investigation includes obtaining statements from involved parties such as deputies, food service employees and medical staff, and reviewing written records and logs as related to the grievance. Grievance unit deputies are required to acknowledge receipt of the grievance within three days and provide a written response within 21 working days, but that time may be extended upon written notification to the inmate. If a deputy is named in a grievance, that person will not be assigned to investigate the grievance. Grievance Outcome Once a decision is reached, the inmate will receive a copy of the final disposition and any relevant paperwork. An inmate may appeal the finding of the grievance unit. A watch commander who 114 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ was not involved in the original review acts as the appeals officer. Each grievance is reviewed by the contracts and litigation lieutenant. For emergency grievances (sexual assault or harassment) or criminal matters, the process may be different depending on the circumstances. Disciplinary action may be taken against an offending deputy. If the grievance is found to be justified (i.e., affirmed) corrective action for deputies consists of positive discipline, such as verbal counseling, Deputies’ increased usage of training or a record of discussion. However, if the matter is body-worn cameras during interactions with inmates can referred to the sheriff’s internal affairs department or to a help in grievance investigations at the jail. criminal investigation and is found to be true, staff could suffer discipline up to and including termination. Termination of a deputy happens occasionally. If the grievance is against another inmate, the offending inmate could receive a disciplinary report, be reclassified, or have a criminal complaint submitted against them. Mediators will often look at grievances. Procedures are in place to prevent reprisals by offending deputies and inmates. If the affirmed grievance involves sexual harassment, retaliation is prohibited according to the sheriff’s policies and the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Affirmed standard grievances would not necessarily trigger the relocation or monitoring of offending deputies or inmates, but it could be part of the response. Some inmates file numerous frivolous grievances. In those cases, following an internal investigation, an inmate can be placed on grievance restriction. Deputies’ increased usage of body-worn cameras during interactions with inmates can help in grievance investigations at the jail. A major construction project is underway that will install additional security cameras throughout the facility. On a related issue, the Grand Jury received a complaint alleging assault by one or more deputies at Santa Rita Jail. The complainant stated that body camera footage documented the assault. Command staff confirmed the existence of the body camera footage as described in an incident report. The use of force was reviewed by a supervisor, found to be justified and reasonable, and was forwarded up the chain of command per the sheriff’s office practice. Three related grievances were filed by the complainant. The first was denied based on all available information. The two subsequent grievances were referred to the original denied grievance, as they contained the same complaint. The Grand Jury reviewed the body camera footage and did not identify any wrongdoing by the deputy in question or any other deputy. The Grand Jury determined that the deputy was trying to keep the inmate from swallowing what appeared to be a drug package, which could have made the inmate seriously ill or caused death. 115 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
• CL8
  Overall, the Grand Jury found the established intake, release and grievance procedures at Santa Rita Jail to be thorough, with an emphasis on the safety of inmates and staff. No significant issues were identified, and policies and procedures appeared to be properly followed. _________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS None RECOMMENDATIONS None RESPONSES REQUIRED None 116 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ CAMP WILMONT SWEENEY INSPECTION INTRODUCTION On January 22, 2019 members of the Grand Jury inspected Camp Wilmont Sweeney, a 24-hour unlocked minimum security facility run by the Alameda County Probation Department, located at 2600 Fairmont Drive in San Leandro, CA. Camp Sweeney is a residential facility that houses male youth ages 15 to 19 who have been found to have committed criminal acts and in the juvenile court’s opinion cannot be returned to home. Youth are referred to the camp by the Juvenile Court with input from the Probation Department. The facility has a capacity of 60 beds, but only 15 youth were living at the facility at the time of the Grand Jury’s inspection. Camp Sweeney’s comprehensive program focuses on reconnecting youth with their Camp Sweeney’s comprehensive communities, and the average length of stay is about six program focuses on reconnecting youth with their communities. months. The Grand Jury inspected all areas of the camp, and during the inspection the jury met with members of the Probation Department who managed the camp and its programs. There are 26 Probation Department employees assigned to the facility, including administrators, probation officers, and support staff. In addition, there are teachers employed by the Alameda County Office of Education, counselors, and a nurse working at the camp. During the work week (Monday – Friday regular hours) there are approximately twelve staff members on site. Swing shift includes five or six staff members and graveyard shift is staffed by two or three staff members. There is adequate staff to meet the needs of the youth in residence at the facility, although proper operation requires some overtime on the part of staff. Facility Camp Sweeney hosted two independent inspections in 2018, one conducted by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) and the second by the California Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC). The Grand Jury reviewed each of these inspection reports prior to visiting the facility. Each inspection found Camp Sweeney to be in compliance with all applicable requirements, but did call for minor corrective actions. The Grand Jury was informed that the recommended actions were completed within 90 days of the respective inspections. 117 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ An on-site inspection by the members of the Grand Jury corroborated the findings of the ACDEH and the BSCC reports, and noted no compliance issues. Health Care On July 18, 2018, an inspection of Camp Sweeney by the BSCC covered a number of areas and included an in-depth medical and mental health evaluation. No deficiencies or non-compliance issues were found during the state’s evaluation. During the Grand Jury’s inspection visit, rather than duplicate the state’s inspection, additional questions not covered by the BSCC’s evaluation were asked of staff. The Grand Jury was told that all youth are medically cleared at Juvenile Hall to ensure that medical, behavioral and mental health issues would be appropriately addressed while at Camp Sweeney. At Camp Sweeney, a licensed vocational nurse (LVN) is available on-site 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, to dispense medication and handle minor sick calls and first aid issues. Additionally, the Grand Jury found that Camp Sweeney has facilities for disposal of hazardous and medical waste, and there are appropriate containers and gloves in first aid kits in various locations throughout the facility. Shower and restroom facilities were clean, operational and appeared to meet the needs of the youth in residence. If a medical issue develops that the LVN cannot handle (or is not available when the issue arises), the juvenile at the camp is evaluated and treated by medical staff at the neighboring Alameda County Juvenile Hall. Registered nurses are available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week at Juvenile Hall. If anyone on the staff suspects that a juvenile may be suffering from a disorder which has not previously been diagnosed, appropriate medical tests are performed. Should a problem be diagnosed, a plan is then developed to ensure the juvenile can be properly treated. If medication is required, it is provided without cost to the juvenile or his family through Camp Sweeney’s contract with UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital in Oakland. In response to a question concerning the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Grand Jury was assured by staff that all privacy provisions of HIPAA are observed. Policies and Procedures Adequate camp policies and procedures appeared to be in place and accessible to all staff. The Grand Jury was told that the current policies are undergoing significant revisions to bring them current with recent Title 15 changes. Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations governs crime prevention and corrections. Specific changes were not discussed but some examples include inspections, surveillance, and release procedures at holding facilities. 118 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ Grievance forms are available and are managed by Camp supervisors. They are tracked and reviewed by probation department management as well. There were four grievances filed by juveniles at the facility in 2018. Three complaints involved being written up by staff for misconduct. After all three learned they hadn’t actually been written up, the grievances were withdrawn. The fourth grievance was against another camper. Education and Activities The youth at Camp Sweeney either attend on-site high school/GED classes or off-site college classes (usually at Chabot Community College), or work at jobs within the community. The youth who study or go to college are allowed to wear their own clothing off-site to fit in better with peers. Staff provides transportation to and from jobs and school. Several staff members are bilingual and can assist youth who do not speak English as their primary language. Aside from school or work, daytime activities include occasional camping trips, tending to a camp garden, There are programs to help strengthen and sports. A sports field, basketball court, and weight family bonds such as monthly engagement nights to encourage room are available. Pay telephones are available to the connections with family, and youth in the dormitory and at the activity center. The community and parenting groups to improve family relationships. youth are also provided up to three free phone calls a day to family members. These calls are screened by probation staff. Camp officials manage programs with the goal of transitioning youth successfully from the controlled environment of the camp back to their families and into the community. Family visits are encouraged and scheduled twice weekly; however, since strengthening family bonds is a key component of this program, the staff try to be flexible. There are also programs to help strengthen family bonds such as monthly engagement nights to encourage connections with family, and community and parenting groups to improve family relationships. The Probation Department staff is investigating the possibility of setting up a program where youth can continue contact with their camp probation officer after release in order to ease the transition back into the community. Security When the 2014-2015 Grand Jury inspected Camp Sweeney, that Grand Jury took note of the lack of audio or video monitoring equipment anywhere on the camp grounds, with the sole exception of video surveillance in the dormitory building. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury also noted that no funds were available to pay for additional surveillance measures, but recommended that exterior cameras be installed as soon as possible at camp entrances and parking lots to bolster overall facility security and to help address issues with contraband entering the camp premises. At the 119 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ time of this year’s inspection, the current Grand Jury was informed that video surveillance cameras are in the process of being installed at the camp entrance and at various other locations on the grounds. Staff advised that the Probation Department, after protracted consideration as to whether or not the cost of the camera installation project ($230,000) was justified (given the county’s plan to replace the current Camp Sweeney with a new facility at another location), had opted to proceed with the camera installation as previously recommended by the 2014-2015 Grand Jury. The decision to proceed was deemed prudent in light of continuing uncertainty about when the replacement facility will be built and ready for occupancy. During the Grand Jury’s inspection of the facility, staff pointed out several locations where cameras have been or are being installed. The Grand Jury was informed that the new video surveillance equipment is expected to be operational in 2019. Staff will have the ability to review surveillance video footage 24/7. When questions were asked by the Grand Jury about any contraband entering the camp, staff responded that most of the contraband consisted of items such as candy and potato chips. Staff explained to the Grand Jury that they have not had significant problems with drugs being brought into the facility. The Grand Jury asked whether any of the camp buildings were equipped with emergency call buttons. Staff explained that staff members, who are in the rooms with the youth 24/7, carry radios that have emergency call capability, and staff are always present in the facility. Staff indicated that there is an area in the administration building where youth may store personal items. By way of example, staff advised that youth who have jobs or go to school off- grounds use this area to change into appropriate street clothes. Renovation work that is currently underway (with an anticipated completion in the next few months) will expand this capability and give the youth greater access to lockers. Regarding camp uniforms, staff indicated the youths are issued t-shirts that are color coded to indicate how far along each youth is in the camp program. The color-coding is not based on any form of risk assessment. Because the camp is designed as an open facility without secure fences, the Grand Jury was told that it is not uncommon for homesick or anxious youth residents to walk off the campus without permission. In 2017, 26 youth left the campus without the approval of camp staff. Most juveniles were returned within 30 days. The Grand Jury learned that one of the 26 is still at large. In 2018, 23 of the youth residents left camp without permission, all of whom have been returned to the facility and had to face the juvenile court for reevaluation of their placements at the camp. 120 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ Food Service Breakfast, lunch and dinner are prepared and delivered by Revolution Foods, who also provide meals for nearby Juvenile Hall. All regular meals are served in the camp dining hall. Upon inspection by the Grand Jury, the dining hall, adjacent kitchen, and food storage space were found to be neat and clean. Breakfast and lunch meals meet the nutritional standards of the National School Lunch Program, and therefore, the cost is reimbursed by the state Department of Education. The camp supplements the three regular meals with morning, afternoon, and bedtime healthy snacks. Snacks consist of fruits, nuts, nut butter, and bread (e.g., residents can make PB&J sandwiches). Supplemental snack foods are ordered from Sysco and US Foods. Because youth are transferred to Camp Sweeney from Juvenile Hall, staff at Revolution Foods is familiar with those who have special dietary needs. Special diet meals are delivered with regular meals. A special diet notebook for staff is kept in the dining hall kitchen and contains information and meal/snack requirements for any youth on a special diet. If staff know a youth is away from camp and going to miss a meal, they usually save a meal in a kitchen warmer. If a youth unexpectedly misses a meal, they typically are allowed to make a snack.
• CL9
  Although the Camp Wilmont Sweeney facilities are outdated, the camp is well maintained and well managed. Plans are in the works for the construction of a new facility nearby. _______________________________________________________________ FINDINGS None RECOMMENDATIONS None RESPONSES REQUIRED None 121 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ [This page intentionally left blank.] 122 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ CRIME AND QUALITY OF LIFE: IMPACT ON BART RIDERSHIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The last few years have been challenging for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system. The public was shocked by the news of a young woman’s murder at the MacArthur BART station in July 2018, the same week that two men were killed by attackers in other BART stations. These tragedies drew attention to crime, safety and quality of life concerns by riders. Violent crime on BART, including robberies and aggravated assaults, increased by 115% over the last five Violent crime on BART, including robberies and aggravated years. Perhaps not coincidentally, BART lost 8% of its assaults, increased by 115% over ridership since its 2016 peak, even as the Bay Area the last five years. population grew and several new stations were added to the system. The Grand Jury identified four interrelated quality of life issues that appear to discourage residents of Alameda County and the greater Bay Area from riding BART. These are not new issues, but have increasingly touched a nerve in current and former riders: (A) Homelessness (B) Cleanliness of the trains and stations (C) Fare evasion (D) Security and perception of safety. The media is aware of these problems; local TV stations and newspapers routinely broadcast or publish reports on BART’s problems. BART’s current riders are aware of these problems; public opinion as measured by customer satisfaction studies and letters to the editor consistently mention these quality of life issues and their negative impacts on rider satisfaction. Most importantly, BART is aware of, and is trying to do something about these problems. Through its investigation, the Grand Jury sought to determine whether BART responded to these issues as quickly as it could, and whether there are other emerging customer satisfaction issues that BART should address. With the retirement of two top leaders – the general manager and the BART police chief – BART’s Board of Directors (board) must ensure continuity of leadership on these issues, particularly crime and perception of safety. 123 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________
• CL10
  BART is at the center of the Bay Area’s transportation upheaval. A growing and far-flung urban population in need of transport to work, home, shopping and socializing has many modes from which to choose. Rising dissatisfaction with crime on BART, fare evasion, and the perception of dirty train cars and stations threatens to marginalize the agency amid the other choices available to riders. The Grand Jury notes that BART’s Board of Directors, senior management and police have undertaken measures to address these issues, but the board has been slow to react to many problems. To win riders back, the board must convince the public that BART is once again clean and safe to ride and that a rigorous effort to stop crime, including fare evasion, is in progress. Furthermore, BART must do this while facing serious competition from industry disrupters like Uber and Lyft. The seriousness of the issues facing BART was recently enhanced with the announced retirements of two key leaders. Extra diligence and resolve will be necessary to complete plans underway in an increasingly complex and competitive environment. 134 2018-2019 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 1

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