Sacramento Children's Home ,

Recommendations 1

• R1

  Page 119
  by the 2006-2007 Grand Jury: One additional Work Project Field Operations sergeant must be allocated to address this workload. This sergeant would share in the supervision of up to 36 deputies per week. Response to Recommendation #1 by the Sheriff's Department: Concur. The Sheriff's Work Release Division requested a second Work Project Program Supervisor (Sheriff Sergeant) be funded this fiscal year. As in past years, due to overall Sheriff's Department needs and the limited resources ofthe Board, this request was not forwarded as one ofthe Department's most urgent requirements. Comment by the 2007-2008 Grand Jury The 2007-2008 Grand Jury is mindful ofpast requests for the additional Sergeant's position for the Sheriffs Work Release Program. The Sheriffs Department concurred with the need for an additional supervisor, but not to the extent that funding was requested. This Grand Jury believes this position warrants higher consideration and should be funded. The Work Release Program assists the county in controlling jail overpopulation, saves the county from increasing financial pressures associated with incarceration, decreases dependency on county services, and allows the convicted individual to remain employed during the length of sentence. This Grand Jury believes that the Department's characterization ofthis request as "not urgent" is shortsighted. This Grand Jury appreciates the other needs ofthe department; however, the importance of the Work Release Program should be recognized by providing the necessary personnel to support this worthy and effective program. Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant: Maintenance/Disposalof Radioactive Waste and Used Nuclear Fuel Issue Are all reasonably necessary steps being taken regarding the storage and disposal of radioactive waste and used nuclear fuel produced at the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) decommissioned Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant (Rancho Seco)? Reason for Investigation The 2006-2007 Grand Jury initiated this investigation to determine 1) the status of radioactive waste and used nucelear fuel storage/disposal at Rancho Seco, 2) if adequate steps are being taken to protect the public from release of radioactive materials, and 3) if all appropriate steps are being taken to ensure that used nuclear fuel is being removed and stored in a safe and timely manner. Background: The 2006-2007 Grand Jury recommended, among other things, that SMUD seek federal compensation for the storage and security of spent nuclear fuel, if the fuel is not moved to a repository elsewhere. Summary of Responses by SMUD: SMUD responded by stating that, in its opinion, it was unlikely the proposed central repository for spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, would ever open. SMUD also responded that financing and funding for the storage and security ofthe spent nuclear fuel was the subject of litigation. SMUD prevailed in its claim that the federal government is responsible for these costs. That case has been appealed by the federal government. SMUD further responded that, even in the event of a reversal of the lower court decision to hold the federal government responsible, SMUD has budgeted sufficient funds to pay for the ongoing storage and security of the spent fuel if necessary. It further stated the impact on the operations and maintenance budget for this contingency is not significant. Comments to SMUD's Responses: The 2007-2008 Grand Jury has reviewed SMUD's response to the Findings and Recommendations ofthe 2006-2007 Grand Jury regarding the costs for storage and security of the spent nuclear fuel at Rancho Seco. This Grand Jury concurs with SMUD's response which indicates first, that the federal government is responsible for the cost of storage and security for the spent nuclear fuel. Second, this Grand Jury also concurs with SMUD's observation that, should the decision of the lower court upholding SMUD's contention be reversed, SMUD has the capacity to provide safe storage and security within its operations and maintenance budget for as long as necessary. Finally, this Grand Jury is hopeful that a federal repository will be identified for the storage of spent nuclear fuel. 109 15 YEAR FINAL REPORT INDEX (1993 thru 2007) SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY AGENCY DATE PUBLISHED Airport System: • Conflict of Interest, Sacramento International 1998 • Encroaching Land Use 2002 • Executive Airport 1994 Cities: Citrus Heights • Credit Card Usage 2001 • Oversight of Contract Services 2006 Elk Grove • Elk Grove City Council 2006 • Elk Grove City Council (Response) 2007 • Elk Grove USD Fails Fiduciary Responsibility 2002 • Elk Grove USD (Response) 2003 Fair Oaks • Cemetery District Management 1993 • Head Stone Damage 2006 Folsom • Credit Card Usage-City ofFolsom 2001 • Folsom Sewage Spills Continue 2002 • Landscape and Lighting District Assessment 2005 Galt • Failure to Oversee Delivery of Services Contracted 2005 • Galt-Arno Cemetery District Operations 1997, 2001 • Lighting and Landscape Districts 2001 • Misuse of Appointive Power by City Council 2003 • Review of Galt-Amo District Operations 1998 Isleton • Administrative and Fiscal Problems 1995 • Complaints Against the Police 1998,1999,2001,2006 • Policies and Procedures 1995,1999 Sacramento City • Convention Center Operation 1997 • Financial Incentives for Targeted Business 1997 • Mayor's Office: Use ofTime and Resources 1998 • North Natomas: Development Gone Awry 2007 • Regional Radio Communications Review 1999 • Sewer Discharge into the American River 2001 • Sacramento City Unified School District Retirement 2006 111 County of Sacramento • Certificates ofParticipation 1994 • Complaint against Taxi Owners 2005,2006 • Communications and Infonnation Technology 1999 • County Civil Service Commission 2005 • County Civil Service Commission (Response) 2006 • County Employee Evaluations 1993 • County Heat Emergency Response 2007 • County Primary Care Clinic 2007 • Directed Brokerage Program ofthe County Retirement System 2002 • Economic Incentive Policy 1997 • Failure ofCounty to Oversee Contract Services/Galt 2005 • Firefighters, Our Local Heroes 1996 • Financing ofLocal Government 1994 • Flood Risk in Sacramento County 2007 • Homeland Security, Ready or Not 2005 • Homeland Security, Ready or Not (Response) 2006 • Letter Grades for Restaurants 2003 • Sacramento-Yolo Port District 1995 Coroner's Office • Crime Laboratory 1993,2000 • Death Investigations 2003 • Fees for Transporting Bodies 2000 • Review of Vendor ContractslRFP 1999 District Attorney's Office • Bureau ofFamily Support 2002 • Child Abuse and Neglect 1998 • Child Support and Welfare Agencies 1998 • Child Support and Collection Enforcement 1997 • Communication and Internal Management 1993 • Multidisciplinary Interview Center 1993 • Political Activities in School Districts 1997 • American River Flood Control District 1997 Department of Health and Human Services • Adult Protective Services 1996,1997,2002 • Aging Out Foster Children-Foster Parents 2001 • Child Abuse and Neglect 1998 • Child Abuse in Sacramento County 1996 • Child Support and Welfare Agencies 1994 • Child Protective Services at the Crossroads 2000 • Child Protective Services Intake Services 2006 • Changes Needed in Juvenile Mental Health Services 2002 112 • Children's Receiving Home 1999 • Development ofNew Programs for Foster Children 2005 • Family Maintenance and Reunification 1995 • Juvenile Hall Mental Health Services 1993 • Mental Health Services in Juvenile Justice System 2001 • Mental Health Treatment Center 1999 • Public Guardian and Conservatorship 1995 Environmental Services Department • Mismanagement ofthe Environmental Department 2000 • Review of Conflict of Interest Statement 1997 Medical Services • County Emergency Ambulance Provider 1993 • Flood Disaster Evacuation ofMedically Infirm 2006 • Goals and Objectives ofMental Health Services 2006 • Mental Health Services in the Juvenile Justice System 2001 Probation Department • Boy's Ranch and Carson Creek High School 1995 • Domestic Violence Programs 2002 • Juvenile Hall Mental Health Services 1993 • Juvenile Justice Facilities and Staffing 2000 • Mental Health Services in the Juvenile Justice System 2001 • Unequal Treatment of Female Inmates 2002 Public Library • County Library Authority 2000 • Use of Alternate Sentencing Volunteers 1993 Sherifrs Department • Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center 2007 • Escape at Cosumnes 1998 • Women's Detention Facility 1994 Main Jail • Handling and Security of Inmate Correspondence 2005 • Jail health Inmate Psychiatric Services 2004 • Jail Training for Officers 1995 • Main Jail Health Care 2006 • Use of Prostraint Chair 1998 • Women's Holding Cells 1997 • Sheriff's Tactical Air Response Operation 1993 • Work Release Program 2007 113 Special Districts • Retained Earnings-Sacramento County Special Districts 2001 • Certificates of Participation 1994 • Financing ofLocal Governments 1994 • Remuneration to Special District Board Members 1994 • American River Flood Control District 1997 • Cable TV Commission and the Brown Act 1994 • American River Fire District Management Review 1993 • Wilton Firefighters on Fire Board ofDirectors 2002 • Mosquito and Vector Control District Operations 1999 • Regional Sanitation District Economic Incentives 1997 • Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency 1994 • SMUD, Economic Development Plan 1997 • SMUD, Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant 2007 • Carmichael District Operational Issues 1997 • Recommendations for Water District Accountability 2003 School Districts • Center USD Violations ofBrown Act 1998 • Community School Usage 1994 • Elk Grove USD Fails Fiduciary Responsibilities 2002 • Folsom/Cordova USD Inventory Practices 1993 usn Grant/ Union • Inappropriate Use of Public Funds 2004 • Policies, Procedures and Administration 1994 usn Sacramento City • Management, Fiscal Problems 1995 • School District Maintenance 1995 • Allegation of Dual Employment, Two Public Agencies 1998 • Board ofEducation Oversight ofCASA 2004 • Lack ofResponse to Requests for Information 1997 • School Safety in Jeopardy 2003 • Students Walking to School 2005 • Volunteers Working on School Grounds 1993 Non-Profit Organizations • Children's Receiving Home 1993 • Sacramento Handicapped Parking Patrol Inc. 1995 State Prison System • Transport of Prisoners for Non-Emergency Medical Care 2002 114 Attachment 1 GRAND JURY COMPLAINT FORM GRAND JURY USE ONLY DATE RECEIVED: _ PERSON OR AGENCY ABOUT WHICH COMPLAINT IS MADE NUMBER: _ NAME: SUBJECT: _ ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: _ NATURE OF COMPLAINT: Describe events in the order they occurred as clearly and concisely as possible. Also indicate what resolution you are seeking. Use extra sheets if necessary and attach copies of any correspondence you feel is pertinent. Documentation becomes the property of the Grand Jury and will not be returned. Please note: The Sacramento County Grand Jury has no jurisdiction over state or federal agencies, the courts, judicial officers, private companies or most organizations. WHAT PERSONS OR AGENCIES HAVE YOU CONTACTED ABOUT YOUR COMPLAINT? Person or Agency Address Date of Contact Result WHO SHOULD THE GRAND JURY CONTACT ABOUT THIS MATTER? Person or Agency Address Telephone No. YOUR NAME: _____________,DRIVER'S LICENSE NO.: _ ADDRESS: _ TELEPHONE NO.:, _ The information I have submitted on this form is true. correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. Complainant's Signature Date - OYER­ not investigate a matter that is currently being litigated in the court system. By law, the proceedings of the Grand Jury are confidential. The findings and recommendations and issues it chooses to SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND address are published in its final report. JURY COMPLAINT FORM COMPLAINT PROCESS A major function of the Sacramento County Grand Jury is to examine local county and • Present your complaint as soon as city government, special districts, school possible. The Grand Jury's term of districts, and any joint powers agency service begins July 15t and ends June located in the county to ensure their duties 30th ofthe following year. are being carried out lawfully. • Identify your specific concern and The Grand Jury: describe the circumstances as clearly and concisely as possible. • May review and evaluate procedures used by these entities to • Document your complaint with determine whether more efficient copies of pertinent information and and economical methods may be evidence in your possession. employed. Mail or deliver your complaint in a sealed • May inspect and audit the books, envelope to: records and financial expenditures as noted above to ensure that public Sacramento County Grand Jury funds are properly accounted for and 720 -9th Street, Room 611 legally spent. Sacramento, CA 95814-1302 • May investigate any charges of Complaints submitted to the Grand Jury will willful misconduct in office by be treated confidentially whenever possible. public officials. However, it may be impossible to conduct an investigation without revealing your • Shall inquire into the condition and name and complaint. management of the public prisons within the county. Grand Jury investigation reports are published in its Final Report, which is Anyone may ask the Grand Jury to conduct available to the residents of the county. an investigation of an issue within its Public entities and officers who are the jurisdiction. Whether it chooses to subjects of the reports are required to investigate such a complaint is entirely in its respond. discretion and may be affected by workload, resource limitations or legal restrictions. It is important to note that the Grand Jury may