Inappropriate Government Influence the Use of Government Influence on a Private Educational Institution

R1

The Laguna Hills, CA. City Council and the Tustin, CA. City Council should review the conduct of their city officials and determine what action should be taken so as to prevent future acts of misfeasance.

R2

Elected officials in Laguna Hills, CA. and Tustin, CA should refrain from attempting to exercise influence over public and private educational institutions.

R3

Additional efforts, including additional hours of study and training, regarding continuing ethical training should be required of those elected officials delineated in recommendation No.1. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Findings/Conclusions and Recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. "Not later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section §914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations..." (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. INAPPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c.) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. RESPONSE MATRIX: