San Joaquin County 2018-2019 Grand Jury Final Report

1 The lack of a Policy and Procedures Manual for Micke Grove Zoo creates inefficiencies and potential liabilities for the Parks and Recreation Division and San Joaquin County.

2 By not following their grievance procedures, the District’s Fire Chief and Board left their employees without recourse to resolve problems other than litigation. F2.3 The District’s leadership failed to address grievances and complaints of a toxic work environment, requiring the District to settle three employment-related lawsuits totaling over $400,000. F2.4 The District’s failure to conduct an annual grievance audit may have resulted in unnecessary financial liability. Recommendations R2.1 The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop a clear and concise grievance policy and form by December 31, 2019. R2.2 The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors revise the District Policy Manual to require that an annual grievance audit be sent to the Board of Directors no later than February each calendar year by March 1, 2020. R2.3 By December 31, 2019, the French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop a policy that requires the Board receive a copy of all internal investigative reports within 10 days of completion. 3.0 Board Oversight Roles and Responsibilities Special Districts in California are local government agencies that provide essential services to millions of residents. Each District provides a specific type of service. The Fire Protection District Law of 1987 is the statutory authority for fire protection districts. Some of the provisions of the law include: • Every district shall be governed by a legislative body known as a board of directors. • Claims against a district shall be audited, allowed, and paid by order of the district board. French Camp McKinley Fire District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors whose primary responsibilities include providing financial oversight and formulating and overseeing strategic policy direction. The District Policy Manual lists 15 responsibilities of Board members including: • Developing a list of qualifications, job description, and evaluation process for the Fire Chief • Hiring and supervising the Fire Chief • Developing goals and measurable objectives for the District and the Fire Chief • Monitoring progress towards reaching established goals • Developing policies which ensure that District business is conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, statutes, regulations, and codes The Grand Jury found that some members of the Board of Directors do not fully understand their roles and responsibilities as outlined in the District Policy Manual. Evaluating the Fire Chief Including the current Interim Fire Chief, the District has had four Fire Chiefs in the past nine years. The Board has failed to set goals and expectations or provide feedback for the Fire Chief. Some 103 Board members said that in the past, they took the word of the Fire Chief that all was well within the District, and admitted they had no objectives by which to measure performance. Inadequate Financial Reporting California Government Code section 53891(a) requires that special districts furnish the State Controller with a report of all financial transactions that took place during the prior fiscal year. These reports are to be filed within seven months after the close of each fiscal year. California Government Code section 26909(a)(1) also requires that an audit for every special district be filed with the County Auditor-Controller annually. The audit must be filed within 12 months of the end of the special district’s fiscal year. While the French Camp McKinley Fire District is current with the State Controller filings, the most recent annual audit filed with the County Auditor-Controller is for fiscal year 2014-2015. Annual audits are critical because they can identify financial improprieties and enable the Board to take appropriate action. Some Board members were unaware that the District is delinquent in filing these audits with the County. Financial Misconduct Alleged financial misconduct by District employees was identified by the Interim Fire Chief and confirmed by the County Auditor-Controller’s office. The misconduct may cost the District over $100,000 and went undetected by the Board of Directors Finance Subcommittee. Findings F3.1 Board responsibilities are not clearly understood by all board members, which has contributed to ineffective leadership of French Camp McKinley Fire District. F3.2 Without a formalized annual review process, the Board is unable to measure the Fire Chief’s performance. F3.3 Board members have not held the Fire Chief accountable for failing to communicate critical personnel issues, which has led to significant employee turnover and expensive investigations and lawsuits. F3.4 The Board is failing in their fiduciary responsibilities as evidenced by the District’s delinquency in filing annual audits, the lack of policies providing financial controls, and inadequate financial oversight. Recommendations R3.1 French Camp McKinley Board members perform an annual review of the Fire Chief no later than July of each calendar year, beginning July 2020. R3.2 French Camp McKinley Board members file annual audits with the County Auditor for 2015- 2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018, with copies sent to the Grand Jury by December 31, 2019. R3.3 French Camp McKinley Board members adopt and follow the financial guidance provided in the document “San Joaquin County Best Practices for Accounting and Reporting for Locally- Governed Special Districts” by December 31, 2019. 4.0 The Future of French Camp McKinley Fire District The map illustrating the boundaries of the District shows a small island surrounded by larger fire districts. The map can be deceiving in that it does not reflect the large number of facilities and people under the protection of the District. Furthermore, it does not convey the potential for accidents involving hazardous materials, given the traffic generated by the Union Pacific Intermodal station and the Pilot Flying J Truck Stop. The District provides fire services to the Pilot Flying J facility, while Lathrop Manteca Fire District is mandated to provide hazardous materials cleanup. Consolidation Consolidation of French Camp McKinley Fire District has been a topic of discussion for more than 30 years. The last Municipal Services Review (MSR) for all County fire districts, performed in 2011 by LAFCO, determined the French Camp McKinley Fire District should “explore other organizational structures” in order to achieve greater operational efficiencies. The MSR recommended the District either: a. Contract with the City of Stockton, or b. Consolidate with a neighboring fire district. More recently, the Manteca Bulletin has called for re-evaluation of the efficiency and viability of smaller independent fire districts. In an article published June 25, 2018, “Sounding the Alarm for Fire Service Consolidations,” the editor speculated that citizens would be better served through consolidations among the small surrounding districts. The newspaper revisited the issue on January 22, 2019, in an article titled, “Time to Rethink Fire Service for Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon & French Camp.” The Manteca Bulletin’s proposals for consolidation are not based on French Camp McKinley’s internal deficiencies, but on economies of scale, population growth patterns, financial viability, and improved levels of fire protection service. Considering the absence of steady leadership, excessive turnover of personnel, and financial instability, the ability of the District to adequately protect some of the County’s critical assets and facilities that serve its constituents is questionable. Findings F4.1 Considering the history of failed leadership from French Camp McKinley’s Board of Directors, excessive turnover of the District’s Fire Chiefs, profound personnel problems, lawsuits, and investigations, the ability of French Camp McKinley Fire District to effectively provide fire protection services to its constituents, including the critical County facilities within its jurisdiction is questionable. F4.2 The District’s Board has failed to follow-up on repeated recommendations to explore consolidation. Recommendations R4.1 The Board of Directors of French Camp McKinley Fire District initiate the process, including an analysis, for consolidating with another fire district by October 31, 2019. R4.2 The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors conduct an independent review to ascertain whether French Camp McKinley Fire District is the most viable option for providing fire protection services for critical County facilities by March 31, 2020. Conclusion French Camp McKinley Fire District has been struggling on multiple fronts for the last decade and is currently in disarray. Continual turnover of the Fire Chief position and failed oversight by the District’s Board of Directors has exposed the District to expensive investigations and litigation. Although the Interim Fire Chief has made progress in his short tenure at the District, the process required to transform the District into a fully functional, efficient Fire District will take many years at best. The constituents of this District, and the hard-working firefighters that serve them, deserve better. Disclaimers Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911. 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. The French Camp McKinley Fire District Board of Directors shall respond to all Findings and Recommendations except R4.2. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to Recommendation R4.2 Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Linda L. Lofthus, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 180 E Weber Ave, Suite 1306J Stockton, California 95202 Also, please email a copy of the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected] 107 108 Section III Summary .................................................................... San Joaquin County Jail and Honor Farm ................... California Health Care Facility .................................... Peterson Juvenile Hall ................................................ Deuel Vocational Institute .......................................... San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Ride-Alongs ........ 121 109 ecitsuJ dna waL 110 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Law and Justice 2018-2019 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report Summary California Penal Code sections 919(a) and 919(b) authorize the Civil Grand Jury to inquire into the condition of jails and public prisons operated by the state, county, and cities within the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. The Grand Jury is charged with investigating matters pertaining to law enforcement including police, juvenile justice, public protection, and probation issues. The Grand Jury is also responsible for inspecting court detention facilities within San Joaquin County. This year’s Grand Jury focused on how California Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109) has impacted the operation of correctional facilities. AB 109 Prison Realignment transfers responsibility for supervising certain kinds of felony offenders and state prison parolees from state prisons and parole agents to county jails and probation officers. Passed in 2011 and implemented in 2012, AB 109 was created to reduce the state prison population and to reduce recidivism. This section of the 2018-2019 Civil Grand Jury Final Report provides the observations made by Grand Jury members during tours of correctional facilities within the County. Grand Jury members also participated in public safety ride-a-long programs and their observations are highlighted in the section titled “San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Ride-Alongs". Facilities Toured Members of the 2018-2019 Grand Jury toured the following facilities and recorded their observations: • California Health Care Facility • Deuel Vocational Institution • Peterson Juvenile Hall • San Joaquin County Men’s Jail and Honor Farm The following documents submitted by the San Joaquin County Sheriff were reviewed: • Policy 300 – Use of Force • San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department Custody Division Policies and Procedure Section: 3.2.0, Subject: 3.2.3, Inmate Management, Classification The following document submitted by the California Health Care Facility was reviewed: • California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, fact sheet (July 2018) The following documents submitted by Peterson Juvenile Hall were reviewed: • San Joaquin County Juvenile Detention Facilities Youth Handbook (revised November 2018) • San Joaquin County Juvenile Detention Facilities Information Packet The following documents submitted by Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI) were reviewed: • DVI Grand Jury Presentation Pamphlet (February 2019) • California Code of Regulations, Title 15. Crime Prevention and Corrections • Alternative Custody Program Participant Handbook (May 2010) • Deuel Vocational Institution Reception Center Inmate Orientation Handbook (Revised 2018) • Getting Out by Going In (GOGI) Studies Enrollment Form Glossary • Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109): State legislation passed in 2011 and implemented in 2012, the Prison Realignment Act transfers responsibility for supervising specific classifications of felony offenders (non-serious, non-violent and non-sexual) and state prison parolees from state prisons and parole agents to county jails and probation officers. It further allows judges more sentencing options. Judges may sentence offenders to house arrest, community service, furlough programs, work release or substance abuse treatment. In 112 addition, the judge may sentence offenders to a partial jail term that allows offenders to finish their sentence in the community with mandatory supervision. • Assembly Bill 900 (AB 900) (2007): The Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act provides funding to local agencies to expand infrastructure and create rehabilitation services mandated by AB 109. It is intended to increase institutional safety as well as public safety when offenders are released. • California Penal Code 919(a): “The Grand Jury may inquire into the case of every person imprisoned in the jail of the county on a criminal charge and not indicted.” • California Penal Code 919(b): “The Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” • Proposition 47 (2014): State proposition that reclassifies many nonviolent crimes, such as drug and property crimes, from felonies to misdemeanors. It also allows for possible resentencing of those already in prison for these crimes. • Proposition 57 (2016): State proposition that allows offenders of nonviolent felonies who have sustained good behavior to be considered for early parole. It also changes policies on juvenile prosecution and authorizes sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and educational programs. • Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA): A Federal Act of 2003 to set standards for the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison sexual assault. It also provides funds to help state and local governments to implement the act. • Senate Bill 10 (SB 10): Signed into law August 28, 2018, and goes into effect October 1, 2019, the state bill will eliminate bail and replace it with a risk-based assessment to determine if a person should be released pending trial. The assessment determines a person’s risk to public safety and the risk of failure to appear rather than one’s ability to pay for bail. • Senate Bill 1143 (SB 1143) (2016): The state bill bans the use of room confinement as punishment when it compromises the mental and physical health of a minor. Additionally, it limits confinement to a maximum of four hours unless there is a threat to the safety and security of staff or other juveniles. It also includes steps to reintegrate the minor back into regular confinement as soon as possible. • Senate Bill 1266 (2011): Alternate Custody Program. Allows inmates to leave prison prior to their Earliest Possible Release Date (EPRD) and serve the remainder of their sentence in the community under the supervision of a Parole Agent. The inmate may be housed at an approved private residence, a live-in treatment facility, or in transitional housing such as a group home. • The Plata Decision (2011): Brown vs. Plata is a U.S. Supreme Court injunction ordering the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to release approximately 46,000 inmates to ease overcrowding. San Joaquin County Jail and Honor Farm The Grand Jury toured the San Joaquin County Jail and Honor Farm on October 10, 2018. The facility Captain, five Lieutenants and a Sergeant met the Grand Jury and gave a brief description of their assigned duties and an overview of the facilities, housing units, and services. All County Jail staff conducted themselves in a positive and professional manner while interacting with both Grand Jury members and inmates throughout the tour. A more in-depth presentation of the County Jail operation was given by Sheriff Steve Moore in the Grand Jury Meeting Room on October 31, 2018. The Sheriff Department’s Use of Force and Inmate Classification policies were provided to the Grand Jury. The Sheriff also stated a new jail would be built in the near future. In an article dated September 26, 2018, the Stockton Record cited Sheriff- elect Pat Withrow as stating the project should be completed in July 2021. The new jail will provide space for AB 109 education and training programs that prepare inmates to make a successful transition back into the community. The County Jail currently houses more than 1,300 inmates. The maximum capacity is 1,550; however, the population can reach 1,585 before court-ordered releases become mandatory. When releases become mandatory, a Superior Court Judge determines which inmates will be released based on the risk they present to the community. The judge then resentences an offender to a partial jail term and allows the offender to finish in the community with mandatory supervision for the remainder of the sentence. It was noted that one Lieutenant is designated as the AB 109 Realignment Lieutenant. His job is to implement, coordinate, and monitor the different programs and services at the County Jail as mandated by AB 109. He stated that most of the mandates for the jail have already been implemented and additional trade programs will be added when the new jail opens. Current programs include life skills, substance abuse counseling, anger management, job readiness and employment assistance, and education services. The inmates have access to a GED program, as well as employment preparation training to assist them in their post-release job search. Additionally, a private vendor is proposing to provide an electronic tablet for each inmate in the County Jail at no cost to the taxpayers. These tablets will give inmates access to all necessary information pertaining to the County Jail and its procedures. Inmates will also be able to use the tablets to access on-line college courses, vocational training, anger management classes, library resources, newspapers, magazines, and other informational materials. Jail staff reports that access to such devices has helped reduce violence in similar facilities. The vendor expects to recover costs by charging inmates for phone calls made on their tablets. Like most law enforcement and correctional agencies, the County Jail is experiencing staff shortfalls due to budget limitations and recruitment issues. Filling open positions is hampered by competition for qualified applicants. The jail is currently understaffed by 35 officers, which is 114 approximately 10-12 percent below full staffing. These figures do not include officers on sick leave, Workers’ Compensation, etc. The inmate-to-staff ratio is 64 inmates to 1 officer. Throughout the tour, County Jail staff emphasized their policy of “Direct Supervision” which encourages good behavior through a system of rewards such as more privileges and less restrictive housing. According to staff, this has had an overall positive effect on the inmate population. When discipline is needed, it is handled by the unit Sergeants or above, with punishment for misbehavior ranging from verbal warnings to forfeiture of good time credits. Any misbehavior rising to the level of a felony is referred to the District Attorney for possible prosecution. The County Jail staff appears to be exceptionally skilled in managing the general inmate population with the direct supervision style. However, some inmates, such as those with mental health issues, violent or self-destructive behavior, gang affiliation, or need for protective custody from other inmates, are not placed among the general population. These inmates are housed in a separate unit called Administrative Segregation, or Ad/Seg, which is a more restrictive housing unit. The lowest risk inmates with sentences of two years or less are housed at the Honor Farm. According to Jail staff, filling beds at the Honor Farm is becoming more difficult due to the early release of inmates. Some of the vacant barracks are being used by the Ready to Work Program which began in 2018 and provides housing, work experience, and training to men who are leaving homeless shelters or the criminal justice system. The overall general condition of the jail was clean and well maintained. It was noted that a few cell walls, doors, and windows had graffiti and etchings. Inmates have access to telephones in every unit and in all yards. Inmates also have access to medical, dental, and psychiatric services by request or staff referral. Food for inmates is prepared entirely offsite at the Santa Rita Jail in Pleasanton by contractor Aramark Corporation and delivered to the County Jail three times per day. There are various food options to meet the needs of individual inmates based upon their dietary, medical, and religious requirements. The visiting room was clean and quiet. It included kiosks for visitors to deposit money into inmates’ accounts. The money can be spent at the jail commissary or to pay for phone calls. The telephone service available to inmates charges a per use fee. The County Jail complex is inspected annually by staff from the French Camp McKinley Fire District. The last annual fire inspection was in May of 2018. Fire extinguishers throughout the facility were observed to have been certified in April of 2018. The Jail staff appears to be doing a good job implementing changes required by recent State laws, such as AB 109, Proposition 57, and SB 10. As a result of the passage of Proposition 57, fewer people are sentenced to state prisons and more are housed at county jails. AB 109 allows for lower risk inmates to be released early due to overcrowding. SB 10 will allow more low-risk accused to be released pending trial without bail, while higher risk accused with more potential for violence will remain in jail. In addition, proposed modifications to the Three Strikes law will bring those 115 convictions back to the counties for re-evaluation. The outcome of these laws is a greater concentration of higher-risk inmates in custody. The staff’s efforts to implement these laws and establish programs to improve the ability of inmates to be successful when they are released should be commended. California Health Care Facility (CHCF) The Grand Jury toured the California Health Care Facility on November 7, 2018. Prior to the tour, the Grand Jury met with the Warden, his administrative staff, and the Chief Medical Officer. The Warden gave a brief overview of the institution and its mission. The mission is to provide quality medical care and mental health treatment as dictated by the Coleman Decision, AB 109, the Plata Decision, and Proposition 57. The Coleman Decision found the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation deficient in the following six areas of treatment of mental health inmates: mental health screening, treatment programs, staffing, accurate and complete records, medication distribution, and suicide prevention. According to the Warden, the CHCF is the most audited, monitored, transparent institution in the state. The Warden also stated he is working with inmates to improve trust by requesting inmates to free themselves from inmate politics (gang affiliations). In return, staff will use a more discretionary approach to the inmate disciplinary process. He believes this will allow all inmates to do their time peacefully and take advantage of the new criteria for early parole. They will also then qualify for programs that provide work skills and education, both inside the institution and in the community upon parole. These programs help make their transition successful and reduce recidivism. The institution opened July 2013 and is one of the largest in the state, covering approximately 350 acres. CHCF has an annual operating budget of approximately $500 million dollars, the largest institutional budget in the state. The maximum inmate capacity is 3,060. At the time of the Grand Jury visit there were only 2,700 inmates. There are 1,400 nurses, approximately 40 doctors, 700 psychiatric staff, 400 contracted employees, and 1,200 custody staff. The majority of the inmates at the institution have medical or mental health problems. However, there is a smaller population of “Mainline” inmates without medical or mental conditions. These inmates comprise the work force that operates the warehouse, laundry, culinary, and plant operations (plumbers, electricians, carpenters, mechanics, and all maintenance). There are also jobs that provide personal care to other inmates, such as assisting wheelchair-bound inmates by aiding them in daily life functions such as showers, feeding, and moving from place to place within the institution. The institution has a large kitchen where inmates prepare all meals. They can make 100 or more different types of meals to meet various dietary requirements. A “quick freeze” or “quick chill” method is used to prepare meals. Meals are cooked, placed in a double-sided tray, sealed and frozen in a cooling unit. The trays are transported to each housing unit where they are placed in a heating unit. Once the tray is properly heated, it is served to inmates in their cell. On average, it costs $3.48 per day to feed an inmate. There are five facilities labeled A through E. Each facility has several housing units. Housing in facilities A, B, C, and D are staffed with custody, medical, and/or psychiatric staff. Housing unit A is the Crisis Care facility where inmates in mental health crisis are temporarily housed until well enough to be returned to their primary institution. If their crisis is not resolved, they are transferred to housing unit B, the Psychiatric Inpatient Program (PIP) for continued mental health treatment. Facilities C and D house inmates with a variety of medical conditions. One housing unit in D facility is designated as a palliative care unit for inmates who are terminally ill. In the future, a housing unit will be dedicated to Alzheimer and dementia inmates. Another unit may be created specifically for elderly inmates. Facility E is where the Mainline inmates are housed. It is also the facility where Administrative Segregation (Ad/Seg) is located. At the hub of the CHCF is an extensive network of medical services including: diagnostic imaging, outpatient medical, physical and medical rehabilitation, dialysis, patient management, dental services, and a stand-by emergency clinic. There are four apartments for family visitation. Family visitation is a privilege inmates earn by meeting certain criteria while maintaining good behavior. Each apartment has a kitchen, living room, bathroom, and two bedrooms. One bedroom holds three twin beds. Visits are 46-hours long. Prior to visiting, the family submits a grocery list, deposits funds to pay for the groceries, and staff stocks the kitchen. Inmates are eligible for a maximum of six visits yearly. Due to time constraints, the Grand Jury was unable to tour Facility E where the Mainline inmates are housed and where the Administrative Segregation unit is located. Peterson Juvenile Hall The Grand Jury toured the San Joaquin County juvenile detention facilities, known as Peterson Juvenile Hall, on December 19, 2018. Three Deputy Chief Probation Officers greeted the Grand Jury and provided an overview of facility operations. They emphasized “this is not the juvenile hall of the past”, and they are not the repository for “out-of-control youth”. Peterson Hall is used to hold youth who: (1) have been accused of violating the law, (2) have pending court proceedings, or (3) have been committed by order of the Court. When detainees arrive, they are immediately evaluated to assess their risk to the community, others, or themselves. A comprehensive assessment is conducted by educational, medical, psychiatric, probation, and custody staff. Educational, medical, and psychiatric staff are from different county agencies, but work together at the detention facility. All staff, regardless of their source agency, work as a team. Low-risk youth are released back to their parent/legal guardian or placed in foster care. Others may be referred to community-based programs for services or placed on probation. The goal is to return low-risk youth to their families where they are able to access community-based programs and resources. Youth who are deemed high-risk remain at the facility until the Juvenile Court decides whether to release, place on probation, or hold pending adjudication of their offense. Professional staff work with the youth to help them “think pro-socially and make better choices” by using evidence-based programming and a reward system that reinforces positive behaviors with more privileges. Discipline is reward-based. Good behavior allows more privileges, while bad behavior restricts privileges. Rule violations result in restriction of leisure activities such as video games or television. Additional restrictions may include limiting canteen access, visiting or phone time. Probation or juvenile court may also be notified of the sanctioned behavior for possible modification of sentence. Youth are given a free phone call upon arrival to call their parent, guardian, employer, or lawyer. Detention officers may allow a free phone call once a week. Phones are available to the youth in every housing unit and a staff-controlled cellphone may be utilized in emergencies. Basic education, bolstered by technology and business training, are the focus for reducing recidivism. All youth are encouraged to continue their education and to earn their high school diploma. The facility has also initiated a technology and business skills training program that includes computer coding and programming as well as a pre-apprentice construction program and other building trades. The facility grounds are scheduled to be refurbished this year, and a side benefit may be a landscape training program. Due to the recent reopening of the on-site kitchen, a culinary training program is also being considered. Prior to this year, meals were prepared off-site. The on-site kitchen now prepares three hot meals and two snacks daily, including meals that meet special dietary or religious requirements. The canteen is available once a week for those who have maintained good behavior and participated in their assigned programs. Access to medical, dental, and mental health services is available at all times. A grievance may be filed when a youth has an issue he/she feels is not being resolved. The grievance begins at the lowest level, given verbally to any member of the staff. If it is not resolved at that level, a written grievance is submitted to the Youth Advocate. If the grievance is still not satisfied, the matter may be brought to the attention of the Public Defender, a private attorney, or a probation officer. Visiting is allowed six days per week, Saturday through Thursday with different hours for the general population and restricted youth. Total capacity of the facility is 179 beds. Currently, there are 87 youth at the facility of which 11 are females. Ages range from 11 to18 years old. Upon attainment of their 19th birthday, they must be placed elsewhere. The average stay for a youth is 42 days. There are 28 Juvenile Detention Officers and six Juvenile Volunteer Officer positions allocated to the facility. At this time, only 14 of the Juvenile Detention and three of the Juvenile Volunteer positions are filled. Promotions and retirements have negatively affected staffing levels. Finding eligible candidates who can successfully pass the background check has been difficult. The facility is a mixture of old, remodeled, and new construction, with staff and youth painting and decorating much of the facility. Numerous facility improvements are underway including new cameras, new intercoms (per a recommendation from the 2017–2018 Grand Jury), and installation of an air conditioner in the gym. The installation of the intercoms will be completed in 2019. Modesty screens have been installed in bathrooms and showers in compliance with PREA. Since the facility is approximately half full, there are only three of six housing units currently operational. With the availability of vacant units, staff has created an activity area called “the Dream Center” where youth may play video games, watch television, learn computer coding, and participate in arts and crafts. This area is only for those who participate in assigned programs and obey all rules and regulations. Should the population increase, these units will be reactivated. Fire evacuation plans are posted throughout the facility. Fire extinguishers were last inspected by the French Camp-McKinley Fire Department on September 18, 2018. The most valuable asset at this facility is the dedicated staff. Even though they represent different county agencies, they project a unified positive attitude and work together for a common goal. They understand that this is where the justice system can affect the greatest change. Intervention is designed to put the youth back on a more productive path. The staff utilizes all available resources to create a positive and nurturing environment. Deuel Vocational Institution The Grand Jury toured Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI) on February 6, 2019. The Warden and his Administrative Staff introduced themselves and gave a brief description of their duties. The Administrative Assistant, a Correctional Lieutenant, showed a short video depicting the institution’s history and current operations. This informational video was produced by staff and inmates in DVI’s in-house Institutional Television Center (ITV). Per the DVI presentation package, there are approximately 508 custody staff, 364 non-custody staff, and 134 medical staff. Unlike most law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County, custody staffing levels are stable and close to maximum. However, the Warden emphasized a desperate need for Librarians. DVI serves as a Reception Center (RC) for inmates from 29 northern California counties. The RC evaluates and assigns inmates to one of the 35 state prisons. Therefore, the current inmate population of 1,940 is divided into two distinct groups: RC inmates and Mainline inmates. RC 119 inmates are the transitional inmates. Mainline inmates have been processed and assigned to DVI to serve their sentences. Mainline inmates provide the institution with a workforce that helps with operational functions such as building maintenance, janitorial services, and food service. In addition, Mainline inmates may participate in vocational training, education programs, and other self-help programs. Some of the lowest custody Mainline inmates live and work outside the prison’s fenced perimeter in an area known as the Minimum Support Facility (MSF). They work as firefighters, dairy workers, sewer plant operators, garage mechanics, community road crews, and in other jobs. The MSF currently houses 130 inmates in minimum security dorms, and ten inmates in the institutional firehouse. The Lieutenant led the tour of the prison. The institution appeared clean. Many areas have been upgraded to accommodate programs and services mandated by recent legislation and court decisions, such as AB109 and the Plata Decision. The Grand Jury’s tour included the visiting room, the ITV, some of the vocational training areas, Receiving and Release (R&R), and a Mainline housing unit. Although the three visiting areas were closed to visitors at the time of the tour, Jurists were able to view them. The main visiting room is for the general population and consists of tables, chairs, and vending machines. Reception Visiting Center Booths are along one wall and the Administrative Segregation Visiting Booths are along another. Inmates enter and leave through the Visiting Search area. Inmates may be searched entering this area and all are searched upon leaving. Inmates may be physically searched and/or searched with an electronic body scanner. Inmates were on hand to explain the purpose of the ITV and describe their duties. A more apt name might be the Media Center, as they do more than simply play programs over the DVI channel. The ITV team also creates and produces a variety of internal programming and functions as a small television station showing educational and informational programming. The Lieutenant indicated this media center could provide the basis of a new vocational program. The vocational area was not in use during the visit, but the Lieutenant pointed out the locations of some of the individual programs such as auto body, auto mechanics and computer training. She noted one of the computer training programs was designed for older inmates who are not familiar with computers but need basic computing skills to compete for jobs upon release. All inmates entering and leaving DVI pass through R&R, whether they are transitional RC inmates or the Mainline inmates to be housed at DVI. Inmates are photographed and fingerprinted and issued an ID card. Other information gathered during this process such as medical, dental, and mental health data, will be added to their profile. After the intake process is complete, the inmates are assigned housing. The Grand Jury was led to a Mainline housing unit, with brief stops at the Infirmary and K-Wing, one of the Administration Segregation units. Both were closed for renovations. The infirmary was getting a complete renovation. The bar and mesh doors in K-Wing were being changed to solid doors to improve officer safety. This change will require the addition of air conditioning to these units. The Grand Jury was able to see a cell in the Mainline unit, while the Lieutenant described some of the dangers and difficulties custody staff deal with on a daily basis in these close quarters. In the past, the primary mission of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was to protect the public safety through the safe-isolating inmates from the general public through incarceration. The prison reform envisioned by AB 109 has expanded the mission to include providing inmates with education and rehabilitation programs aimed at successful re-entry into society and reduced recidivism. Not all inmates choose to participate in the educational and rehabilitation services now available to them. However, there are many who will take advantage of these life-changing opportunities to create a more self-reliant future for themselves and their families. San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Ride-Alongs The Grand Jury members are offered and encouraged to participate in ride-alongs with law enforcement and fire agencies in San Joaquin County. Following is a summary of participating juror's observations during their ride-along. Stockton Police Department • Three jurors participated in ride-alongs with this agency. • One juror described his ride-along officer as a five-year veteran with a “professional way of handling an array of situations” including a report of a shooting, vandalism at Oak Park, and domestic calls. The juror noted the officer treated everyone he encountered with respect and concern. • The second juror described her female ride-along officer as being “respectful and very patient.” Female officers make up approximately ten percent of all Stockton police officers. During the ride-along the officer engaged with some homeless individuals, arrested a person on an outstanding warrant, was called to a family disturbance which required back-up, and then went to the aid of another officer. • The third juror rode with an officer who had been on the force for approximately one and a half years. They fielded several calls including reports of aggressive panhandlers, several homeless encampments along a roadway, and an alleged incident of indecent exposure. They also drove through Oak Park, Louis Park, and Pixie Woods as a show of police presence. Stockton Fire Department, 110 West Sonora Street • The juror met with the Fire Chief, a Battalion Chief, a Captain, and a firefighter who gladly answered all questions. • There was only one call during the juror’s visit. Halfway to the call, a closer unit responded and took the call. • The juror was “impressed with their duty and passion for their jobs.” The juror also noted that they demonstrated compassion and concern for the people caught up in the recent wildfires throughout the state and for the safety of their fellow firefighters battling these wildfires. City of Stockton Code Enforcement • The juror met with a Police Services Manager and a Senior Code Enforcement Officer. The juror noted that the Code Enforcement Department is understaffed with only 23 of 29 budgeted positions filled and that they are working with outdated tablets, laptops, and printers. • The juror was taken into the field to observe inspections. • The juror described the Code Enforcement staff as “maintaining a positive and productive line of communication with the community.” • Code Enforcement works alongside other agencies to clean up problem areas, remove homeless camps, and ensure businesses observe all codes and laws regulating business operations. • The juror stated that the Code Enforcement staff worked with people and businesses to resolve issues without resorting to formal citations. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department • Two jurors had ride-alongs with this agency, each with the same deputy. • One juror’s shift included two family dispute calls, a report of elder abuse, a landlord/tenant dispute, and a report of a homeless person in a shed in someone’s backyard. The shift ended with a deceased person call. During the ride-along of the second juror, they responded to a variety of calls, including shoplifting, domestic disputes, theft from the account of a deceased person, and an illegal eviction. • The juror was informed that the Sheriff’s Department had made the change from handwriting their reports to electronic reporting. The reports are entered into the vehicle’s laptop computer and prints at the county jail. • Both jurors described the ride-along deputy as dedicated, polite, professional and thorough. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Marine Patrol • Conducting the ride-along were two Deputies assigned to the Marine Patrol. The Sheriff’s Marine Patrol consists of eight fulltime deputies. They use reserve deputies when necessary. • These deputies are responsible for approximately 500 miles of waterways. They provide services such as towing disabled boats, rescuing those who have fallen in the water, and providing flotation devices as needed. They also assist the U. S. Coast Guard, Homeland Security, U. S. Customs, and California Fish and Game. They have a mutual aid agreement with Contra Costa County and Sacramento County. • During the ride-along, the Marine Patrol had the following calls: a sunken boat that created a hazard, suspicious behavior of three boaters, parking violations at a marina, and a mutual aid request from Contra Costa County to assist with a possible rescue. • The deputies reported that homeless camps are becoming a major problem along the waterways. • Distances can make backup response an issue for the officers. • The juror said that despite the department’s lack of personnel and modern equipment, deputies are “very professional and maintain their dedication to marine safety.” San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Property and Evidence Department • The juror was given a tour of the Evidence Department by an Evidence Deputy. The Department has a total of 13 staff members to cover three shifts. They all perform “multiple tasks” that include taking photographs, collecting DNA and fingerprints, and conducting shell casing analysis. • There was only one call, which was an assault. An evidence officer photographed the injuries. Upon return to the office, the officer processed the photos and forwarded them to another deputy to be used as evidence. • Evidence staff’s primary complaint was the lack of computers to perform their jobs. Manteca Fire Department • The juror met with the Administrative Fire Chief who explained the overall organization of the Manteca Fire Department. • A volunteer firefighter gave the juror a tour of four fire stations, including the site of one to be opened in 2020. The juror received a warm reception at each station and was able to “ask many questions about coverage, equipment, duties and responsibilities of the firemen.” • At all stations, fire personnel repeated the need for more manpower and more stations, noting the City is expecting additional growth and when the Great Wolf Water Park opens in 2020, it alone will add at least four calls a day. Manteca Police Department • Three jurors had ride-alongs with this agency. • One juror was paired with an officer with eight months experience who received friendly greetings from citizens throughout the ride-along. During the ride-along there were several contacts and after each one the officer downloaded his body camera to the department server via the vehicle’s onboard computer. This is done to ensure the footage is not altered. • The second juror was paired with an officer whose primary responsibility was to “cover the homeless in Manteca”. The officer is one of two patrol officers assigned to monitor homeless individuals and to respond to other calls as needed. During the ride-along the officer drove to all the homeless camps in Manteca and contacted many of the camp residents. The officer treated them with respect and a friendly demeanor. • The officer stated that there are approximately 100 people classified as homeless, but approximately 40 of these are couch surfers (those who sleep at family or friends’ houses) and 60 to 70 are unsheltered homeless. • The third juror was paired with an officer who underscored the department’s motto, “No Call Too Small.” • One juror’s tour began at the police dispatch center. The dispatch center has two employees and as of August, they had handled 33,556 calls in 2018. In all of 2017, 42,069 calls were processed. During the ride-a-long, the officer made several traffic stops and issued one citation. • The officer noted that the time to book a suspect can be as long as four hours, taking the officer away from patrol duties and back-up requests. Tracy Police Department • During the ride-along, the officer’s focus was on traffic violations in the downtown area. Multiple traffic stops were made for various infractions. • Other calls included a family dispute involving a minor and an active stolen vehicle pursuit. The officer responded immediately, going to the location with emergency lights and siren on. At the scene, officers responded with weapons drawn on one individual, as the second individual ran away, later to be found hiding in a dumpster behind the mall. Both individuals were taken into custody. • During many of the interactions, the juror was asked to stay in the vehicle. However, in the observed interactions, the Tracy Police demonstrated a very high level of professionalism. Ripon Police Department • The juror’s ride-along lasted two hours and resulted in four traffic stops in which three warnings and one citation were issued. • The juror was impressed with the proactive policing procedures as explained by the officer and also with the highly secure, modern headquarters. Overall Findings • Overall, the ride-alongs gave jurors a greater appreciation for these dedicated men and women who perform difficult and dangerous jobs. • A recurring complaint across all agencies is the shortage of funding and staff along with the need for updated equipment. 125 126 Section IV San Joaquin County Grand Jury Follow-up Reports: Introduction ....................................................... Code Enforcement Departments of San Joaquin County (2017-2018 Case #0117) ................................................... Office of Emergency Services Operational Assessment (2017-2018 Case #0417) ................................................... Shining Light into the Dark Corner: Is the Office of Violence Prevention Worth the Money (2017-2018 Case #0817) ................................................... San Joaquin County Municipality Ethics Report (2017-2018 Case #0917) ................................................... Countywide Dispatch for Fire Two Are Not Always Better than One (2016-2017 Case #0616) ......................... 197 127 pU-wolloF 128 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Follow-up Reports Introduction Each year Grand Juries investigate and prepare reports with findings and recommendations directed to local governments and other public entities. California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that the agencies provide written responses to all findings and recommendations to the Superior Court. Section 933.05 requires that for each finding, the responding person or entity must indicate one of the following: 1) the respondent agrees with the finding, or 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. For each recommendation, the responding party must provide one of the following responses: 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. 3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. 129 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. This section of the 2018-2019 Grand Jury’s Final Report contains the responses to the 2017-2018 report, as well as the follow-up to several reports from earlier Grand Juries. The findings and recommendations, as well as the agencies’ responses, are provided verbatim. In addition to reviewing the responses to ensure that they met the criteria specified above, the 2018-2019 Grand Jury also determined whether additional follow-up is needed. If an agency’s response is not clear or complete, or if it includes a future date for implementation of the recommendation, the Grand Jury may choose to conduct a follow-up review. If a future date is indicated, the Grand Jury will verify whether or not it is completed at the time indicated by the agency. When an agency responds that they do not intend to implement the recommendation of a Grand Jury, the Grand Jury may choose to take no further action or to conduct a new investigation. Follow-up Report to the 2017-2018 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Case #0117 Code Enforcement Departments of San Joaquin County Preface This report contains the responses to the 2017-2018 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding Code Enforcement Departments of San Joaquin County, the cities within its geographical boundaries, and the community of Mountain House. This follow-up report focuses on the 2017- 2018 Grand Jury findings and recommendations, as well as the agencies’ responses, which are presented verbatim in this report. The 2018-2019 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agencies’ responses. A complete copy of the original report and the agencies responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury website at https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury Summary The 2017-2018 Grand Jury examined the code enforcement departments within San Joaquin County to determine the level of enforcement. Several of the departments were still experiencing the effect of the housing crash of 2008 and the subsequent budget and staff reductions. The major recommendations made by the 2017-2018 Grand Jury were that the code enforcement departments explore budget options, use of volunteers, and possible grant funding to improve code enforcement efforts. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current Grand Jury reviewed the 2017-2018 report #0117 “Code Enforcement Departments of Joaquin County” and evaluated the mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations. Responses were reviewed to determine: • If the agency’s responses were complete and comprehensible. • If the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines. • If confirmation was necessary. Confirmation could include written documentation, interviews or site inspections. Summary of Responses and Grand Jury Conclusions Grand Jury Conclusion Respondent Finding # Response Rec # Response Comments Conclusion No further City of Escalon F1.1 Agrees R1.1 Will implement action taken F2.1 Agrees R2.1 Will not implement No further City of Lodi action taken F2.2 Agrees R2.2 Will implement Further Analysis No further City of Manteca F3.1 Disagrees R3.1 Needed action taken Will not No further City of Ripon F4.1 Disagrees R4.1 implement/Other action taken No further City of Tracy F5.1 Disagrees R5.1 Implemented action taken Community of Will not No further Mountain F6.1 Disagrees R6.1 implement action taken House F7.1 Disagrees R7.1 Implemented F7.2.1 and Disagrees R7.2 Implemented No further City of Lathrop F7.2.2 action taken F7.3 Disagrees R7.3 Implemented County of San Will be No further F8.1 Agrees R8.1 Joaquin implemented action taken F9.1 Agrees No further City of Stockton action taken F9.2 Agrees 132 Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 City of Escalon 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: Escalon is still experiencing budget and staffing reductions created by the housing crash in 2008. The resulting level of enforcement is reactive, which allows blight and safety issues to continue. Agency Response: The City agrees that with the reduction of staffing in prior years has hindered the enforcement level regarding blight and safety issues. City Staff has and will continue to make any potential health or safety issue a priority. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: Escalon explore budget options to restore the code enforcement officer position and consider using volunteers to increase code enforcement compliance. Agency Response: The City of Escalon will continue to explore budget avenues to ensure that safety, health or blight issues are being addressed in timel y matters. This will include exploring the use of volunteers. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2.0 City of Lodi 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: The City of Lodi is still experiencing budget and staffing reductions created by the housing crash in 2008 but is using senior volunteers to deliver notices of code violation, resulting in a voluntary compliance rate of 62%. Agency Response: Lodi agrees with this finding. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F2.2: The homeless population continues to grow and creates increased blight and health issues. Agency Response: Lodi agrees with this finding. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: Explore budget options and grant funding to improve code enforcement. Agency Response: The City currently has two full time code enforcement officers, having added a second officer in September, 2016, and continues to use senior volunteers (Partners) to deliver notices of code violation within the City. No further action is needed at this time. 133 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.2: Plan for future expansion of code enforcement efforts to meet the increasing needs of the community, including the homeless population. Agency Response: The City continues to address issues involving code enforcement, including the needs of our homeless population, by partnering with community group 'Take Back Lodi' on cleanup efforts in homeless encampments and the retrieval of abandoned shopping carts; enforcement of the City's shopping cart ordinance adopted in September 2017; supporting efforts of the County Homeless Task Force; and work with the faith-based community on its annual 'Love Lodi' community wide improvement and beautification projects. In addition, the City created the position of a Community Liaison Officer within the Police Department to assist with outreach to the homeless community. The Community Liaison Officer is assisted by a part-time employee. In the past eleven months the Officer has been able to assist more than 100 homeless people with housing, program placement, or reunification with friends and family. Of those individuals, 26 were placed into programs; and four veterans were placed into housing and counseling programs. The City is continuing to look at creative ways to expand code enforcement efforts within the community. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 3.0 City of Manteca 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F3.1: Manteca is still experiencing budget and staffing reductions created by the housing crash in 2008. The resulting level of enforcement is reactive, which allows blight and safety issues to continue. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1: Manteca explore budget options to restore the code enforcement officer position and consider using volunteers to increase code enforcement compliance. Agency Response: This finding has been reviewed by the City Council at the November 20, 2018 meeting. The City of Manteca has not cut any code enforcement positions, so unclear how the finding was derived. However, pursuant to subdivision 933.05 (b)(3), this recommendation requires further analysis by the Police Department that is responsible for code enforcement and the City Manager, as it directly relates to increases to budget and personnel. Manteca currently has 2.5 FTE dedicated to code enforcement and the City Council will need to explore possible options for adding additional FTE during the upcoming budget process. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 134 4.0 City of Ripon 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F4.1: Ripon is still experiencing budget and staffing reductions created by the housing crash in 2008. The resulting level of enforcement is reactive, which allows blight and safety issues to continue. Current staffing levels require that one employee perform multiple duties including code enforcement, animal control, part-time communications dispatch, and other duties as assigned. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R4.1: Ripon explore budget options to restore the code enforcement officer position and consider using volunteers to increase code enforcement compliance. Agency Response: In response to the findings of the Grand Jury in the above referenced matter, the City Council respectfully disagrees with the Finding that overall staffing for code enforcement has been reduced, based upon the summary and statistics set forth below (See Exhibit 1). At the same time, the City Council affirms the principle that code enforcement is a vital local agency function that must be handled proactively whenever possible. At some point in the future when the code enforcement activity dictates the need to assign a full-time staff member to code enforcement activity, the City Council will direct staff to evaluate the funding for this full-time position. Additionally, the City Council will direct staff to provide the Council with a report on the ability to use volunteers to assist City staff to increase code enforcement compliance. This report shall be provided at an open and public meeting prior to October 31, 2018. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury reviewed the minutes of the October 9, 2018 Ripon City Council meeting. A report presented to the City Council found that the number of staff hours dedicated to code enforcement has not been cut, but rather increased over the last five years. If future code enforcement activities dictate the need for additional staff to conduct code enforcement activities, the City will analyze all options available. Based on this response, the 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 5.0 City of Tracy 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding 5.1: Tracy is still experiencing budget and staffing reductions created by the housing crash in 2008. The resulting level of enforcement is reactive, which allows blight and safety issues to continue. Agency Response: The City disagrees with this finding. Staffing levels in the City’s Code Enforcement Division were not affected during the housing crash in 2008 and subsequent recession. Over the past 18 months, the City has increased its focus on quality of life issues affecting the Tracy community. As part of the City of Tracy’s Quality of Life Strategic Priority, the Tracy City Council authorized during its approval and adoption of the 2017-19 fiscal budget, an increase in Code Enforcement staff from two Code Enforcement Officers, one Administrative Assistant, and one Code Enforcement Manager to four Code Enforcement Officers, one Code Case Analyst, one Administrative Assistant and one Code Enforcement Manager. In an effort to address community concerns related to code compliance and to increasing the quality of life, the City has been proactive in adopting ordinances and utilizing various enforcement tools, as follows: Ordinances: • requiring retailers to submit a shopping cart removal prevention plan to the City to address the issue of abandoned shopping carts, • prohibiting parking of vehicles on unpaved surfaces, • restricting the percentage of the front yard that may be paved on residential property, and • establishing standards and permit requirements for temporary storage containers on residential property. Enforcement Measures: • Caseloads for the periods January 1, 2017 to August 28, 2017 and January 1, 2018 to August 28, 2018: o For the period January 1, 2017 to August 28, 2017 ▪ Cases investigated – 766 ▪ Cases closed – 727 o For the period January 1, 2018 to August 28, 2018 ▪ Cases investigated – 1,151 ▪ Cases closed – 1,081 • From January 2, 2018 to August 31, 2018: o Issued 134 Notices and Orders/Orders to Abate or Show Cause. o Issued 27 Administrative Citations with fines ranging from $100 to $500 each. ▪ Fine amounts paid to the City for Administrative Citations in 2017 - $600.00 ▪ Fine amounts paid to the City for Administrative Citations in 2018 - $2,238.00 o Processed and administered 17 Notice and Orders related to Fire Prevention violations. 136 o Completed 11 public nuisance and graffiti abatements within the City’s right- of-way. o Obtained and completed warrants for inspection of nuisance properties. • Code Enforcement staff also investigated and prepared evidence for the City Attorney’s Office to initiate litigation of three cases for judicial review, including actions for public nuisance abatement and receiverships, in the past calendar year. Community Outreach: • Increased participation with Operation Helping Hands from once per month to twice monthly. o Operation Helping Hands is a multi-agency, multi-disciplinary team formed to provide street level collaboration of law enforcement and service providers. The team includes the Tracy Police Department, Tracy Code Enforcement, San Joaquin County Behavioral Health Services, Central Valley Low Income Housing, TRICARE medical service providers, the Tracy Health Resource Center, a representative from a Veteran’s organization, church representatives and other local, non-profit groups that provide assistance to the homeless. • Providing education on the implementation and enforcement of newly adopted ordinances, including the shopping cart removal prevention plan ordinance, the ordinance prohibiting parking on unpaved surfaces, and the ordinance establishing standards and permit requirements for temporary storage containers on residential properties. • Code Enforcement staff also participated in and/or attended the following: o Eight (8) San Joaquin County Homeless Task Force meetings. o Eight (8) Neighborhood Watch Meetings, which included a presentation before the Police Chief’s Citizen Advisory Group. o Presentations on current trends in code enforcement to the Tracy Chamber of Commerce (2), Tracy Board of Realtors (3), and the Breakfast Lions Club (1). 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.1: Tracy explore budget options to restore the code enforcement officer position and consider using volunteers to increase code enforcement compliance. Agency Response: This recommendation has been implemented. No reduction in Code Enforcement staffing occurred during the 2008 housing crash. Code Enforcement staff increased when the Tracy City Council approved two additional Code Enforcement Officer positions and one Code Case Analyst position during the City’s 2017-19 fiscal budget approval and adoption. The City of Tracy Code Enforcement Division does not have a formal volunteer program. However, through a partnership with the San Joaquin County Probation Department, court- ordered volunteers have been enlisted to assist the Code Enforcement Division through their 137 “alternative sentencing” program. This program offers an offender the option of completing a set number of hours of unpaid work in a nonprofit organization in lieu of a fine or spending time in prison. These volunteers assist with illegal sign removal within the City right-of-way and other blight-related assignments. These volunteers do not have personal contact with the community in the course of providing their services. In 2017, the volunteers provided approximately 120 hours of assistance to the Code Enforcement Division. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 6.0 Community of Mountain House 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding 6.1: Mountain House is still experiencing budget and staffing reductions created by the housing crash in 2008. The resulting level of enforcement is reactive, which allows blight and safety issues to continue. Agency Response: The Grand Jury’s finding does not accurately describe the District’s staffing for code enforcement. The table below shows budgeted positions for code enforcement duties: FTE* assigned to Fiscal Year code enforcement 2009-2010 .8 2010-2011 .8 2011-2012 .8 2012-2013 .8 2013-2014 .8 2014-2015 .8 2015-2016 1.05 2016-2017 1.05 2017-2018 1.05 2018-2019 2.05 *Full Time Equivalent From the inception of the District, a position has been budgeted for code enforcement. This position also performs some building inspection duties. This position is assigned 80% to code enforcement and 20% to building inspection. A Senior Public Works Inspector position was added in fiscal year 2015-2016. This position is assigned 25% to code enforcement and 75% to building inspection. An additional code enforcement position was added for fiscal year 2018-2019; this position is dedicated to code enforcement. The current ratio of code enforcement personnel to residential units is approximately 1:2,700, compared to 1:3,000 for fiscal year 2008. To augment staff code enforcement efforts, the District has contracted 138 with vendors for graffiti removal. In recent years we have utilized expanded maintenance staff to correct graffiti and other acts of vandalism. Staff contacts West Valley Disposal or the responsible agency (San Joaquin County, City of Tracy) for removal of items illegally dumped in or around Mountain House. In spite of the increasing levels of code enforcement personnel, staff is challenged to address all issues. Staff learns of violations by means of personal observation, resident complaints and use of the GoRequest reporting system. Code enforcement staff attempts to correct violations by means of personal contact and follow-up, but also issues citations for continuing non-compliance. Staff takes a proactive approach to code enforcement by posting educational information on our website, in monthly newsletters and on door hangers and by hosting community workshops covering a variety of issues covered by covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R6.1: Mountain House explore budget options to restore the code enforcement officer position and consider using volunteers to increase code enforcement compliance. Agency Response: The District did not eliminate a code enforcement position; as demonstrated above, the staffing level has increased. The District has addressed code enforcement concerns on multiple fronts: • Budgeting a Senior Public Works Inspector in fiscal year 2015-2016 and a second Code Enforcement Officer in fiscal year 2018-2019 • Using our website, newsletter, door hangers and community workshops for public education • Maintaining and monitoring the GoRequest on-line service • Instructing field personnel and other staff to report compliance issues • Promptly removing graffiti and repairing damage due to vandalism • Contacting West Valley Disposal or responsible agency (San Joaquin County, City of Tracy) for removal of items illegally dumped in or around Mountain House • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 7.0 City of Lathrop 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F7.1: Lathrop has taken limited code enforcement action toward the illegal parking of commercial trucks and failed to resolve the problem for approximately six years, allowing blight and public safety issues to remain. 139 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R7.1: Lathrop take consistent code enforcement action on the illegal parking of commercial trucks. Agency Response: The City of Lathrop respectfully disagrees with the Grand Jury finding. The City of Lathrop Code Compliance Division exercises all powers vested by the City in response to blight and public safety issues, including illegal parking of commercial vehicles. For the past 6 years, Lathrop has initiated a total of 3,830 new cases, of which 103 were for illegal parking of commercial trucks. The City of Lathrop hired a Code Enforcement Supervisor on 3/12/2018. Since October of 2016, Code Enforcement has initiated 1,149 new cases, 20 of which for illegal parking of commercial trucks. Of those 20 cases, 18 have been closed for corrected violations, 2 are currently open and under re- inspections. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F7.2.1: Lathrop has a vacant budgeted position for code enforcement officer that city officials will not fill at this time. This has exacerbated the illegal truck parking issue. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F7.2.2: The City has not consistently hired qualified code enforcement officers. This contributes to the lack of reliable code enforcement. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R7.2: Lathrop advertise and fill the vacant position of code enforcement officer, adhering strictly to the job description guidelines. Agency Response: The City of Lathrop respectfully disagrees with the Grand Jury finding. The City does not have a vacant, budgeted position for Code Enforcement. The City hired a Code Enforcement Supervisor on 03/12/2018. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F7.3: Lathrop has no consistent appeals process that could be used to resolve the truck parking issue, causing the issue to persist. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R7.3: Lathrop develop and implement a consistent appeals process that can be used to resolve enforcement disputes. Agency Response: The City of Lathrop respectfully disagrees with the Grand Jury finding. On April 5, 2018 the City of Lathrop provided Grand Jury Staff a copy of the City's appeals process. Attached, please find the following excerpts regarding the administrative hearing process as outlined in the Lathrop Municipal Code; TITLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter 1.12 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES 1.12.340 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROCEDURES 1.12.350 PROCEDURES FOR REQUESTING AN APPEALS HEARING 1.12.360 PROCEDURES FOR NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING 140 1.12.370 PROCEDURES AT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING 1.12.380 FAILURE TO ATTEND AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING 1.12.390 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (See Exhibit 2 for the excerpts from Lathrop Municipal Code) • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 8.0 County of San Joaquin 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F8.1: The county actively pursues the illegal parking of commercial trucks in unincorporated areas but, due to the large amount of undeveloped land, it is difficult to enforce the code. This has led to complaints. Agency Response: Agree. County Code Enforcement responds to a high volume of complaints, including illegal commercial vehicle parking. In general, we expect demand for Code Enforcement service to remain in excess of available staffing levels for the foreseeable future. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R8.1: San Joaquin County continue to expand its enforcement efforts to prohibit illegal commercial truck parking. Agency Response: The recommendation will be implemented within the first quarter of fiscal year 2018-2019. The San Joaquin County Community Development Department will take the following actions to help resolve the issue. Under the Department’s 2018-2019 budget, one new Code Enforcement Officer has been approved. The Department is currently working with the Human Resources Department to hire the new Officer. Once the officer has been hired, a portion of their time will be allocated to enforcement efforts to prohibit illegal commercial truck parking. This will supplement the time already spent by existing Code Enforcement Officers on this issue. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury verified that the recommendation has been implemented and determined to take no further action. 9.0 City of Stockton 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding 9F.1: Stockton has moved the code enforcement department into a section of the Stockton Police Department. This enables a response team to quickly address areas riddled with crime and blight. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this finding. The Neighborhood Blitz Team (NBT) formed in 2014 as an innovative, proactive approach to "cleaning up" defined geographic areas in Stockton that struggle with blight and violent crime. This approach formally coupled uniformed police officers with code enforcement staff to address overall health and safety issues of these valued yet underserved neighborhoods. The new NBT strategy relied upon neighborhood services/code enforcement efforts, contemporary community policing practices, and active citizen engagement to collaboratively develop and implement comprehensive area improvement plans. The NBT's mission is to improve "quality-of-life" issues within specified neighborhoods through the realization of the following primary goals: • Reducing crime and blight • Strengthening economic viability • Building trust with communities through partnerships • Fostering community pride and participation • Improving the physical characteristics of each focus area • Decreasing the incidence of vacant homes • Building the sustainable resources that are needed and desired by the community The first phase of the NBT strategy was completed by late 2017. Phase I involved an initial 90-day intensive, community-driven police and code enforcement effort in each of six focus areas throughout the City. Partnerships with other City departments and outside agencies were leveraged to expand resources. Meetings were held, at neighborhood venues, to give a voice to residents and neighborhood leaders and to formulate plans to reduce crime/blight, strengthen economic viability, and foster neighborhood pride. As the NBT completed those plans and transitioned out of each area and into the next, some level of resources remained behind, to encourage and empower area residents to maintain and increase the positive outcomes achieved within their neighborhoods. During NBT Phase I, the City of Stockton Neighborhood Services Section (NSS) inspected 1,858 parcels, including 2,470 residential units. NSS staff identified violations at 1,226 locations and worked with occupants and/or owners to bring them into compliance. Each area was provided a Clean-up Day, and approximately 40 tons of unwanted items were removed. Conservation Corps staff assisted many elderly and disabled individuals who were unable to remove their own debris. These combined efforts greatly reduced blight in all six focus areas. Each focus area also experienced a significant decrease in violent crime and has since sustained a level of reduced overall crime. In 2018, the NBT evolved into the Neighborhood Betterment Team and began Phase II. Phase II provides a longer-term approach to sustain the progress achieved in these focus areas and continues to improve the quality of life for these residents and business owners. Phase II extends the program's emphasis to include the leveraging of partnerships for areas outside of our direct control such as employment, education, and health care. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F.9.2: Stockton has implemented a number of proactive code enforcement programs that respond to code violations with a neighborhood focus. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this finding. The Police Department's NSS, Code Enforcement has taken a proactive approach in addressing those neighborhoods that are in the most need of attention and services by conducting five proactive large-scale sweeps annually. Each sweep consists of an average of 1,100 property inspections and a Saturday cleanup. Saturday cleanups allow residents in the designated area a place to dump trash and debris, free of charge. The NSS can assist those that are in need, such as the elderly and disadvantaged, in removing items from their property for disposal. The NSS is currently working on two separate grants to assist in debris disposal, education, and enforcement. In 2017, the NSS resolved 7,923 cases. In addition, the City has taken a proactive approach to address those properties that are at risk to cause or have a catastrophic event. The purpose of the Stockton's Top Offending Properties (STOP) is to address the top ten properties within the city of Stockton. These have been identified as having a combination of excessive calls for service, crime, blight, and dangerous conditions. The team consists of the Police Department, Community Development Department, Fire Department, and City Attorney's Office. The STOP team uses numerous tools and resources to obtain compliance. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911.924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Exhibit 1 – City of Ripon BACKGOUND To provide some context for its response, the City has never had a full-time staff person assigned to conduct code enforcement activities and the City Council would note that total staff hours assigned to code enforcement activity in Ripon has increased since before the recession. Prior to the recession, the City’s Planning and Community Development Director was assigned the part- time responsibility of conducting code enforcement activities. As the economy has improved and the workload of the City’s Planning and Community Development Director increased, a Community Service Officer from the Ripon Police Department was assigned to work under the Planning and Community Development Director. The number of hours allocated to code enforcement activities by staff is directly related to the need. Code enforcement activity in the City of Ripon is primarily investigated on a complaint driven process, but the City’s approach becomes much more proactive when a risk to public safety is present. An example of times when the City’s Code Enforcement Officer is proactive is weed abatement. Before the heat begins drying weeds in empty lots increasing chances of a fire, code enforcement staff sends out letters notifying property owners of the need to remove the weeds. In 1999, the Neighborhood Code Compliance committee was established pursuant to Chapter 1.10 of the Municipal Code. This committee is made up of code enforcement staff, Building Official, Planning and Community Development Director, Fire Chief, Police Chief, City Attorney, and a Councilmember. The committee meets from time to time (on average, approximately four times each year since its inception) to review code enforcement matters and provide guidance and recommendations as to appropriate strategies and remedies to obtain compliance. The following is a summary of code enforcement cases the City has taken action on over the last 5 years: 2017: 158 2016: 144 2015: 156 2014: 142 2013: 144 The number of code enforcement actions taken in the last 5 years is fairly consistent and does not indicate an increasing trend, nor the need to add additional code enforcement staff at this time. Exhibit 2 – City of Lathrop LATHROP MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter 1.2 Administrative Enforcement Procedures 1.12.340 Administrative hearing procedures. This section establishes the procedures for the use of administrative hearing officers and the procedures for governing administrative hearings. A. Qualifications of Administrative Hearing Officer. The city attorney shall develop and the city council shall ratify, rules and procedures as are necessary to establish a list of qualified persons who are capable of acting on behalf of the city as administrative hearing officers. 1. Candidates for the position of administrative hearing officer shall meet one of the following minimum qualifications: a. Employed by a municipality other than the city of Lathrop as a city attorney, assistant city attorney or deputy city attorney. b. Employed by a municipality other than the city of Lathrop as a code enforcement manager or code enforcement supervisor. B. Appointment of Administrative Hearing Officer. The city attorney shall develop and the city council shall ratify policies and procedures relating to the appointment and compensation of hearing officers. Hearing officers presiding at administrative hearings shall be appointed and compensated by the city manager or city manager's designee. The employment, performance evaluation, compensation and benefits of the administrative hearing officer shall not be directly or indirectly conditioned upon the amount of administrative citation fines or other compensation upheld by the administrative hearing officer. 1. Hearing officers shall be compensated by a reciprocal services agreement whereas the city of Lathrop will provide like services to the agency of the individual acting as administrative hearing officer on behalf of the city of Lathrop. 2. Terms of any reciprocal services agreement for hearing officer services shall be approved by the city manager or city attorney. C. Disqualification of Hearing Officer. Any person designated to serve as an administrative hearing officer is subject to disqualification for bias, prejudice, interest, or for any other reason for which a judge may be disqualified in a court of law. Rules and procedures for the disqualification of a hearing officer shall be promulgated by the city attorney and ratified by the city council. Any party may petition the city manager to disqualify a designated hearing officer after receipt of a notice indicating the identity of the hearing officer or discovering facts which establish grounds for disqualification. The petition must be filed immediately with the city manager upon discovery of such facts. The city manager shall determine whether to grant the petition for disqualification. A written statement of the facts and reasons for the determination shall be incorporated into the administrative record for the hearing. The decision of the city manager may be appealed to the city council within ten (I 0) days' notice of the decision. If a substitute is required for a hearing officer due to disqualification or unavailability, a substitute shall be appointed by the city manager in accordance with these rules and regulations. D. Powers of Hearing Officer. The hearing officer has the authority to do the following: 1. Administer oaths; 2. Conduct a pre-hearing conference to deal with such matters as exploration of a settlement, preparation of stipulations, clarification of issues and other matters; 3. Continue a hearing based on good cause shown by one of the parties to the hearing or if the hearing officer independently determines that due process has not been adequately afforded; 4. Issue subpoenas in accordance with this section. Upon receipt of a written request which is submitted no later than five days before the hearing, the hearing officer shall subpoena witnesses, documents and other evidence where the attendance of the witness of the admission of evidence is deemed necessary to decide the issues at the hearing. All costs related to the subpoena. including witness and mileage fees shall be borne by the party requesting the subpoena. The city attorney shall develop policies and procedures relating to the issuance of subpoenas in administrative hearings, including the form of the subpoena and related costs; 5. Maintain continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter of an administrative hearing for the purpose of granting a continuance, ensuring compliance with an administrative order, modifying an administrative order, or where extraordinary circumstances exist, granting a new hearing; 6. Require the posting of a performance bond or some other equivalent means of guaranteeing that compliance will occur, if necessary; 7. Approve any settlement voluntarily entered into by the parties. (Ord. 16-364 § I; Ord. 07-267 § 1; Ord. 98-156) 1.12.350 Procedures for requesting an appeals hearing A. A person served with one of the following documents, order or notices may file an appeal within ten (10) calendar days from the service of the notice: 1. Any civil penalty notice and order issued; 2. An administrative citation issued pursuant to Sections 1.12.130 and 1.12.140; 3. An application for a waiver of fees. B. The appeal shall be made in writing stating the grounds for the appeal and filed with the director on or before the tenth day after service. (Ord. 98-156) 146 1.12.360 Procedures for notification of administrative hearing. A. Where an administrative remedy or proceeding provides for an appeal procedure, the director shall request the city attorney to appoint a hearing officer and to schedule a day, time and a place for the hearing. B. Written notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be served at least ten (I 0) calendar days prior to the date of the hearing to the responsible person. C. The format and contents of the hearing notice shall be in accordance with rules and policies promulgated by the city attorney. D. The notice of hearing shall be served by any of the methods of service listed in Section 15.36.050. (Ord. 98-156) 1.12.370 Procedures at administrative hearing. A. Administrative hearings are intended to be informal in nature. Formal rules of evidence and discovery do not apply. The procedure and format of the administrative hearing shall follow the procedures promulgated by the city attorney. B. The city bears the burden of proof at an administrative hearing to establish the existence of a violation of this code or applicable state codes. C. The standard of proof to be used by the hearing officer in deciding the issues at an administrative hearing is by a preponderance of the evidence. D. Each party shall have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her case. E. Both the city and the party whose property and/or actions are the subject of an administrative hearing are entitled to representation by legal counsel. If the party whose property and/or actions are subject to the hearing is to be represented by an attorney, written notification of the attorney's name, address, and phone number must be supplied immediately to the city department which is holding the hearing. Upon notification by the other party of legal representation, the city department may contact the city attorney's officer to request representation at the hearing. Thereafter, all contact or communication should be made by the parties' attorneys. (Ord. 07-267 § I; Ord. 98-156) 1.12.380 Failure to attend administrative hearing. Any responsible person who requests a hearing or whose actions are the subject of an administrative hearing and who fails to appear at the hearing is deemed to waive the right to a hearing and the adjudication of the issues related to the hearing, provided that the hearing was properly noticed. (Ord.98-156) 147 148 Follow-up Report to the 2017-2018 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Case #0417 Office of Emergency Services Operational Assessment Preface This report contains the responses to the 2017-2018 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding the San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services (OES). This follow-up report focuses on the 2017-2018 Grand Jury findings and recommendations, as well as the County’s responses, which are presented verbatim in this report. The 2018-2019 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the County’s response to each recommendation. A complete complete copy of the original report and the County’s response may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/. Summary The 2017-2018 Grand Jury’s investigation into the San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services (OES) began as a result of concerns regarding the level of emergency outreach efforts. Early interviews revealed the existence of a consultant’s report on the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which is a major component of the County’s emergency response efforts. After reviewing the report, the focus of the investigation expanded to include the deficiencies it identified. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current Grand Jury reviewed the original 2017-2018 report #0417, “Office of Emergency Services Operational Assessment.” The Grand Jury interviewed the Director of the San Joaquin County General Services Department, who is also the Director of Emergency Services, and attended OES stakeholders meetings. The mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations were reviewed to determine: • If the agency’s responses were complete and comprehensible; • If the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • If confirmation was necessary. Confirmation could include written documentation, interviews or site inspections. Glossary • Annex: Refers to a separate category, element, or addition to a plan or document, specifically the EOP. • Crosswalk: A table that shows the relationship between two other tables. • EOP: The Emergency Operations Plan describes the County’s incident management structure, community engagement, continuity of government, and critical components of the incident management structure. The EOP strategically outlines the County’s response to all emergency situations. The EOP provides generalized response instructions, while specifics are addressed in EOP Annexes and Standard Operation Procedures. • FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency. • MOU: Memorandum of Understanding; an agreement between two or more parties. • Stafford Act: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The Stafford Act is a 1988 amended version of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. It is designed to bring an orderly and systematic means of federal natural disaster assistance for state and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to aid citizens. • Stakeholders: Participants or entities who have an interest in the success of a specific plan. • Tetra Tech: Consultant hired by the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors to provide an assessment of the County’s emergency preparedness. Summary of Responses and Grand Jury Conclusions Finding Grand Jury Conclusion Respondent Response Rec # Response # Comments Conclusion R1.1.1 Implemented San Joaquin Partially No further F1.1 County Disagree action taken R1.1.2 Implemented R1.2.1 Will be No further implemented action taken F1.2 Agree R1.2.2 Will be Full Further implemented Implementation action by December required 2019 Will be No further F2.1 Disagree R2.1 implemented action taken Scheduled Further Will be F3.1 Agree R3.1 completion action implemented December 2019 required No further F4.1 Disagree R4.1 Implemented action taken R5.1.1 Implemented No further action taken R5.1.2 Implemented No further action taken F5.1 Agree R5.1.3 Implemented No further action taken R5.1.4 Will be No further implemented action taken F6.1 R6.1 Partially No further Agree implemented action taken Scheduled Further Partially Will be F7.1 R7.1 completion action disagree implemented March 2020 required 151 Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 EOP Assessment Plan 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: Elected officials were not adequately informed of the final Tetra Tech assessment. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. In the 2015-2016 proposed budget, the County Administrator received Board of Supervisors approval to conduct an organizational study of the OES and an assessment of the County’s emergency preparedness. In a memorandum dated March 19, 2018 from Marcia Cunningham, Director of Emergency Services to the Board of Supervisors regarding San Joaquin County Emergency Operations Plan, Ms. Cunningham provided an update of the activities that have been in process as they related to the Executive Summary from the Emergency Operations Plan Assessment Report and Recommendations as prepared by an outside consultant. The document lists the ten key findings, their associated recommendations and contains a brief status of each item. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1.1: By July 31, 2018, the county’s elected officials be briefed by the county administrator on the Tetra Tech assessment and the plan for completion. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1.2: By September 30, 2018, the county’s elected officials be briefed by the county administrator on the OES implementation progress. Agency Response R1.1.1 and R1.1.2: Has been implemented. The County’s elected officials and the County Administrator have been briefed by the General Services Director (Director of Emergency Services), and by the Deputy Director of Emergency Operations during the 2018-2019 final budget hearing on implementation and progress. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: Since November 2016 only one of ten recommendations has been implemented, leaving the county with an inadequate plan. Agency Response: Agree. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2.1: By September 30, 2018, the Office of Emergency Services develop a plan to carry out Executive Summary Key Findings and 152 Recommendations as found in the Tetra Tech assessment and include project deadlines, additional resources, staff, and funding necessary to complete the tasks. Agency Response: Will be implemented. The Tetra Tech contractor reviewed approximately 277 documents during their formal process. The Emergency Operations Plan is a comprehensive document that outlines policy and processes in place within a county while adhering to local, state and federal directives and guidance. The consultant’s review addressed more than 90 industry standards and best practices for disaster recovery and emergency management. While the document states the findings were reported in October 2016, they were delayed to mid-December 2016 due to the contractors’ prior emergency commitments to assist during a hurricane in the Southeast. The final report was delivered in February 2017. The final report from Tetra Tech highlighted ten key findings. These included: 1. The EOP and annexes should be updated to a consistent hierarchy and format. 2. Plans should be consolidated within a recommended hierarchy and their content streamlined. 3. Development of regular and sustained methods to socialize the EOP to County staff and key stakeholders to ensure the familiarity and understanding of the plan. 4. The EOP should reference current legal authorities and references to key response partners should be updated throughout the document. 5. The inclusion of and compliance with federal standards must be acknowledged throughout all emergency plans. 6. Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) should be reviewed for completeness and expiration. 7. The Chairman of Board of Supervisor’s role as the designated Director of Emergency Services should be changed to designate a chief executive or the County Administrator to leverage their authority better. 8. Many current and affiliated annexes include incorrect or outdated information or are missing critical information. Should develop a standardized format for all Emergency Support Functions that follow federal guidelines and proactively transition to alignment with the federal standard. 9. The County relies heavily on the American Red Cross. Need to create a formal and detailed County-based mass care plan with transition procedures between organizations. 10. Disaster Recovery plans are dated and incomplete. Following the final EOP Report delivered by Tetra Tech, the Director of General Services assigned the former Director of Emergency Operations the task of updating the EOP to meet the consultant’s recommendations. In December 2017, the former Director of Emergency Operations vacated the position leaving the work unfinished. The Director of General Services took this opportunity to have the position reviewed by Human Resources and 153 ultimately reclassified by board order (B-18-29) on January 9, 2018, as the Deputy Director General Services – Emergency Operations. At the same time, the County Ordinance Code Civil Defense and Disaster General Regulations was amended to reflect the suggestions in item #7 (above) of the consultant report. In the Ordinance Code amendment, the Director of General Services was appointed as the Director of Emergency Services, a role formerly held by the Chair of the Board of Supervisors. Also, the position of Deputy Director General Services – Emergency Operations was developed and assigned the working title of Director of Emergency Operations. The Director of General Services appoints this new position. On April 2, 2018, a new Deputy Director General Services – Emergency Operations was hired. Since her arrival, she has begun to develop a comprehensive plan to complete the other nine outstanding items on the Tetra Tech consultant list. The plan to carry out the Executive Summary Key Findings and Recommendations in the Tetra Tech assessment will be completed by the August 31, 2018, recommendation. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2.2: By December 31, 2018, the OES fully implement the above plan. Agency Response: Will be implemented. As noted above, the new Deputy Director General Services – Emergency Operations has assumed the leadership role and has begun to develop a comprehensive plan to complete the outstanding items on the Tetra Tech assessment. However, in light of the volume of plans that must be updated and MOU’s that must be executed by several key stakeholders, a December 31, 2018, deadline is far too aggressive to ensure all outstanding items are completed successfully. Development a new EOP, and its 30 supporting annexes, will be a comprehensive and lengthy task. The EOP is the basic document; however, the supporting annexes building upon the EOP. To be developed in the method prescribed by the consultant that is consistent with FEMA guidance and standards, it requires the detailed involvement of multiple County stakeholders in each of the 15 specific response functions, including but not limited to health care services, fire, law, public works, communications, and transportation. For example, FEMA Guidance – Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101, V2, outlines six steps in the planning process to develop an effective EOP. The development of one annex can take up to nine months to complete. The Tetra Tech report includes a timeline that is estimated with each of the six steps listed below: 154 1. Form a Collaborative Planning Team (one month) 2. Understand the Situation (one month) 3. Determine Goals and Objectives (one month) 4. Plan Development (two months) 5. Plan Preparation, Review and Approval (one month) 6. Plan Implementation and Maintenance (three months) Understanding that each of these pieces includes one or more meetings and a significant time commitment for the development of one of the plans. Each component of an EOP is required to be reviewed and revised at a minimum of once every two years, making the whole process cyclical and unending. Based upon the time and involvement by many departments throughout the County to complete the entire process, it is not expected to be completed for at least a full year, with another year for full implementation of the EOP to include training and exercising of County staff to ensure socialization of the EOP to county staff. Therefore, a realistic target date is December 2019, to implement the full plan to have the updated EOP in place. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2017-2018 Grand Jury recommended that by December 31, 2018, OES fully implement an updated EOP. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors agreed with the recommendation but stated that December 2019 was a more realistic target date. On April 23, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved the Basic EOP, but full implementation of the plan is not expected to occur until the end of 2019. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1: OES is in the process of implementing a revised EOP. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By December 31, 2019, OES fully implement an updated EOP. 2.0 Memorandum of Understanding 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: Without a physical presence in San Joaquin County, the American Red Cross may have logistical delays and problems delivering mass care services. Agency Response: Disagree. There is a presence within San Joaquin County for the American Red Cross. The City of Stockton is one city within Red Cross Central California Region Sierra-Delta Chapter that is equipped with a Disaster Emergency Response Trailer. The vehicle is supplied with enough cots and supplies to accommodate 400 people at shelters. Additionally, the American Red Cross has a Disaster Action Team that shows up upon request to assess the situation and ensure that all the needs are met. If more resources are needed the American Red Cross will coordinate and bring in additional services/supplies from other regions/chapters. They are ready to deploy within a few hours of a disaster to help. Shelters locations have already been designated throughout San Joaquin County. There currently is a Memorandum of Understanding in place with the American Red Cross. Despite the memorandum being out-of-date, we have been ensured by members of the Sierra-Delta Chapter American Red Cross that the ARC is available to assist when needed. For example, a fire in a Boarding House in Lodi on June 27, 2018, displaced 47 residents. The Staff of the ARC were in Lodi within a few hours and ensured sheltering for all displaced residents at a nearby church for the duration of the night. Similarly, in February, another fire also brought members of the ARC to provide shelter services for several people at the Lodi Grape Festival grounds. These recent examples demonstrate that despite having a current memorandum, the services are still available at a moment’s notice. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: A provider or providers of mass care services be identified and appropriate contracts or MOU’s be signed by December 31, 2018, and documentation provided to the Grand Jury. Agency Response: Will be implemented. Tentative goal for completion is May 2019. The Shelter Annex will be developed utilizing best practices and guidance developed by FEMA and will take about nine months from August 9, 2018, kick-off to complete. The American Red Cross (ARC) of Sierra -Delta serves an eleven county area, including San Joaquin County. Volunteers and staff are prepared to respond around the clock to assist and provide services when and where needed. The staff of the ARC actively participate at the State’s Emergency Operations Center when a disaster occurs in the State that requires sheltering or family reunification needs. However, OES recognizes that in the event of a large-scale event, the ARC may not have enough resources available to provide all required sheltering services. It is for this reason that the staff of the OES agency has begun working with Human Services Agency, Health Care Services, and a number of other county agencies to develop a comprehensive sheltering plan that will take into account the needs of the county population to include individuals with special needs and people with access and functional needs. Also, needs will be evaluated, and new MOAs will be developed and executed as appropriate. The County has additional resources through the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). The three programs that the California Department of Social Service’s, Disaster Services Section are responsible for are supporting counties’ mass care and shelter programs in California, state and federal grant recovery programs for individuals and households, and Emergency Repatriation. They are able to provide mass care teams to assist with coordinating food services, and provide emergency service teams from the State level. These program responsibilities are delegated to the Department through an Administrative Order from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, issued under the authority of Executive Order W-9-91. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury verified that the MOU with the American Red Cross was approved at the May 14, 2019 Board of Supervisors meeting and determined to take no further action. 3.0 Tetra Tech, Inc. EOP Assessment Crosswalk 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F3.1: In total, nearly half or 48% of all the plans are deficient and require improvements to meet compliance standards. Agency Response: Agree. As noted previously, approximately 30 plans are included in the crosswalk. With the update of the Basic EOP section, a good portion (approximately 52) of those items marked “N” for “Needs Improvement” and “P” for “Partially Meets” will meet the “S” for “Satisfactory” requirements. However, until all of the plan sections are completely revisited, the remaining 25 deficiencies will not be corrected. Approximately 13 of the final 25 deficiencies apply to nearly all documents. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1: By December 31, 2018, correct all the deficiencies listed as “N” and “P” in the Crosswalk with confirmation provided to the Grand Jury. Agency Response: Will be implemented. As noted earlier this is a lengthy process that involves coordination of multiple County agencies to complete the revision of the entire Emergency Operations Plan. The annexes will be developed utilizing best practices and guidance developed by FEMA and will take about nine months. Therefore, in December 2019, represents a more realistic target. 157 2018-2019 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2017-2018 Grand Jury recommended that by December 31, 2018, OES correct all deficiencies listed as “N” for “Needs Improvement” and “P” for “Partially Meets in the EOP Assessment Crosswalk with confirmation provided to the Grand Jury. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors agreed with the recommendation, but stated that December 2019 was a more realistic target date. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1: OES is in the process of revising the EOP Assessment Crosswalk. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By December 31, 2019, correct all the deficiencies listed as “N” and “P” in the Crosswalk with confirmation provided to the Grand Jury. 4.0 Grant Funding 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F4.1: If the grants were unavailable, no contingency plan is in place to provide alternative funding sources. Agency Response: Disagree. The County’s Annual budget process provides the opportunity to identify all budgetary needs. One-time costs can be requested as a supplemental request during this process. Throughout the Fiscal Year budget monitoring, quarterly reports, mid-year reports, and year-end projections allow for budget adjustments when additional funds are needed and justified. Immediate or unexpected needs can be presented to the Board of Supervisors at any of the scheduled Board meetings. At this time, there is no immediate need to ask for additional funding or contingency. In addition during an emergency, the Director of Operations has the authority to make a financial decision to address an immediate need during an activation. Each local jurisdiction, city, and special district within the county are required under the Federal Robert Stafford Act and subsequent amendments, to develop comprehensive preparedness and response plans, programs, and capabilities, to include increased protection by obtaining insurance coverage to supplement or replace government assistance, ensuring hazard mitigation measures and developing regulations to reduce losses associated with disasters. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R4.1: Create and implement a contingency plan for providing alternative funding sources by December 31, 2018. Agency Response: Has been implemented. Immediate or unexpected needs can be presented to the Board of Supervisors at any of the scheduled Board meetings. At this time, there is no immediate need to ask for additional funding or contingency. In addition during an emergency, the Director of Operations has the authority to make a financial decision to address an immediate need during an activation. Even though the Director of OES is part of the County, the respective agencies who have the risk of potential emergencies should prepare by setting aside resources. San Joaquin County cannot speak on behalf of these agencies. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 5.0 Public Outreach 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F5.1: These figures indicate that, on average, fewer than fifteen hours per month were spent on outreach activities. This is less than adequate to fully inform the 726,105 county residents about disaster preparedness. Agency Response: Agree. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.1.1: EOS increase its outreach efforts to include sharing emergency preparedness reminders regularly on social media Facebook groups such as Memories of Stockton, Stockton Midtown Community Watch, and In and About San Joaquin County. Agency Response: Has been implemented. The OES staff is made up of six full-time staff: one Deputy Director; one Senior Emergency Planner; two Emergency Planners; one Accounting Technician and; Senior Office Assistant. Public outreach efforts have increased since the addition of the New Deputy Director. OES has a Facebook page, a Twitter profile and has recently joined the neighborhood application Next Door. For the months of June and July 2018, on Facebook, OES increased page traffic by 66% reaching 108,592 users; an increase of 620% over previously stagnant months. OES increased page followers adding 300 new followers (to a total of 8,564 followers as of the writing of this report). OES has 1,753 followers on its Twitter account. Typically, posts from Facebook are replicated in some fashion to meet Twitter requirements. In the past month, OES Twitter followers have increased by 31. Much of this was driven by tweets regarding excessive heat 159 over a single weekend, with retweets helping to generate 429 additional profile visits from non-followers. OES recently added the new neighborhood application, Next Door. This application targets small neighborhoods and allows people to post items on lost pets, making reputable business connections, or organizing neighborhood watch groups. OES has been given permission to post information to the entire County at large, or by neighborhood. So far, postings have been around extreme heat alerts to the entire county, reaching 68,331 members. The number of members in San Joaquin County, increase by 610 in the past two weeks. OES is committed to continuing outreach to other groups via its social media pages including the page groups recommended by the Grand Jury. Additionally, OES staff will continue to participate in neighborhood watch programs, business preparedness workshops and fairs to increase outreach to the community; making the most of the small staff and available resources. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.1.2: OES partner with Neighborhood Watch programs to provide preparedness education with each newly-formed group. Agency Response: Has been implemented. OES will reach out to the Cities, Law Enforcement, Neighborhood Advisory Board, and Fire Departments to work together to pursue adding preparedness as part of the Neighborhood Watch Program. Also, OES will also pursue being included at the Neighborhood Watch Group meetings (they meet twice a year) to share information related to preparedness. OES will participate in Stockton’s National Night Out on August 7, 2018; OES will staff a booth at the event and materials shared on preparedness. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.1.3: OES create a comprehensive educational outreach message using both paid and free media formats. Agency Response: Has been implemented. OES participates in many outreach events such as August’s Annual National Night Out, Emergency Preparedness Month (September), Great ShakeOut (October), and Flood Preparedness Week (October). OES has committed to participating in the San Joaquin County Department of Child Support Services 3rd Annual Block Party in August 2018, where OES staff will provide emergency preparedness materials at a table. OES also provides staff upon request to participate in private corporate Disaster Preparedness Workshops; bookings for fall 2018 include LODI SERVPRO and Tracy Depot. Micke Grove Zoological Society hosts an annual event “HalloWILD” in October at the Micke Grove Zoo that is highly attended by families; OES will supply informational handouts at the 2018 event. Additional outreach methods will include increased use of social media, updating the website to be user-friendly and easy to navigate. Information pertinent to the citizens will be provided through a new website designed specifically to meet this need. The technical information will remain on a separate site. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.1.4: OES insert preparedness information including evacuation maps in taxpayers’ property tax bills. Agency Response: Will be implemented. Requires further analysis to determine the timeframe of six months for implementation and if this is achievable. OES will work closely with Treasurer/Tax collectors to evaluate this option, estimate cost and develop a plan for implementing during 2018-19. If viable, OES will work towards including this in the April 2019 Property Tax Notices. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 6.0 County Staff Familiarity 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F6.1: County staff familiarity with and understanding of the EOP is minimal and hampers an effective response in a disaster. Agency Response: Agree. 161 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F6.1: By December 31, 2018 develop a regular and sustained method for the OES to interact with county staff and key stakeholders on the EOP plan. Agency Response: Partially implemented. Upon completion of the EOP, the updated information will be integrated with new employee presentations as part of the Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Service Worker Training. Updated training and exercise plans will be revised and will reflect a five-year training and exercise plan that involves most response entities at least once every three years and tests current plans. Additionally, in July, the Department Heads were briefed on the current status of the EOP Base Plan Draft and were provided a brief overview on the key highlights of the Heat Annex which was completed in late May. The five-year training and exercise plan should be completed by December 31, 2018. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 7.0 Disaster Recovery 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F7.1: The current county disaster recovery plan is out dated and jeopardizes recovery efforts. Agency Response: Disagrees partially, the plan need to be updated, but disagree that is jeopardizes recovery efforts. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R7.1: By December 31, 2018 develop a separate recovery operations plan to update and strengthen the EOP. Agency Response: Will be implemented. OES will develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a contractor to develop a comprehensive Recovery Plan that fits into the EOP. This will likely take longer than the recommendation. A solid timeline will be developed once the RFP is completed. The anticipated completion date for the RFP is November 2018. With an overall implementation timeframe of July 2019. 162 2018-2019 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2017-2018 Grand Jury found that the County’s disaster recovery plan is out of date and recommended that a separate recovery operations plan be developed to update and strengthen the EOP. The Grand Jury confirmed the approval and adoption of the Basic EOP by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2019. The recovery operations plan is scheduled to be completed by March 2020. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1: The recovery operations plan has not been completed. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By March 31, 2020, OES develop and adopt a separate recovery operations plan to update and strengthen the EOP. Conclusion The County OES has made considerable progress in updating the mandatory emergency plans and agreements that support the coordination of County emergency services. They are also reaching out to stakeholders. However, additional work is still needed. The County staff also realizes that maintaining these documents will be an on-going process and appear to be establishing procedures to do so. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911.924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to all findings and recommendations. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Linda L. Lofthus, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 180 E Weber Ave, Suite 1306J Stockton, California 95202 Also, please email a copy of the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected] 164 Follow-up Report to the 2017-2018 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Case #0817 Shining Light into the Dark Corners Is the Office of Violence Prevention Worth the Money? Preface This report contains the responses to the 2017-2018 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding the City of Stockton’s Office of Violence Prevention (OVP). This follow-up report focuses on the 2017-2018 Grand Jury findings and recommendations, as well as the agency’s responses, which are presented verbatim in this report. The 2018-2019 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agency’s response to each recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/ Summary As a result of hearing both praise and criticism of the City of Stockton’s OVP, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury decided to open an investigation. The mission of the OVP is to have its outreach workers, known as Peacekeepers, collaborate with government, community-based, and faith-based organizations to: 165 • Reduce gang-related violence in Stockton, • Reach out to gang-related youth and young adults, and • Provide resources for youth to avoid a gang lifestyle and to become productive members of society. The Peacekeepers “respond to areas where violent crimes have occurred to talk with the youth and their families to prevent retaliation”. They mentor youth and young adults with the highest risk of gang involvement, particularly serious gun-related violence, and provide positive alternatives for a healthier, non-violent lifestyle. The Peacekeepers have played a key role in local efforts to reduce gang homicides. The major criticisms of the program were a lack of accountability to the citizens of Stockton for its spending and that no data was provided to demonstrate the program’s effectiveness in reducing gun violence. Glossary • Data and Donuts Community Meetings: Community meetings hosted by staff from the Office of Violence Prevention to present statistical information regarding their accomplishments during the past quarter. The statistical information is also posted on the City’s website. • Call-in: Individuals from groups that are identified as committing the most violence are invited to attend a meeting where they are presented with options to their current lifestyle. Presenters represent groups including clergy, parolees, and law enforcement. Supportive services, including job search and housing assistance, are also available. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current Grand Jury reviewed the original 2017-2018 report #0817, “Shining Light into the Dark Corners; Is the Office of Violence Prevention Worth the Money?”, attended a Data and Donuts community meeting, and a dress rehearsal for a call-in. Grand Jury members met with the Peacekeeper’s Community Engagement Coordinator and the Stockton City Manager. The Grand Jury also evaluated the mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations. Responses were reviewed to determine: • If the agency’s responses were complete and comprehensible; • If the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • If confirmation was necessary. Confirmation could include written documentation, interviews or site inspections. Summary of Responses and Grand Jury Conclusions Finding Grand Jury Conclusion Respondent Response Rec # Response # Comments Conclusion R1.1.1 Agrees City of No further F1.1 Partially Agrees Stockton R1.1.2 Partially Agrees action taken No further F1.2 Disagrees R1.2 Partially Agrees action taken No further F2.1 Disagrees R2.1 Partially Agrees action taken R3.1.1 Disagrees No further F3.1 Disagrees action taken R3.1.2 Disagrees No further F3.2 Agrees R3.2 Agrees action taken R4.1.1 Partially Agrees No further F4.1 Partially Agrees R4.1.2 Partially Agrees action taken R4.1.3 Agrees No further F5.1 Disagrees R5.1 Agrees action taken No further F5.2 Partially Agrees R5.2 Agrees action taken F6.1.1 Disagrees No further R6.1 Partially Agrees action taken F6.1.2 Partially Agrees No further F6.2 Partially Agrees R6.2 Partially Agrees action taken R7.1.1 Agrees No further F7.1 Agrees action taken R7.1.2 Agrees No further F8.1 Agrees R8.1 Agrees action taken 167 Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 Division of the Peacekeepers has recently occurred. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: The division into two groups made Peacekeepers frustrated and had a negative effect on morale. Agency Response: The respondent partially agrees with this finding. Managing change is always a challenging process. While some members of the Peacekeepers team embraced the realignment of the work, other members of the team found it more challenging. The Grand Jury Report states that the division of Peacekeepers occurred at the beginning of 2018. The realignment of Peacekeeper duties was assessed in Spring 2017 and training for Peacekeepers initiated in Summer 2017. OVP leadership analyzed the assumed impact of making change in comparison to the benefits of adjusting the program to have more impact on clients. OVP leadership also developed change management plans to address the challenges inherent in making changes. While the adjustment has been a challenge for some members of the team, this is outweighed by the benefits of exposing clients to a greater diversity of resources and the benefits of creating more intense client case management. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1.1: The Grand Jury recommends the OVP reassess the division by December 31 with input from the Peacekeepers about whether it is effective. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this recommendation. The OVP regularly assesses all program elements to ensure that outcomes are successful. This assessment includes feedback from Peacekeepers and the full Operation Ceasefire team. The OVP will be assessing the effectiveness of the realignment of Peacekeepers as well as other factors between now and December 31. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1.2: In order for this and future policy changes to be effective and workable, the Grand Jury recommends that Peacekeepers be involved in the decision-making process. Agency Response: The respondent partially agrees with this recommendation. As with any operation, feedback from frontline employees is invaluable. This is particularly true in the case of Peacekeepers. Peacekeeper feedback was solicited related to the realignment of Peacekeeper duties. The OVP regularly solicits feedback from Peacekeepers. However, it is the responsibility of OVP leadership and City leadership to dictate the operations and policies of the OVP at their discretion. 168 • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: The division was suggested by consultants who claim it is based on “best practices” in similar programs across the nation, but the Grand Jury found no evidence [insufficient evidence] for this assertion. Agency Response. The respondent disagrees with this finding. The City has worked with the California Partnership for Safe Communities (CPSC) since 2012 when the Marshall Plan Stakeholder Committee and City Council recommended re-initiating Operation Ceasefire. The CPSC is the preeminent group violence reduction consultancy on the West Coast and a leading member of the National Network for Safe Communities. The recommendation from CPSC is based on an emerging best practice promoted by the National Network and modeled after comparable programs that have achieved success including Oakland, Richmond, Salinas, Los Angeles and San Jose. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: By December 31, OVP management show the evidence for the division as it goes contrary to the experience of the longer-serving Peacekeepers, and its validity is not self-evident. Agency Response: The respondent partially agrees with this recommendation. As noted above, the OVP will be assessing the effectiveness of the realignment of Peacekeepers throughout 2018. However, there are several other program elements under evaluation within the same time period. The City will determine the correct timeline in which to evaluate program elements and report to the public. The City does commit to provide a statistical report at the conclusion of 2018 with measurement data for the OVP. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury reviewed the City’s website and found that statistical information is being posted quarterly and determined to take no further action. 2.0 Disharmony exists among the Peacekeepers. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: Management has neither addressed the issues nor resolved them, leading to a tense office environment. Agency Response: The respondent disagrees with this finding. OVP Management is well aware of the culture of the Peacekeepers unit. The City acknowledges that there has been disharmony and tension among the Peacekeepers at times. The work of group gun violence reduction is particularly challenging and emotional work. Peacekeepers work in tense and at times precarious circumstances while engaging the very highest risk 169 individuals in our community. OVP Management regularly addresses employee well- being, employee performance and team culture. As this topic intersects closely with personnel matters, the Grand Jury does not have full information and understanding related to the context for this finding. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: Management needs to establish a code of conduct and enforce it. Agency Response: The respondent partially agrees with this recommendation. OVP Management is responsible for enforcing the City's policies related to employee conduct. However, a code of conduct does not need to be established. City employees are subject to the conduct required by the City Charter (in particular Article X), Citywide policies (notably HR-8, HR-15, HR-30, HR-64) and OVP employees are expected to abide by the conduct outlined in the Policy & Procedure Manual for their unit. OVP Management holds employees accountable to these policies and will continue to do so. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 3.0 The OVP has offsite Management. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F3.1: The separation leads to a lack of close supervision. Agency Response: The respondent disagrees with this finding. The Supervisor for the Peacekeepers unit is co-located with Peacekeepers. It is the Supervisor's responsibility to supervise the daily activities of the Peacekeepers. In addition, the work of the Peacekeepers requires a majority of their time spent in the field. Daily reports and other accountability mechanisms are in place to assist in the supervision of Peacekeepers. The 0VP can expect Peacekeepers to demonstrate professionalism while representing the City in the field, with appropriate follow-up and accountability from the Supervisor. It is not necessary for the OVP Manager or other OVP employees to be co-located with the Peacekeepers unit. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1.1: The Grand Jury recommends that all management and staff be in one location. As Stockton has purchased a large building on the Waterfront to serve as a new City Hall, when city offices move there, the OVP should be in one office or adjacent offices. Agency Response: The respondent disagrees with this recommendation. As noted above, all OVP employees do not need to be co-located. The City will determine the most appropriate location for our staff based on a variety of criteria. Also, as noted above, 170 Peacekeepers work primarily in the field and as such can be located distinct from City Hall offices. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1.2: The OVP Manager needs more frequent contact with the line staff. Agency Response: The respondent disagrees with this recommendation. The OVP Manager has frequent contact with the line staff. The OVP Supervisors are responsible for the supervision of line staff and communication between the Peacekeepers and other OVP staff. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F3.2: Bypassing the chain of command leads to distrust and feelings of favoritism among the Peacekeepers. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this finding. OVP leadership regularly communicates through the chain of command to ensure that messages reach Peacekeepers and that feedback from Peacekeepers reaches leadership. The OVP Manager regularly communicates the importance of the chain of command. While options must always be available to employees to express concerns about their supervisors to City leadership or Human Resources, following chain of command leads to the best results for regular operations and communication 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.2: Peacekeepers should use the chain of command and filter their complaints through the supervisors. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this recommendation. As noted above, this expectation has been made clear to OVP staff. In addition, communication through the chain of command is established by City policy and is enforced accordingly within the OVP. When necessary and appropriate employees have access to management and Human Resources staff to bring up concerns that cannot be addressed by their immediate supervisor. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 171 4.0 The Office of Violence Prevention has lacked metrics of success, that is, measurable objectives and outcomes. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F4.1: Communication with the public is not happening, causing a lack of understanding of the work of the OVP. Agency Response: The respondent partially agrees with this finding. While there is public information available and the OVP communicates regularly with particular constituencies, dissemination of information to the community at-large can be improved. The OVP can do more to share the challenges and successes of its efforts. For that reason, the $428,000 Board of State and Community Corrections CaiVIP grant recently awarded to the OVP includes funding for Faith in the Valley to conduct community engagement around the City's violence reduction strategy. Reinvigoration of the Community Engagement Coalition will build upon the high degree of communication that we have with our Operation Ceasefire partners. In addition, OVP has developed a web page and Facebook page to share information with the community. Furthermore, the OVP has created a summary of outreach and case management measures to share with the Measure A Advisory Committee at each meeting. The Grand Jury Report states that the Data Dashboard was created at the beginning of 2018. The Data Dashboard was developed at the beginning of 2017, with client data being tracked as of January 1, 2017. In the September 2017 Measure A Advisory Committee meeting the OVP performance management framework was presented. In February and May 2018, the summary measures were published in the Measure A Advisory Committee agenda packet for client outcomes from January 2017 to May 2018. The OVP will continue seek ways to improve communication and education. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R4.1.1: By December 31, the Data Dashboard be made available to Community Based Organizations (CBO's) and the public. Agency Response: The respondent partially agrees with this recommendation. Elements of the Data Dashboard are already made available to the public through regular reporting to the City's Measure A Advisory Committee. Confidential client information in the dashboard will not be made public. By December 31, the OVP will make the public Data Dashboard information more accessible on the City's web page. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury reviewed the City’s website and found that statistical information is being posted quarterly and determined to take no further action. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R4.1.2: By December 31, the OVP put the Data Dashboard on the website and update it regularly. Agency Response: The respondent partially agrees with this recommendation. As noted above, by December 31, the OVP will make the public Data Dashboard information more accessible on the City's web page. This information will be updated on a quarterly basis. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury reviewed the City’s website and found that statistical information is being posted quarterly and determined to take no further action. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R4.1.3: The OVP find a way to inform the public about its work on a regular basis, either via its website or reports to the city council. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this recommendation. As noted above, there are multiple initiatives underway for improving dissemination of information to the public, including a community engagement campaign, reinvigoration of the Community Engagement Coalition, online tools, and regular reporting to the Measure A Advisory Committee. The OVP will continue seek ways to improve communication and education. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 5.0 The OVP and the Stockton Police Department hold quarterly “call-ins” under the Operation Ceasefire program. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F5.1: It is unclear who is in charge of running the call-ins, resulting in confusion among the CBO's. Agency Response: The respondent disagrees with this finding. The OVP Manager has specific responsibility for organizing and managing Call-ins. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.1: The call-ins have a clearly-designated chair, either: 1. the OVP Manager or the Police Chief, 2. both as co-chairs, or 3. another designee as chair. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this recommendation. The Call in co- chairs are clearly established as the Chief of Police and a Faith Leader in the community, typically a faith leader representing the Faith in the Valley coalition. The OVP Manager is the host and responsible for organizing the Call-ins, while the co-chairs facilitate the Call- in dialogue with participants. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 173 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F5.2: “Extra" attendees at the call-ins lead to consternation among the CBO representatives who attended the planning meetings about who makes the final decisions on whom to invite. Agency Response: The respondent partially agrees with this finding. OVP leadership acknowledges that uninvited attendees can cause challenges. For that very reason, attendance is tightly monitored and controlled by the OVP Manager. Other Operation Ceasefire partners must approve any Call-in invitations through the OVP Manager. The OVP Manager may invite guests as deemed appropriate to Call-ins, and should notify community partners of attendees to reduce confusion. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.2: The people who plan the call-ins should keep tight control on the number of attendees with only essential CBO representatives attending. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this recommendation. As noted above, the OVP Manager is responsible to keep tight control on the number of attendees. This has been the practice over the past 5 years and will continue to be the practice. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 6.0 No clear system exists for meeting immediate financial needs of clients. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F6.1.1: No system of pre-approved expenditures exists to meet the immediate needs of clients, making it difficult for Peacekeepers to provide these needs. Agency Response: The respondent disagrees with this finding. The City has very clear and distinct processes for procurement. In particular, the City has developed additional processes unique to the OVP to streamline and allow pre-approval for certain expenditures to allow for more timely purchases for Operation Ceasefire clients. This includes weekly trust building meals with clients, client incentives to help them become work-ready, and reimbursement for government issued documents. This has been challenging as government procurement systems should include protections to safeguard public assets. The streamlining process has been achieved by ensuring that appropriate checks and balances and controls are in place, while expediting the approval process through time commitments agreed to by the approving parties. While these processes do not meet all client needs, it allows the City to move more quickly for certain purchases while balancing stewardship of public resources. 174 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F6.1.2: Peacekeepers often must rely on the willingness of Community-Based Organizations to meet clients' pressing needs. Agency Response: The respondent partially agrees with this finding. As noted above, there are processes in place to make appropriate expenditures for Operation Ceasefire clients. City procurement processes are not always best-suited to the needs of very-high- risk clients, which can emerge rapidly. However, there are some client needs that are best met by Community-Based Organizations due to their specific mission or their ability to make timely expenditures. Because the City of Stockton does not provide funding for Community-Based Organizations in exchange for this work, the OVP strives to create productive partnerships based on the shared mission and goals of violence reduction. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R6.1: The OVP should set up an adequate fund in its budget easily accessed by the Peacekeepers with supervisors' approval. Agency Response: The respondent partially agrees with this recommendation. The OVP has already set aside Operation Ceasefire client services funds. These funds are available to Peacekeepers through the processes already developed as outlined above. To make the funds more accessible and further streamline these processes would put at risk the controls and balances for the procurement process. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F6.2: The reimbursement for their own funds Peacekeepers spend on clients is slow and cumbersome. Agency Response: The respondent partially agrees. Peacekeepers are well aware of the processes and timelines for reimbursing funds spent on clients. As noted above, the City has worked to develop a streamlined reimbursement process unique to the Office of Violence Prevention. Reimbursement timelines are more timely than other work units in the City. However, it is critical to maintain appropriate approval processes and maintain other controls to ensure stewardship of public resources. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R6.2: The OVP should streamline approval of reimbursement and/or preauthorize purchases Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this recommendation. As noted above, the City has already developed unique approval and preauthorization processes for the purpose of providing services to Operation Ceasefire clients. To further streamline these processes would put at risk the controls and balances for the procurement process. 175 • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 7.0 Office of Violence Prevention liaison with Community-Based Organizations is sporadic. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F7.1: Past conflicts have strained relations between CBO's and the OVP, causing some CBO's to have difficulty working with the OVP. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this finding. While the OVP has developed numerous positive relationships with Operation Ceasefire partners and violence prevention partners, past conflicts did strain relations with a number of community based organizations. The OVP Manager has worked diligently over the past year to build and repair partner relationships. In addition, the OVP has hired a new Community Engagement Coordinator, who will have the specific responsibility for building partnerships. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R7.1.1: The purpose of the Community Engagement Coordinator is to work with CBO's; the person hired for the position must be skilled and effective in reaching out. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this recommendation. The role of the Community Engagement Coordinator is to build bridges. This role requires the ability to reach out, establish common ground and sustain partnerships over time. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R7.1.2: The Community Engagement Coordinator must work on mending relations with the CBO's, but the OVP Manager should also be conferring often with them. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this recommendation. As noted above, the OVP Manager has made specific efforts over the last year to build and repair partner relationships. The Community Engagement Coordinator will continue this work, and the OVP Manager will remain engaged with key partners. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 176 8.0 A county-wide coalition to reduce gun violence is a possible step to bring together many agencies and organizations. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F 8.1: Some CBO's and city officials would like to create a county-wide coalition to coordinate and improve services to reduce group gun violence. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this finding. The City agrees that there should be coalition partnership in support of reducing group gun violence. For that reason, the City has two gun violence reduction coalitions. First, the City and County currently have a joint firearms reduction program that consists of public safety partners. Second, Operation Ceasefire is a county-wide coalition targeting group gun violence. The OVP has developed partnerships with key stakeholders and welcomes new partners that have the skills and resources for working with very-high-risk clients. Furthermore, the Community Engagement Coalition of the OVP is designed to foster broader violence reduction partnerships across the spectrum of risk factors impacting at-risk individuals in the community. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R8.1: The OVP Manager should bring this idea to city and county government agencies to see if there is merit to the idea, if the time is right to move ahead with this proposal, and if there is appropriate and adequate interest among the various stakeholders. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this recommendation. As noted above, the Operation Ceasefire partnership is a county-wide group gun violence reduction coalition. The OVP Manager regularly engages with City departments, County agencies and community based organizations to explore how further partnerships could be developed. For some organizations, as suggested by the Grand Jury, timing is a critical factor. As the Operation Ceasefire work develops, the missions and work of different partners becomes more, or less, relevant and the partnerships evolve and expand. The OVP continuously seeks out additional partnership opportunities for this coalition. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Conclusion The Office of Violence Prevention has increased its efforts to build partnerships and gain support within the community. Peacekeepers work with very high-risk individuals; 80% have been a victim of gun violence. During 2018, the OVP served 80 clients. Fifty-five of these clients were assisted with job placement. They also conducted 29 mediations which prevented imminent violence from occurring. Information posted quarterly on the City’s website highlights OVP’s achievements which should increase community awareness and support. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911.924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Follow-up Report to the 2017-2018 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Case #0917 San Joaquin County Municipality Ethics Policies Preface This report contains the responses to the 2017-2018 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding the ethics policies of the County and the cities within its geographical boundaries. This follow-up report focuses on the 2017-2018 Grand Jury findings and recommendations, as well as the agencies’ responses, which are presented verbatim in this report. The determinations of the 2018-2019 Civil Grand Jury are presented after the agencies’ response to each recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the agencies’ responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury. Summary As the result of a complaint describing a perceived conflict of interest in one of the cities in San Joaquin County, the 2017-2018 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury investigated the ethics policies of San Joaquin County and all of the cities within its geographical boundaries. The Grand Jury interviewed 33 officials representing eight municipalities in the County. The Grand Jury found that four of the eight municipalities did not have a written and approved ethics policy for elected officials and a majority did not have a policy for appointed officials and senior staff. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current Grand Jury reviewed the original 2017-2018 report #0917, “San Joaquin County Municipality Ethics Policies,” and evaluated the mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations. Responses were reviewed to determine: • If the agencies’ responses were complete and comprehensible; • If the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • If confirmation was necessary. Confirmation could include written documentation, interviews or site inspections. Glossary • AB1234: Passed by the California legislature in 2005, this bill requires local agency officials that receive compensation for service on a legislative body to receive at least two hours of training in general ethics principles and ethics laws relevant to public service every two years. Summary of Responses and Grand Jury Conclusions Grand Jury Conclusion Respondent Finding # Response Rec # Response Comments Conclusion Further City of Tracy F1.1 Agreed R1.1 Will implement action required F2.1 Partially R2.1 Other disagree Further San Joaquin action County F2.2 Partially R2.2 Other required disagree Further City of Escalon F3.1 Agreed R3.1 Will implement action required No further City of Lathrop F4.1 Agreed R4.1 Implemented action taken Further Partially City of Lodi F5.1 R5.1 Other action Agreed required See Section Further City of Manteca F6.1 R6.1 6.0 for action responses required No further City of Ripon F7.1 Agreed R7.1 Implemented action taken No further City of Stockton F8.1 Agreed R8.1 Implemented action taken Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 City of Tracy 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: The City of Tracy does not have an ethics policy for its elected, appointed officials and senior staff (city manager, city attorney, city clerk and their subordinate employees not represented by a bargaining unit). The lack of a policy has resulted in conflict, mistrust, and allegations of misconduct. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. The City does not have a comprehensive ethics policy encompassing all of the categories of officials and staff. The 181 City recognizes that state law provides ethical requirements and boundaries, but the City has not enacted its own comprehensive code of conduct or ethics policy. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: By October 31,2018, the Tracy City Council develop and adopt an ethics policy that governs the behavior of its elected officials, appointed officials, and senior staff. Agency Response: The City is in the process of implementing this recommendation. On August 21, 2018, the City Council appointed a subcommittee of two Council Members to work with the City Attorney to prepare a comprehensive code of conduct and ethics and/or policy. Work is ongoing and the subcommittee intends to have a draft code for the Council to review as soon as possible. While endeavoring to be completed by October 31, 2018, the City Council will undoubtedly have some modifications and/or changes that may result in a reasonable delay. However, the City is committed to enacting a code of ethics that would apply to Council Members, appointed officials and appointed staff in 2018. The City will provide the Grand Jury the policy when completed and enacted. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2017-2018 Grand Jury recommended that the Tracy City Council adopt an ethics policy by October 31, 2018. On August 21, 2018, the Tracy City Council appointed an ad-hoc committee to develop the policy. The committee was to present a draft at the first Council meeting in October, 2018. The ethics policy was not discussed again until February 5, 2019, at which time they deferred discussion until the February 19, 2019, meeting. At this meeting, the Council spent a significant amount of time discussing the draft ethics policy, but a policy was not adopted. A special Council meeting was held on April 2, 2019, to discuss a revised draft, but again, no policy was adopted. A revised draft was to be presented at the April 16, 2019, Council meeting. However, on April 16, 2019, the ethics policy was not on the agenda. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1: The Tracy City Council has not adopted an ethics policy. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By October 31, 2019, the Tracy City Council develop and adopt an ethics policy that governs the behavior of its elected officials, appointed officials, and senior staff. 2.0 San Joaquin County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors ethics policy does not include dependent boards and commissions. This could cause policy inconsistency across the county’s boards and commissions leading to a perception of differing values for each board in the county. Agency Response: Partially disagree. In 2005, the California legislature passed AB 1234 to require that California local agencies provide for ethics training to local agency officials that receive compensation for service on a legislative body. This statute was codified in the Government Code as Section 53235. This Code section requires that individuals receive at least two hours of training in general ethics principles and ethics laws relevant to public service every two years. While the law allows local agencies to develop their own curricula to satisfy the law, the statute also provides that training can be accomplished by self-study materials and tests to be taken at home, in-person or online. The law went on to empower the Fair Political Practices Commission and the Attorney General to determine the sufficiency and accuracy of any proposed course content. In January of 2006, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors implemented AB 1234 by requiring that ethics training be received by all members of the following boards, committees and commissions: Agricultural Advisory Board Assessment Appeals Board Aviation Advisory Board Building Board of Appeals Cal-ID System Remote Access Children & Families Commission Civil Service Commission Commission on Aging Community Action Board Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Board Health Commission SJC Housing Appeals Board Juvenile Justice – Delinquency Prevention Commission Behavioral Health Board Parks and Recreation Commission Planning Commission Revolving Loan Fund Board of Directors Retirement Board 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F2.2. The ethics policy for the County of San Joaquin does not cover the county administrator, county counsel, county clerk or their subordinate employees not represented by a bargaining unit. These officials require the same guidelines as elected officials to ensure they are acting ethically. Agency Response. Partially Disagree. In addition to requiring that the member of boards, committees and commissions receive such training, the Board of Supervisors extended the required training to all County Department Heads and their assistants/ deputies. Since 2006, several online training programs have been developed and are currently recommended to members of San Joaquin County boards, commissions and committees 183 as well as department heads and their assistants/deputies. These programs are sponsored by the Institute for Local Government as well as the Fair Political Practices Commission. (See Exhibit 1 for the status of training of department directors and their assistants/deputies) 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: By October 31, 2018, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors develop and adopt an ethics policy that governs the behavior of dependent board and commission members. Agency Response: Partially implemented. As noted in response to Finding 2.1, the County has implemented consistent ethics training for the members of all boards, commissions and committees. The County will continue to implement by enforcing the direction that all board, commission and committee members, successfully complete the required ethics training every two years. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.2: By October 31, 2018, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors develop and adopt an ethics policy that governs the behavior of the county senior staff. Agency Response: Partially implemented. As noted in response to Finding 2.2, the County has implemented consistent ethics training for all department heads and assistants/deputies. The County was previously not tracking the completion of their required training. The County has now incorporated the monitoring of this training in their Human Resources training module. The County will continue to implement by enforcing the direction that all department heads and their assistants/deputies, successfully complete the required ethics training every two years. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2017-2018 Grand Jury recommended that by October 31, 2018, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors develop and adopt an ethics policy that governs the behavior of dependent board and commission members and County senior staff. The County’s current written ethics policy only governs the Board of Supervisors. In September 2018, the Board of Supervisors responded to the Grand Jury recommendation. The response indicated that as mandated by AB1234, ethics training is required for senior staff and for all board and commission members who receive compensation. The 2018-2019 Grand Jury reviewed the County’s response and recognizes the benefits of the ethics training required under AB1234, but determined that this training is not the equivalent of a written and adopted ethics policy. 184 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2: AB1234 training is not the equivalent of adopting and implementing a written ethics policy. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R2: By December 31, 2019, the Board of Supervisors develop and adopt an ethics policy that governs the behavior of dependent board and commission members and County senior staff. 3.0 City of Escalon 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F3.1: The City of Escalon does not have an ethics policy for its elected and appointed officials and senior staff such as the city administrator, city attorney, city clerk and their subordinate employees not represented by a bargaining unit. Failure to have an ethics policy could lead to poor judgement, public misconception and lack of trust. Agency Response: The City agrees with the findings made by the Grand Jury regarding the lack of an ethic policy and its importance. It has been the practice that biennial training of AB 1234 is applied to all elected officials and executive management. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1: By October 31,2018, the Escalon City Council develop and adopt an ethics policy that governs the behavior of its elected and appointed officials. Agency Response: The City of Escalon has included in their fiscal year budget of 2018- 2019 an allocation for the assistance of a consultant to review its personnel rules and policies including the formalization of the required biennial training of AB 1234 to be required biennially of elected, appointed officials and senior staff. Due to the comprehensive review of all policies the City is anticipating that all should be completed no later than June 2019. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2017-2018 Grand Jury found that the City of Escalon does not have a written ethics policy for its elected or appointed officials or its senior staff. They recommended that a written ethics policy be adopted by October 31, 2018. The Escalon City Council responded that they would develop an ethics policy by June 2019. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F3: The City of Escalon will develop a written ethics policy for its elected and appointed officials and its senior staff by June 2019. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: The Escalon City Council adopt an ethics policy by June 2019. 185 4.0 City of Lathrop 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F4.1: The City of Lathrop does not have an ethics policy for its elected and appointed officials and senior staff such as the city administrator, city attorney, city clerk and their subordinate employees not represented by a bargaining unit. Failure to have an ethics policy could lead to poor judgement, public misconception and lack of trust. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R4.1: By October 31,2018, the Lathrop City Council develop and adopt an ethics policy that governs the behavior of its elected appointed officials. Agency Response: Council agrees that the City has not adopted an ethics policy specifically focused on elected, appointed officials, or unrepresented senior employees but the City has adopted a City Council Handbook and the City complies with all State and Federal ethics regulations, including Government Code Section §53235 ct. seq., also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 1234, which requires all members of the City Council and commission appointees that receive compensation or their service or reimbursement for expenses related to their official position to attend ethics training. AB 1234 Ethics Training is documented and all records of compliance with AB 1234 Ethics are produced at request. Also, the City of Lathrop Conflict of Interest Code, as mandated by California Government Code (Govt Code) section *81 000 ct. seq. also known as the Political Reform Act, is required to be reviewed biennially, and was reviewed and updated at the September I 0, 2018 City Council Meeting. The City's elected and appointed officials as well as the city manager, city attorney, ci ty clerk and unrepresented senior employees are also obligated to comply with State and Federal laws including, but not limited to, Govt Code Section §53232 Compensation, Govt Code Section §53234 Ethics Training, Govt Code Section §53237 Sexual Harassment Prevention Training and Education, Govt Code Section §53243-53244 Abuse of Office, Govt. Code Section §53296-53299 Disclosure of Information: Local Government, Govt Code Section 81000 ct. sec. Political Reform and Labor Code Section §1102.5-1102. Council directed the City Attorney to draft a proposed ethics policy for consideration by Council at the next Council meeting scheduled October 8, 2018. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury found that the Lathrop City Council did adopt an ethics policy and therefore determined to take no further action. 5.0 City of Lodi 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding 5.1: The ethics policy for the City of Lodi does not cover the city manager, city attorney, city clerk, or subordinate employees not represented by a bargaining unit. These officials require the same guidelines as elected officials to ensure they act ethically. Agency Response: Lodi agrees with this finding in part and disagrees in part. Lodi agrees that in general appointed officials should be held to the same ethical standard as elected officials. Indeed Lodi and its executive management team are bound by state law ethics rules that form the basis of ethics practices above and beyond the requirements of any local ordinance and are the product of California’s Fair Political Practices Act. Our executive management team is required to review their Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700 and file the same annually. The form 700 contains an extensive discussion of ethics requirements that must be reviewed to accurately fill out the form. The state Legislature enacted AB 1234 in 2006 which required Council Members and Board Members who receive reimbursement or pay to receive biennial training on state ethics laws. AB 1234 explicitly left it up to municipalities to determine whether executive team members should be included in the biennial training. As such there is no legal requirement that executive management team members receive the training. That is not to say that it is not a good practice to require AB 1234 training and in Lodi under its current City Manager, executive management staff have been required to attend the AB 1234 ethics training session that the City Manager and City Attorney present to Council and Commissions. Council agrees that formalizing that policy is a good practice and will revise its AB 1234 Policy to require the Executive Management Team to receive biennial AB 1234 ethics training 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.1: By October 31, 2018, the Lodi City Council develop and adopt an ethics policy that governs the city management team. Agency Response: As discussed above, State ethics law and AB 1234 already govern the City executive management team. However the City did not include AB 1234’s option to require biennial training of the Executive Management Team in its AB1234 policy. City will amend its AB 1234 training policy to require biennial training of the executive management team by October 31, 2018. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2017-2018 Grand Jury recommended that by October 31, 2018, the City of Lodi adopt an ethics policy that governs the behavior of its senior staff. The City’s current written ethics policy only governs the City Council and appointed board and commissioners. In September 2018, the Lodi City Council responded to the Grand Jury recommendation indicating that they would expand the AB1234 ethics training to include senior staff. The 2018-2019 Grand Jury reviewed the City’s response and recognizes the benefits of the ethics training required under AB1234, but determined that this training is not the equivalent of a written and adopted ethics policy. 187 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F4: AB1234 training is not the equivalent of adopting and implementing a written ethics policy. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R4: By December 31, 2019, the City of Lodi develop and adopt an ethics policy that governs the City’s senior staff. 6.0 City of Manteca 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding 6.1: The City of Manteca does not have an ethics policy for its elected and appointed officials and senior staff such as the city manager, city attorney, city clerk and their subordinate employees not represented by a bargaining unit. Failure to have an ethics policy could lead to poor judgement, public misconception and lack of trust. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R6.1: By October 31, 2018, the Manteca City Council develop and adopt an ethics policy that governs the behavior of its elected and appointed officials and senior staff. Agency Response: This finding has been reviewed by the City Council at the November 20, 2018 meeting. All legislative bodies and local agency officials are required to take the California Ethics Training (AB1234) bi-annually and this has sufficed in the past. However, the City Council will be reviewing staff recommendations about developing a Code of Ethics policy in February 2019. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2017-2018 Grand Jury recommended that by October 31, 2018, the City of Manteca adopt an ethics policy that governs the behavior of its elected and appointed officials and senior staff. An item to discuss an ethics policy was to be brought to Council in February 2019. To date, no agenda item regarding the development of an ethics policy has been brought before the Council. Due to a majority change of the Manteca City Council sworn in to office in December 2018, along with resolving a budget deficit, development and adoption of an ethics policy has been postponed. The city anticipates scheduling adoption of an ethics policy in June 2019. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F5: The City of Manteca does not have an ethics policy for its elected and appointed officials or its senior staff. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R5: By September 30, 2019, the Manteca City Council develop and adopt an ethics policy that governs the behavior of its elected and appointed officials and senior staff. 188 7.0 City of Ripon 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding 7.1: The ethics policy for the City of Ripon does not cover senior staff (city administrator, city attorney, city clerk, or subordinate employees not represented by a bargaining unit). These officials require the same guidelines as elected officials to ensure they act ethically. Agency Response: The City of Ripon agrees with the finding. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R7.1: By October 31, 2018, the Ripon City Council develop and adopt an ethics policy that governs the city senior staff. Agency Response: In response to recommendation R7.I of the grand jury in the above referenced matter, the City Council will be provided with a draft ethics policy which covers senior City staff. The city attorney will draft the ethics policy, and will provide a copy of adopted policy to the grand jury on or before October 31, 2018. In addition, existing code of ethics and code of conduct will be reviewed and updated as necessary. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury found that the Ripon City Council did adopt an ethics policy and therefore determined to take no further action. 8.0 City of Stockton 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding 8.1: Not all individuals are aware of the ethics policy. Lack of awareness of the city ethics policy could lead to misunderstandings that violate the policy. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this finding. The City agrees that a lack of awareness could lead to violations of policies. The City is in the process of reviewing and updating its policies. As part of these efforts, the Council Policy Manual was revised into a more organized, streamlined and efficient policy framework. Council policies 2.02 - City Council Conflict of Interest Code and 2.03 - Code of Ethics for Elected Officials and Commissioners were included in the revised manual and approved by City Council Resolution 2016-01-26-1203. In addition, the City included an update of the Code of Ethics section of the City Charter in the 2014 Charter amendments that were approved by vote of the public. This update included streamlined and better organized language to give the Code of Ethics greater clarity. Furthermore, as noted in the Grand Jury Report, "Stockton's code of ethics for employees and city officials was last updated November 2, 2017. The policy is written to include elected officials, appointed staff, appointed board and commission members, and employees." 189 City directives and policies are reviewed by the City's executive team, including department heads, to disseminate information and provide updates as needed. A goal of the policy review and update project is to make policies and directives more easily accessible and have the ability to better communicate changes and share documents. Policies that are subject to review and approval at the City Council/eve/ are reviewed by the City Council at public Council meetings and posted on the City's website. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R8.1: By October 31, 2018, city council members receive a copy of the ethics policy and attend a briefing about its contents. Agency Response: The respondent agrees with this recommendation. A copy of the ethics policy has been provided to the City Council members and Council members will be briefed on its contents by October 31, 2018. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Conclusion Of the eight jurisdictions within the County, only Lathrop, Ripon, and Stockton have written ethics policies that apply to their elected officials, appointed officials, and senior staff. Three additional jurisdictions, Tracy, Escalon, and Manteca, indicated that they are still in the process of writing an ethics policy. San Joaquin County and the City of Lodi acknowledged that while they do not have written ethics policies for all officials and senior staff, they do require the mandated AB1234 training. However, the Grand Jury believes that the AB1234 training is not comparable to a written, adopted ethics policy. Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. The Tracy City Council shall respond to the applicable findings and recommendation in Section 1.0. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to the applicable findings and recommendation in Section 2.0. The Escalon City Council shall respond to the applicable findings and recommendation in Section 3.0. The Lodi City Council shall respond to the applicable findings and recommendation in Section 5.0. The Manteca City Council shall respond to the applicable findings and recommendation in Section 6.0. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Linda L. Lofthus, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 180 E Weber Ave, Suite 1306J Stockton, California 95202 Also, please email a copy of the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected] Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911.924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Exhibit 1 – Status of training of San Joaquin County Department Directors and Assistants/Deputies MANDATORY ETHICS TRAINING - AB1234 COMPLIANCE Department Certificate Renewal Department Title Head/Assistant Date Due Date Dept Head Ag Commissioner Ag Commissioner Pelican, Timothy 1/5/2018 1/5/2020 Assistant Ag Commissioner Bagri, Kamal 8/27/2018 8/27/2020 Airport Airport Director Stark, Russell 1/16/2018 1/16/2020 Airport Deputy Director Elliott, Ron 3/12/2018 3/12/2020 Assessor/Recorder/CC Assessor-Recorder-C. Clerk Bestolarides, Steve 5/26/2017 5/26/2019 Asst. Assessor-Rec-C. Clerk Johnson, Karyn 8/28/2017 8/28/2020 Auditor-Controller Auditor-Controller Wilverding, Jerome 2/28/2018 2/28/2020 Assistant Auditor- Woltkamp, Jeff 8/27/2018 8/27/2020 Controller Child Support Services Director of Child Support Cruz, Lori 4/27/2017 4/27/2019 Serv. Assistant Director of DCSS Riley, Veronica 5/18/2018 5/18/2020 Clerk of the Board Clerk of the Board Duzenski, Mimi 4/24/2017 4/24/2019 Community Director Sullivan, Kerry 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 Development Assistant Director Merlo, Eric 8/31/2018 8/31/2020 Deputy Director - Neighborhood Preservation Hoo, Raymond 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 Deputy Director - Building Fine, Mark 8/31/2018 8/31/2020 Inspection County Administrator County Administrator Nino, Monica 11/29/2016 11/29/2018 Assistant County Vacant Administrator Sr Deputy County Hatef, Mo 8/15/2018 8/15/2020 Administrator Sr Deputy County Rose, Chris 9/4/2018 9/4/2020 Administrator Kawano, Rod 8/22/2018 8/22/2020 192 Sr Deputy County Administrator Brucker, Adam 9/4/2018 9/4/2020 Sr Deputy County Administrator Regalo, Sandra 8/24/2018 8/24/2020 Sr Deputy County Administrator County Counsel County Counsel Myles, James Mark 8/31/2018 8/31/2020 Assistant County Counsel Flores, Richard 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 District Attorney District Attorney Verber-Salazar, Tori 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 Assistant District Attorney Fichtner, Scott 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 Assistant District Attorney Reed, Kristine 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 EEDD Executive Director Solis, John 3/22/2017 3/22/2019 EEDD Director Lantsberger, Steven J. 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 Environmental Health Director Tutkatte, Linda 8/27/18 8/27/2020 Assistant Director Kasey, Foley 8/28/2018 8/28/2020 General Services Director Cunningham, Marcia 8/27/2018 8/27/2020 Facilities Management Assistant Director Castagna, David 8/3112018 8/31/2020 Parks and Rec Parks Administrator Morozowsky, 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 Martin Office of Emergency Deputy Director Lima, Shellie 827/2018 8/27/2020 Services Capital Projects Capital Projects Moore, Daniel 8/27/2018 8/27/2020 Administrator Health Care Services Director Diederich, Greg 1/3/2018 1/13/2020 Assistant Director Garber, Matthew 8/29/2018 8/29/2020 Behavioral Health BH Services Director Vartan, Anthony 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 Services Sr. Deputy Director Hutchins, Frances 8/29/2018 8/29/2020 Deputy Finance Director Way, Beth 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 Deputy Director - Dunn, Cara 8/29/2018 8/29/2020 Administrative Deputy Director – Clinical Olpin, Edward 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 Deputy Director – Clinical Hannah, Kathy 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 193 Deputy Director – Clinical Morishige, Cindy 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 Deputy Director – Clinical Coulter, Jaqueline 8/27/2018 8/27/2020 Deputy Director – Clinical Bickham, Donna 8/29/2018 8/29/2020 Emergency Medical Services EMS Administrator Burch, Dan 2/13/2017 2/13/2019 Public Guardian Public Guardian Pennington, Michele 8/27/2018 8/27/2020 Conservator Conservator Public Health Chief Deputy Director Evans, Tamara 11/4/2016 11/4/2018 Sr. Deputy Director Blackwell- 8/28/2018 8/28/2020 Rodriguez, Zienna Sr. Deputy Director Alberson, Barbara 8/29/2018 8/29/2020 Veterans Services Veterans Services Officer Wimmer, Virginia 8/28/2018 8/28/2020 Correctional Health Deputy Director II Hernandez, Stacey 8/28/2018 8/28/2020 Human Resources Director Cwiek, Ted 8/15/2018 8/15/2020 Deputy Director Harris, Kathy 8/16/2018 8/16/2020 Human Services Agency Director Miller, Mike 8/29/2017 8/29/2019 Assistant Director Woods, Chris 8/28/2017 8/28/2019 Deputy Director Habbestad, Michel 7/6/2018 7/6/2020 Deputy Director Rocha, Anthony 8/29/2017 8/29/2019 Deputy Director Kaisch, Sam 7/9/2018 7/9/2020 Deputy Director Taing, Brian 9/26/2016 9/26/2018 Deputy Director Aguilera, Rick 3/22/2017 3/22/2019 Mary Graham Children Shelter Director MGCS McCoy, Stephanie 8/3/2018 8/3/2020 Information Systems Director Becker, Jerry 8/24/2018 8/24/2020 Assistant Director Newaj, David 8/25/2018 8/25/2020 Assistant Director Thomas, Mark 8/28/2018 8/28/2020 Registrar of Voters Registrar of Voters Dubroff, Melinda 3/2/2018 3/2/2020 Probation Chief Probation Officer James, Stephanie 5/31/2018 5/31/2020 194 Asst. Chief Probation Elliott, Mark 8/28/2018 8/28/2020 Officer Public Defender Public Defender Lyell, Miriam 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 Assistant Public Defender Delph, Vickie 8/28/2018 8/28/2020 Public Works Director Balaji, Kris 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 Deputy Director Buchman, Fritz 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 Deputy Director Stone, Jim 8/30/2018 8/30/2020 Deputy Director Selling, Michael 8/31/2018 8/31/2020 Purchasing & Support Director Drake, Jon 7/18/2017 7/18/2019 Services Assistant Director Jayne, Gary 8/28/2018 8/28/2020 San Joaquin General Chief Executive Officer Culberson, David Hospital Chief Financial Officer Kreutner, Ronald Chief Nursing Officer Snyder, Belva Chief Operating Officer Vacant Sheriff-Coroner Sheriff-Coroner Moore, Steve 1/26/2018 1/26/2020 Undersheriff Mondavi, Annette 1/17/2018 1/17/2020 Treasurer-Tax Collector Treasurer-Tax Collector Vacant Asst. Treasurer-Tax Keokham, Phonxay 8/27/2018 8/27/2020 Collector Chief Deputy Treasurer Matta, Mandy 1/24/2018 1/24/2020 195 196 Follow-up Report to the 2016-2017 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case #0616 County Wide Dispatch for Fire Two Are Not Always Better Than One Preface This report contains the responses to the 2017-2018 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury follow-up to the 2016-2017 report #0616, “County Wide Dispatch for Fire.” The 2017-2018 Grand Jury findings and recommendations, as well as the agency’s responses are presented verbatim in this report. The 2018-2019 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agency’s response to each recommendation. Complete copies of the original reports and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/ Summary The 2016-2017 San Joaquin Civil Grand Jury report #0616 focused on emergency dispatch protocol, operations, and infrastructure. The report researched whether a single countywide fire dispatch center in San Joaquin County would improve public safety and reduce cost. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2018-2019 Grand Jury reviewed the original 2016-2017 report #0616, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury follow-up report, and evaluated the mandatory responses to the recommendations. The current Grand Jury interviewed the Fire Chief and City Manager of Stockton and the Administrator of the San Joaquin County Emergency Medical Services Agency. The Grand Jury also toured the Stockton Fire Dispatch Center. Responses were reviewed to determine: • If the agency’s responses were complete and comprehensible; • If the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • If confirmation was necessary. Confirmation could include written documentation, interviews or site inspections. Glossary • AVL: Automatic Vehicle Locator. Identifies the exact location of emergency vehicles and routes the closest vehicle to the emergency. • CAD: Computer-Aided Dispatch. • UHF: Ultra-High Radio Frequency • VRECC: Valley Regional Emergency Communication Center. VRECC is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) run by American Medical Response (AMR) that dispatches for the ambulance services and many of the fire agencies in the County. 2016-2017 Grand Jury Recommendations 2016-2017 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.4: By December 31, 2017, the City of Stockton develop a plan to replace the existing core UHF radio technology that supports public safety with San Joaquin County core UHF technology. Stockton City Council Response dated August 22, 2017: The respondent partially agrees and partially disagrees with this recommendation. The City is currently working with a consultant to develop a project schedule and plan to replace its’ outdated core UHF radio technology that supports City public safety agencies. The plan will be developed with regional interoperability and possible redundancy with county technology in mind, but separate from San Joaquin County’s current core UHF radio technology plan. It is anticipated that a schedule will be in place prior to December 31, 2017. 198 2017-2018 Grand Jury Follow-up Response: The 2017-2018 Grand Jury determined further action is required. The Grand Jury did not receive a copy of the anticipated schedule addressed above. The 2018-2019 Grand Jury may decide to follow-up on R1.4 to ensure that a project plan is published and that the system is installed within the anticipated timelines. 2016-2017 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: By December 31, 2018, have AVL deployed at the Stockton Fire Dispatch Center. Stockton City Council Response dated August 22, 2017: The respondent partially agrees with this recommendation. The City has an established timeline to implement the upgraded CAD system by January 2018, which will include AVL capability. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Follow-up Response: The 2017-2018 Grand Jury determined further action is required. The Grand Jury did not receive a copy of the anticipated timeline schedule addressed above. As of the date of this report, the system has not been implemented by the City of Stockton, contrary to previous statements by various Fire Agencies. The 2018-2019 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury may decide to follow- up on this item to ensure that it has been implemented and performs as anticipated. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings and Recommendations The 2018-2019 Grand Jury chose to follow-up on the 2016-2017 Grand Jury Recommendations R1.4 and R2.1 to determine if the plan to replace the existing core UHF radio technology and the CAD upgrade had been completed. Following interviews with City staff and a tour of the Stockton Fire Dispatch Center, the current Grand Jury requested an update of the time schedule from the City of Stockton. The City responded in August 2018 that due to changes in the specifications required by the San Joaquin County Emergency Medical Services Agency (SJEMSA) just months before the implementation of the CAD upgrade was going to occur, the deadline would be extended to March 2019. SJEMSA maintains that the City knew all specifications well in advance and that no revisions to the specifications occurred. In March 2019, the Grand Jury followed up with the City to determine if the CAD upgrade had occurred. The City responded that it would be completed by the end of the calendar year. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1: The City of Stockton did not provide a plan to replace the existing core UHF radio technology when requested. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2: The City of Stockton did not provide documentation of the changed CAD specifications despite several requests. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F3: The City of Stockton has not completed the upgrade of its CAD system that will allow for AVL technology. 199 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: The City of Stockton provide a plan to replace the existing core UHF technology by September 31, 2019. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R2: The City of Stockton complete the upgrade of its CAD system and have AVL deployed at the Stockton Fire Dispatch Center by December 31, 2019. Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. The Stockton City Council shall respond to Findings F1, F2, and F3 and Recommendations R1 and R2. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Linda L. Lofthus, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 180 E Weber Ave, Suite 1306J Stockton, California 95202 Also, please email a copy of the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected] Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911.924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Section V Table of Tours and Presentations ................ 221 201 snoitatneserP & sruoT 202 Tours Date Tour October 10, 2018 San Joaquin County Jail and Honor Farm October 22, 2018 San Joaquin County Registrar of Voter (Voter Testing) November 7, 2018 California Health Care Facility November 28, 2018 Port of Stockton December 6, 2018 Micke Grove Zoo December 19, 2018 Peterson Juvenile Hall January 10, 2019 California Department of Justice Central Valley Regional Laboratory in Ripon February 6, 2019 Deuel Vocational Institution May 16, 2019 N. A. Chaderjian and O.H. Close Youth Correctional Facilities June 6, 2019 San Joaquin General Hospital June 13, 2019 Stockton Metropolitan Airport Presentations Date Presentation September 25, 2018 City of Stockton Police Department October 31, 2018 San Joaquin County Sheriff December 12, 2018 San Joaquin County Homeless Coordinator January 23, 2019 San Joaquin County Human Services 203 204 Section VI About the Grand Jury .................................................... How the Grand Jury is Organized .................................. Desirable Attributes of a Grand Juror ............................ Benefits of Being a Grand Juror ..................................... Qualifications ................................................................ Citizen Complaints ........................................................ To Learn More .............................................................. 210 205 ssecorP yruJ dnarG 206 About the Grand Jury The San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury’s duty is to address citizens’ concerns regarding the operation of local government entities. The Civil Grand Jury is comprised of 19 citizens who are impaneled annually for a one-year term. The Grand Jury has a separate and different function than that of a trial jury and does not hear cases in a courtroom. Instead, Grand Jurors examine and investigate local governmental activities within San Joaquin County. The responsibilities of the Civil Grand Jury encompass the examination of all aspects of County government, including school and special districts, to ensure that the County is being governed lawfully, efficiently, and that public monies are being handled appropriately. The Grand Jury may conduct investigations of public agencies and the administration and affairs of any city within the County. The Grand Jury is authorized by law to: • Inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the County; • Investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of city and County offices, departments and their functions; • Inquire into the allegations of willful or corrupt misconduct of public officials; • Investigate into the activities of all school and special assessment districts within the County; • Submit a final report of its findings and recommendations to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. How the Grand Jury is Organized The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court empanels 19 Grand Jurors to serve for one year, fulfilling the duties as outlined under state law. The Judge appoints a foreperson who presides over the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury elects other officers and organizes itself. The jurors meet in a weekly general session. Smaller investigative committees meet throughout the week. In addition, Jurors meet with County and city officials, visit County detention facilities, and conduct independent reviews on matters of interest or concern. Each of the working committees report to the full Grand Jury. Conclusions are reached after study and thorough discussion of the issues and they may appear as part of the Grand Jury’s final report. Desirable Attributes of a Grand Juror Grand Jury service is a volunteer position with modest monthly compensation for meetings and mileage. Members receive a wealth of experience and provide a vital service to their community. Desirable attributes include: • Good health • An open mind • Knowledge of and interest in local government and community affairs • Skill in working productively with others in a group setting where respect and patience are essential • Skill and experience in fact-finding, investigative techniques, and report writing Benefits of Being a Grand Juror The benefits of being a grand juror are many, including: • The satisfaction and pride of doing an important job. • The experience of being a member of a respected panel. • Being part of a body of people with the unique authority to see local government workings not available to most County citizens. • Being given an opportunity to make a difference in your community. Qualifications To be considered for nomination to be a grand juror, you must meet the following legal requirements: • Be a U.S. citizen; • Be at least 18 years old; • Be a resident of San Joaquin County for at least one year immediately prior to the beginning of your service; • Possess intelligence, sound judgment and good character; • Have sufficient knowledge of English language to communicate orally and in writing; You cannot be considered: • If you are serving as a trial juror in any court in California; • If you have been convicted of malfeasance in office or any other high crime; • If you are serving as an elected public officer. Citizen Complaints A cornerstone of the Grand Jury process is to receive and review citizen complaints which concerned persons submit as a mechanism to expose issues within governmental agencies. Because the Grand Jury is vested with certain powers to gather information, the members are able thoroughly review and investigate issues. Through review of documents and interview of witnesses, the Grand Jury process holds a strong light up to agencies to determine whether there appear to be any inefficiencies, mismanagement, or even corruption. The Grand Jury relies to a great extent on those persons who have the courage and the determination to suggest issues which may need to be investigated. The citizen complaint is a valuable tool. The Grand Jury receives complaints regarding all levels of local government, including special districts. Complaints may include, but are not limited to, allegations of misconduct by public officials or employees and inefficiencies in local government. Any citizen may submit a complaint by completing a Complaint Form. However, not all complaints are investigated. With so many issues brought before it, the Grand Jury must make difficult decisions about what investigations to undertake during their term. If the issue identified in a complaint falls within the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction, it is first assigned to a preliminary committee to determine whether the complaint has merit. After an initial review, the committee presents its findings to the entire Grand Jury with recommendations for action. The Grand Jury then votes on the matter and thoroughly investigates those that are approved. After the investigation is complete, a final report is generated which reveals the findings and any recommendations the Grand Jury has in the matter. Complaints are treated as confidential. This allows a complainant to come forward without intimidation. A complaint should be submitted to the Grand Jury only after all attempts to correct an issue have been explored. The San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury complaint form can be found at: https://www.sjcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/GrandJuryComplaintForm2.pdf Send your completed form to: San Joaquin County Superior Court Attn: Trisa Martinez, Judicial Secretary 180 E. Weber Avenue, Suite 1114 Stockton, CA 95202 Forms also can be obtained by visiting or writing to the address above. The Grand Jury does not accept complaints via e-mail. To Learn More For more information about the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury visit: https://www.sjcourts.org/divisions/civil-grand-jury/#/ E. Weber Ave., Suite 1114 Stockton, CA 95202 210

1 The Grand Jury found it difficult to determine Wells Fargo’s effectiveness in managing the William G. Micke Estate Trust because the biennial reports filed with the court do not contain performance information.

1 The Tracy City Council has failed to follow their policy by intruding into the responsibilities of City staff. This has negatively impacted staff morale and the effective operations of City business.

0 There is no consistent procedure or practice for law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County to maintain periodic contact with the family members of cold case victims.

There is inconsistency and confusion regarding what defines a “cold case” amongst the law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County. 55 2.0 Counting Cold Cases in San Joaquin County Obtaining an accurate count of the current number of cold case homicides, missing persons, and sexual assaults in San Joaquin County is problematic, largely due to the overall lack of clarity and consistency in defining “cold cases.” Statements obtained through interviews and surveys of law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County confirmed the difficulty and confusion in both obtaining and maintaining accurate number counts of cold cases. For example, one agency reported they have no idea how many new cold cases they receive. In addition, the lack of a digitized system for tracking older cases has resulted in some cold cases not being counted. The Grand Jury learned that the lack of accurate numbers in counting and tracking cold cases in San Joaquin County is a contributing factor to the overall lack of priority for staffing, funding, and investigating cold cases. Table 2 below shows cold case statistics that were obtained through interviews, surveys, and budget requests from the various law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County. Table 2. Cold Case Statistics from San Joaquin County Type of Crime DA Escalon Lathrop* Lodi Manteca Ripon Sheriff Stockton Tracy Homicide 5721 0 NA NA 4 0 206 >3202 3 Missing persons with suspicious NA 0 NA NA NA 0 82 33 1 circumstances Sexual assault >2001 2 NA NA NA 0 NA NA 0 Attempted murder of a NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Police Officer Homicide with an unidentified NA 0 NA NA 0 0 12 0 0 victim * Contracts with Sheriff Department for police services 1) District Attorney’s numbers are estimates for the entire county 2) Stockton estimate from 2015. This number has increased by an unknown amount since then. 3) There are an estimated 56 additional persons missing for more than ten years that are not currently classified as cold cases but remain open files with the Missing Persons Unit of the Stockton Police Department. It should be emphasized that the accuracy of the statistics provided for each crime category in the Table 2 are impacted by several important variables, including: 56 ▪ Homicide – lack of digitized system for tracking older cases resulting in estimates that do not include every unsolved case from decades past ▪ Missing Persons – not always considered a crime; not always considered a cold case ▪ Sexual Assault – not always considered a cold case; the recent elimination of the ten-year statute of limitations on sexual assault cases through SB 813 should impact this metric and bring needed focus to unsolved sexual assault cases Findings

The Parks and Recreation Division budget has not kept pace with inflation, nor has it benefited from substantial growth in the overall County budget, thereby hindering the Division’s ability to maintain and improve the parks. 19

The reduction in County contributions through Net County Costs has further exacerbated the Parks and Recreation budget challenges.

The Board of Supervisors and the Parks and Recreation Division have continued to supplement the budget with monies from the Parks Trust Funds rather than making the difficult decisions required to balance the Parks and Recreation budget.

The continued borrowing of money to balance the Parks and Recreation budget is an unsustainable practice that has decimated the Parks Trust Funds.

Despite direction by the Board of Supervisors to create a program to reduce reliance on trust funds and provide a balanced budget by 2014-2015, the Parks and Recreation Division continues to rely on trust funds to balance its annual budget.

Despite recognition by members of the Board of Supervisors that the trust funds should be paid back once the economy recovered, no effort has yet been made to repay the “borrowed” money.

Although the Parks and Recreation Division recognized the chronic overestimation of revenues and reduced the revenue estimates in their 2018-2019 proposed budget by nearly $360,000, data from the prior two years indicate that the revenue estimates should have been reduced by an additional $100,000.

There are more than 500 cold case homicides in San Joaquin County, including 12 homicide victims whose remains have never been positively identified. The exact number of cold case homicides is unknown due to the lack of a consistent written definition for “cold case” and the lack of a digitized tracking system.

Contrary to the original intent of the Park Endowment Trust, the Parks and Recreation Division has proposed, and the Board of Supervisors has approved, the use of principal for operations and maintenance in the park system each year since 2010-2011.

Prior to its near depletion, the Park Endowment Trust was an invaluable resource, providing the Parks and Recreation Division an ongoing source of seed money for capital development projects and major equipment purchases. Micke Grove Trust The Micke Grove Trust was established on January 14, 1986 “for the deposit of the monies from the William G. Micke Estate Trust.” It was further ordered “that no money shall be expended for any reason whatsoever from the Micke Grove Trust Account without the prior authorization by the Board of Supervisors.” Figure 6 below shows the deposits, expenditures, transfers, and the year- end balance for the Micke Grove Trust between the 2009-2010 and 2017-2018 fiscal years. $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 Deposits Transfers to General Fund Year-End Balance Figure 6. Deposits, Transfers to General Fund, and Year-End Balance for the Micke Grove Trust 22 Based on the financial information and legal briefs reviewed by the Grand Jury, the County provided all monies required for the maintenance and operation of Micke Grove Park prior to the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Evidence was found that there were periodic requests by the County for funds from the William G. Micke Estate Trust to pay for equipment and capital improvements. Internal Revenue Service regulation changes in 2008 began requiring the William G. Micke Estate Trust to annually distribute approximately 5% of the Fair Market Value to the County. Between 2009 and 2012, these required distributions from the William G. Micke Estate Trust were deposited into the Parks Donation Trust. Beginning in 2013, the required distributions were deposited into the Micke Grove Trust. During 2013-2014, the required distribution, along with the prior balance, was transferred from the Micke Grove Trust into the General Fund to supplement the Parks and Recreation budget for ongoing operations of Micke Grove. This practice continues. Between 2013- 2014 and 2017-2018, nearly $1,700,000 was transferred from the Micke Grove Trust into the General Fund to supplement the Parks and Recreation budget. The balance of the Micke Grove Trust at the end of fiscal year 2017-2018 was $1,000. Park Donation Trust The Park Donation Trust was established on March 11, 1980 to account for donations made for specific park improvements. Figure 7 below shows the deposits, withdrawals, and year-end balance for the Park Donation Trust. $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $- William G. Micke Estate Deposit Private Donations Total Withdrawals Year-End Balance Figure 6. Deposits, Withdrawals and Year-End Balance for the Park Donation Trust At the end of 2011-2012, the Park Donation Trust had a balance of nearly $1,400,000. During the past decade, almost $2,500,000 has been transferred out, leaving a balance of less than $7,000 at the end of 2017-2018. Finding

The Park Endowment Trust and the Micke Grove Trust represent an invaluable opportunity to provide an ongoing source of funding for new park initiatives and capital expenditures, if those trust funds are not depleted on an annual basis. 24

The Parks Special Projects Trust Fund is an excellent addition to the Parks Trust Funds that, with proper management, will provide a valuable source of funding and operational support for special projects for years to come. 3.0 Non-County Managed Trusts The William G. Micke Estate Trust (the “Trust”) is managed by the trust division of Wells Fargo Bank (the “Trustee”). As stated in the Petition for Instructions (San Joaquin County Superior Court Case #29176), the County of San Joaquin is the beneficiary and the Board of Supervisors is responsible for overseeing the management of the Trust. The Board of Supervisors must also ensure that the monies distributed from the Trust are used in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Trust. As Trustee, Wells Fargo is responsible for prudently investing the assets in the Trust. Per California Probate Code 16047(a), “A trustee shall invest and manage trust assets as a prudent investor would, by considering the purposes, terms, distribution requirements, and other circumstances of the trust. In satisfying this standard, the trustee shall exercise reasonable care, skill, and caution.” Wells Fargo receives an annual management fee of approximately 1% for managing the Trust. At the end of 2016, the Trust consisted of a leased orchard and vineyard, securities, and cash. At that time, the value of the land was over 82% of the total value of the Trust, but the return on the land leases was only about 2% of the land’s value. Wells Fargo, with the approval of the San Joaquin County Superior Court and the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, sold the orchard in 2017 and the vineyard in 2018. The Trust is now entirely in securities and cash. Between 2009 and 2017, the William G. Micke Estate Trust distributed nearly $3,100,000 to the County. At the end of 2017, the balance of the Trust was almost $6,600,000. In order to receive their full management fee, Wells Fargo is required to file a biennial accounting report with the San Joaquin County Superior Court. These reports are legal filings and include a listing of each transaction made by Wells Fargo over the prior two years. However, the reports do not contain a clear and understandable summary of the total return on the investments in the Trust or a performance comparison to appropriate benchmarks. Finding

Owning and operating a zoological facility today where animal care standards are subject to intense scrutiny and criticism may necessitate certification from a recognized professional association. Such certification is further justified through numerous additional benefits.

Regaining accreditation through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) may not be practical or affordable for Micke Grove Zoo due to the stringent requirements and constantly evolving standards.

Accreditation through the Zoological Association of America (ZAA) offers many of the same benefits as AZA, but may allow more flexibility and affordability as the County works to improve Micke Grove Zoo.

The total number of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County is increasing each year due primarily to the decreased clearance rate for solving homicides.

The Grand Jury found it difficult to determine Wells Fargo’s effectiveness in managing the William G. Micke Estate Trust because the biennial reports filed with the court do not contain performance information.

A non-profit organization or foundation capable of raising significant funds is essential to fulfilling the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo.

The recent fundraising results from the Micke Grove Zoological Society are insufficient to support the necessary improvements for Micke Grove Zoo.

The opportunities for San Joaquin County to obtain funding support for Micke Grove Zoo through corporate sponsorships and grants are hindered by lack of accreditation and a new Master Plan for the Zoo.

There is insufficient staffing for cold case investigations in San Joaquin County, primarily within the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, the Stockton Police Department, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office.

Despite a strong recommendation in the Taussig report that staffing cuts would be inappropriate, the Parks and Recreations Division has continued to eliminate positions.

While “doing more with less” is admirable, it is apparent that the Parks and Recreation Division is at the point of “doing less with less,” especially considering the additional staffing cuts in 2018-2019 and the rising costs of services and maintenance.

The very low per capita contribution from the County is a major factor in the Parks and Recreation Division’s inability to balance the budget.

There is insufficient funding for cold case investigations in San Joaquin County, primarily for the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, the Stockton Police Department, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. The lack of sufficient funding is due primarily to financial limitations and lack of priority. 6.0 Investigating Cold Cases in San Joaquin County Preparation The following elements were identified through interviews and surveys as being essential to effective preparation for cold case investigations: ▪ Training specific to cold case investigations ▪ Organized computer database for cold cases Cold case investigation is a specialized field that is presently benefiting from both rapid technological advances and emerging investigative techniques. Numerous opportunities exist for cold case and related training through such organizations as the US DOJ, the State of California Department of Justice (CA DOJ), and various other law enforcement institutes, agencies, and associations. The Grand Jury learned that present cold case investigative staff in San Joaquin County have had minimal opportunities to stay current through relevant cold case training events. It remains commonplace in law enforcement for older cold case files dating back to the early 1990’s and before to remain as paper files stored in boxes and binders. This is no different in San Joaquin County. The Grand Jury learned that such case files can range from a dozen pieces of paper to four full binders. Retrieving and reviewing such files is cumbersome and inefficient, though retention of paper files may be desirable for some cases. The lack of an organized computer database inhibits accurate and efficient tracking, evaluation, prioritization, and investigation of cold cases. The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department acknowledged this challenge in their 2018-2019 Proposed 64 Budget request, indicating that cold cases prior to 1990 are not digitized, thus requiring any review or evaluation of the case and evidence to be done by hand. Prioritization The 2012 Rand Corporation study on cold case investigations listed the following factors as those most influential in the decision to reopen cold cases: ▪ New witness coming forward ▪ New DNA technology to test old physical evidence ▪ New evidence for DNA testing ▪ Other physical evidence ▪ New technology to test other physical evidence The Rand study concluded that “these responses strongly indicate that physical evidence is the major factor in decisions to reopen cold cases.” In their 2018-2019 Proposed Budget Request, the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office stated their desire to assist law enforcement agencies throughout the County by reviewing and triaging unsolved homicide cases. Their goal is to identify DNA evidence that has not been previously submitted for testing, and submit that evidence to the California Department of Justice crime labs for analysis. Current staffing levels and priorities prevent this level of assistance from the District Attorney’s Office. The Grand Jury learned that some investigative staff at law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County currently have no efficient or effective method of prioritizing which cold cases to investigate. Based upon interview results, the following prioritization methods are those being most utilized at present: ▪ Contact from family members of cold case victims ▪ Tips received/new information provided ▪ Random choice by the investigator ▪ Directed by supervisor Many of the current methods being utilized to prioritize cold case investigations in San Joaquin County are inconsistent with the priority of physical evidence as emphasized by the 2012 Rand Corporation study. Neither do many of the current methods for prioritization align with the method of triaging physical evidence proposed by the District Attorney’s Office. DNA Evidence (also see Appendix A) The Grand Jury learned through interviews and surveys that there are significant numbers of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County with DNA evidence that could be tested using enhanced DNA technology now available. The exact number of cases with testable DNA evidence is unclear due to 65 the lack of effective tracking or evaluation methods. However, one estimate received by the Grand Jury indicated the number of such cases to be in the hundreds. Limitations Despite incredible advances in using DNA technology to identify persons, there are additional challenges presented to investigators of cold cases in San Joaquin County. The Grand Jury learned from multiple sources that the CA DOJ regional crime labs do excellent work; however, they are limited in the amount of staff time they can devote to evidence testing. This limitation was most apparent when involving cold cases where the chances of successful DNA testing results were less likely. Not only were the chances of approval for testing less likely for many cold cases, but the amount of time to receive a test result was often longer. Due to limited staff resources, the CA DOJ has policies in place that only allow them to analyze a minimal amount of DNA evidence based on their workloads and demands from law enforcement agencies throughout California. It is noteworthy that the Tracy Police Department’s recent closure of a cold case homicide resulted from additional DNA testing by a private, nonprofit laboratory that was reportedly utilized due to testing limitations at the CA DOJ crime laboratory. Another limitation in the investigation of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County is the significant percentage of cases involving street gangs. The Grand Jury learned that the number of cold case homicides involving street gangs is estimated to be as high as 50% in San Joaquin County. The significance of this reality does not pertain to a lesser demand for justice, but rather acknowledges that these cold cases present additional challenges, such as the lack of DNA or other physical evidence for testing, and the lack of available or willing witnesses to testify Findings

Departmental reorganizations and turnover have resulted in the loss of historical knowledge amongst the Parks and Recreation leadership and staff.

Partially Agrees R5.2 Agrees action taken

There is a need for additional training specific to cold case investigations for the law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County.

The lack of organized computer databases for cold cases is impeding the effective evaluation and investigation of cold cases in San Joaquin County.

The methods for prioritization of cold case investigations in San Joaquin County are often ineffective, with insufficient emphasis placed on available physical evidence.

The exact number of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County that have testable DNA evidence is unknown due to the lack of effective tracking and evaluation methods.

There are limitations on the amount of physical evidence that the State of California Department of Justice crime laboratories will process for cold case investigations due to staffing and prioritization. 66

Cold case homicides involving street gangs often present greater challenges due to the lack of testable DNA evidence and the lack of available or willing witnesses. 7.0 Solving Cold Cases in San Joaquin County Elevation Any successful path forward in solving cold cases in San Joaquin County must begin with elevating the priority of staffing and funding such investigations. The focus and priority of law enforcement on today and tomorrow must expand to include the past. By not investigating cold cases or seeking arrests and convictions, criminals are potentially being allowed to commit additional violent crimes. Innovation (also see Appendix B) Another key element to future success in solving cold cases in San Joaquin County will be the utilization of advanced technology and emerging techniques, including: ▪ STRmix DNA interpretive software ▪ Rapid DNA technology ▪ Genetic genealogy ▪ DNA phenotyping These innovative techniques have assisted in solving cold cases throughout the United States. Collaboration A final critical component in the future success of solving cold cases in San Joaquin County will be the level of collaboration between all key members involved in the investigation and prosecution of such cases. This investigation revealed that there is presently a climate of isolation and frustration in attempting to investigate cold cases without the necessary assistance and support. Responses received from surveys and interviews revealed investigative staff want help in many areas, including: discussing case strategy, interviewing witnesses in the field, processing and serving warrants, obtaining legal advice, and testing of physical evidence. This investigation confirmed the necessity of a cooperative and coordinated relationship between law enforcement agencies and the District Attorney’s Office. The 2012 Rand Corporation study on cold case investigations emphasized the importance of cooperation between police and prosecutors in improving both the efficiency and the effectiveness of cold case investigations. The study indicated the benefit of having police consult with prosecutors beginning at case screening, to offer advice on whether the case is likely to produce a conviction and what kinds of evidence will be most compelling in court. In their 2018-2019 Proposed Budget Request, the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office expressed a clear desire to assist law enforcement partner agencies throughout the County with cold case investigations. However, the Grand Jury learned that there is presently minimal contact between the District Attorney’s Office and cold case investigative staff. There are many examples from nearby counties where the District Attorney’s Office has taken a leadership role in coordinating and facilitating cold case investigations and prosecutions. A few of these counties include: ▪ Sacramento County – Cold Case Prosecution Unit ▪ Contra Costa County – Cold Case-Unsolved Homicide Unit ▪ Alameda County – Unsolved Crimes/DNA Cold Case Unit ▪ Santa Clara County – Cold Case Unit ▪ Solano County – Cold Case Unit The desire for the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office to form a Cold Case Task Force was a consistent request in both interviews and survey responses from law enforcement agencies throughout the County. Such a Cold Case Task Force is needed to provide a multitude of essential functions in cold case investigations, including: ▪ Establish a Mission Statement clearly defining “Cold Cases” ▪ Coordinate training specific to cold case investigations ▪ Provide legal assistance including case review, warrant processing, and prosecution ▪ Coordinate with CA DOJ crime laboratories for necessary testing ▪ Collaborate with other counties and law enforcement agencies for support ▪ Collaborate regarding advocacy for victim’s families and witnesses As one example of successful collaboration, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office joined with county law enforcement agencies to sign a Cold Case Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. The county crime laboratory also joined this partnership and made a commitment to handle DNA in an expedited manner. The District Attorney also asked every county law enforcement agency for access to unsolved homicide and sexual assault cases in order to assist with locating and submitting DNA evidence, interviewing witnesses, and conducting a comprehensive case evaluation. Findings

The elevation of cold case investigations as a priority is vital to the future success in investigating and solving cold cases in San Joaquin County.

The utilization of innovative technology and emerging techniques is an essential element to the future success of investigating and solving cold cases in San Joaquin County. 68

The level of collaboration between law enforcement agencies and the District Attorney’s Office is a critical component to success in solving and prosecuting cold cases.

There is minimal contact between the District Attorney’s Office and cold case investigative staff in San Joaquin County due to lack of staffing and priority.

There is universal support amongst law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County for the District Attorney’s Office to form a Cold Case Task Force to support cold case investigation and prosecution. 8.0 Maintaining Contact with Families of Cold Case Victims The consequences of unsolved cold cases include victims without justice and families without answers. This painful reality is one driving force behind the proposed Cold Case Accountability Act of 2020. One aspect of this proposed legislation is a requirement for law enforcement agencies to provide regular updates in writing and in person to families of cold case victims. The Grand Jury learned through interviews and survey responses that there is currently no consistent procedure or practice for law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County to maintain periodic contact with the family members of cold case victims. Most contacts with victims’ families are currently being initiated by family members, and often correspond to the victim’s birthday or the anniversary of their death. Many law enforcement personnel refrain from initiating contact with families of cold case victims due to time constraints, the lack of any progress to report, or the potential to provoke emotional trauma. Perhaps a reasonable and sensitive response is that the family should be consulted regarding their desired frequency of contact. Such contacts could be handled by nonsworn personnel in order to minimize the time impact on investigative staff. Victim Services is a program of the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office that serves victims and their survivor family members of homicide, sexual assault, and other crimes. As stated on the District Attorney’s website, “In California victims of crime have state constitutional standing and rights, guaranteeing that their voices will be heard.” For many cold case victims, their voice is still being heard through their surviving family members. Victims of Violent Crime of San Joaquin County is a nonprofit support group whose members are comprised primarily of surviving family members of unsolved murders. The group has held an annual vigil during the holiday season for the past twenty years. All of the surviving family members who gather at these vigils are ultimately seeking the same things: justice and closure. However, the Chief Executive of Victims of Violent Crime recognizes that in order for survivor family members to experience justice and closure, more cold case detectives are needed in San Joaquin County to investigate their cases. Finding

There is no consistent procedure or practice for law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County to maintain periodic contact with the family members of cold case victims.

Agrees R8.1 Joaquin implemented action taken

Agrees No further City of Stockton action taken

Agrees 132 Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 City of Escalon 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: Escalon is still experiencing budget and staffing reductions created by the housing crash in 2008. The resulting level of enforcement is reactive, which allows blight and safety issues to continue. Agency Response: The City agrees that with the reduction of staffing in prior years has hindered the enforcement level regarding blight and safety issues. City Staff has and will continue to make any potential health or safety issue a priority. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: Escalon explore budget options to restore the code enforcement officer position and consider using volunteers to increase code enforcement compliance. Agency Response: The City of Escalon will continue to explore budget avenues to ensure that safety, health or blight issues are being addressed in timel y matters. This will include exploring the use of volunteers. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2.0 City of Lodi 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: The City of Lodi is still experiencing budget and staffing reductions created by the housing crash in 2008 but is using senior volunteers to deliver notices of code violation, resulting in a voluntary compliance rate of 62%. Agency Response: Lodi agrees with this finding. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F2.2: The homeless population continues to grow and creates increased blight and health issues. Agency Response: Lodi agrees with this finding. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: Explore budget options and grant funding to improve code enforcement. Agency Response: The City currently has two full time code enforcement officers, having added a second officer in September, 2016, and continues to use senior volunteers (Partners) to deliver notices of code violation within the City. No further action is needed at this time. 133 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.2: Plan for future expansion of code enforcement efforts to meet the increasing needs of the community, including the homeless population. Agency Response: The City continues to address issues involving code enforcement, including the needs of our homeless population, by partnering with community group 'Take Back Lodi' on cleanup efforts in homeless encampments and the retrieval of abandoned shopping carts; enforcement of the City's shopping cart ordinance adopted in September 2017; supporting efforts of the County Homeless Task Force; and work with the faith-based community on its annual 'Love Lodi' community wide improvement and beautification projects. In addition, the City created the position of a Community Liaison Officer within the Police Department to assist with outreach to the homeless community. The Community Liaison Officer is assisted by a part-time employee. In the past eleven months the Officer has been able to assist more than 100 homeless people with housing, program placement, or reunification with friends and family. Of those individuals, 26 were placed into programs; and four veterans were placed into housing and counseling programs. The City is continuing to look at creative ways to expand code enforcement efforts within the community. • The 2018-2019 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 3.0 City of Manteca 2017-2018 Grand Jury Finding F3.1: Manteca is still experiencing budget and staffing reductions created by the housing crash in 2008. The resulting level of enforcement is reactive, which allows blight and safety issues to continue. 2017-2018 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1: Manteca explore budget options to restore the code enforcement officer position and consider using volunteers to increase code enforcement compliance. Agency Response: This finding has been reviewed by the City Council at the November 20, 2018 meeting. The City of Manteca has not cut any code enforcement positions, so unclear how the finding was derived. However, pursuant to subdivision 933.05 (b)(3), this

Disagrees No further

Partially Agrees No further

and Disagrees R7.2 Implemented No further City of Lathrop