Orange County Grand Jury
• 2006-2007
Orange County Disciplinary Procedures For Elected Officials 06/07/07, 86k
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 1 findings
F1
Other than Penal Code section 919c which grants the Grand Jury the authority to inquire into willful or corrupt misconduct by public officers, there are no authorized published procedures by the county or agencies to investigate non-EEO misconduct by an elected official that does not rise to the level of willful or corrupt. Responses to Finding F-1 are required from the Assessor, Auditor-Controller, County Clerk-Recorder, Board of Supervisors, District Attorney, Public Administrator, Sheriff-Coroner, and Treasurer-Tax Collector. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following Recommendation:
Recommendations 1
-
R1Each agency should generate and implement a set of procedures to facilitate an investigation of any non-EEO misconduct that does not rise to the level of a willful or corrupt claim against its own elected official in Orange County. Responses to Recommendation R-1 are required from the Assessor, Auditor- Controller, County Clerk-Recorder, Board of Supervisors, District Attorney, Public Administrator, Sheriff-Coroner, and Treasurer-Tax Collector. REQUIRED RESPONSES 2 The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: § 933.05. Responses to findings (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (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…This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 3