InVItatIon – to participate in the orange County Grand Jury

Additional Recommendations 26

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

• R1

  Page 130
  By October 1, 2012, the Board of Supervisors should establish a one-year independent, volunteer commission, consisting of private citizens (including members of various oversight committees), to conduct a comprehensive study of the effectiveness of elder abuse resources in Orange County focusing on the following: A. The prevalence of elder abuse and the probable increase in the future; B. The efficacy of individual county agencies and departments; C. Interactions with Orange County agencies/departments and non-profit organizations that provide senior resources; D. The availability of outreach and communication to citizens concerning elder abuse; E. The procedures of law enforcement agencies to investigate reports of abuse; and F. The procedures used by the District Attorney’s office to determine prosecution.
• R2

  Page 130
  By October 1, 2012, the Board of Supervisors should direct the Office of the Performance Audit Director to evaluate Adult Protective Services, The Office on Aging, Adult Mental Health Services and The Public Guardian. The evaluation would determine their individual effectiveness; assess their coordination and communication; and discover any overlap in services among them.
• R3

  Page 130
  By October 1, 2012, the County Executive Officer should direct the Information Technology Department to evaluate the computer system of The Public Administrator/Public Guardian to insure that this agency has a full capacity to report, coordinate and monitor elder abuse.
• R4

  Page 130
  By December 31, 2012, the County Executive Officer should review agencies and departments within his purview to determine if they provide an effective response to elder abuse without any duplication of responsibilities.
• R5

  Page 130
  By December 31, 2012, the Sheriff’s Department and city police departments should evaluate and update their programs on responding to elder abuse cases.
• R6

  Page 130
  By December 31, 2012, the District Attorney should direct staff to review all procedures for prosecution of elder abuse cases.
• R7

  Page 130
  By December 31, 2012, the District Attorney should direct staff to review current information available throughout the country concerning elder abuse in order to design an updated program for prosecution. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Findings/Conclusions and Recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Elder Abuse in Orange County “Not later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section §914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c.) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary / 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Elder Abuse in Orange County or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d.) The Board of Supervisors, District Attorney and Sheriff-Coroner are required to respond to findings and recommendations. All other agencies set forth in the matrix are requested to respond. 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Elder Abuse in Orange County Table No. 1 – FINDINGS – RESPONSE MATRIX NAME OF ENTITY F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 COUNTY Adult Mental Health Services: Health Care Agency X X Adult Protective Services: Social Services Agency X X Board of Supervisors X X X County Executive Officer X X X X District Attorney X Office on Aging: OC Community Resources X X Public Guardian: Public Administrator/Public Guardian X LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: OC Sheriff’s Department: County & Contract Cities X Anaheim Police Department X Brea Police Department X Buena Park Department X Costa Mesa Police Department X Cypress Police Department X Dana Point Police Department X Fountain Valley Police Department X Fullerton Police Department X Garden Grove Police Department X Huntington Beach Police Department X Irvine Police Department X La Habra Police Department X La Palma Police Department X Laguna Beach Police Department X Los Alamitos Police Department X Newport Beach Police Department X Orange Police Department X Placentia Police Department X Santa Ana Police Department X Seal Beach Police Department X Tustin Police Department X Westminster Police Department X 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Elder Abuse in Orange County Table No. 2 – RECOMMENDATIONS – RESPONSE MATRIX NAME OF ENTITY R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 COUNTY Board of Supervisors X X County Executive Officer X X District Attorney X X LAW ENFORCEMENT OC Sheriff’s Department: County & Contract Cities X Anaheim Police Department X Brea Police Department X Buena Park Department X Costa Mesa Police Department X Cypress Police Department X Dana Point Police Department X Fountain Valley Police Department X Fullerton Police Department X Garden Grove Police Department X Huntington Beach Police Department X Irvine Police Department X La Habra Police Department X La Palma Police Department X Laguna Beach Police Department X Los Alamitos Police Department X Newport Beach Police Department X Orange Police Department X Placentia Police Department X Santa Ana Police Department X Seal Beach Police Department X Tustin Police Department X Westminster Police Department X 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Elder Abuse in Orange County
• R10

  Page 123
  Are your students surveyed following these programs? If so, how is this done?
• R11

  Page 123
  How are the results of these surveys used and who reviews them?
• R12

  Page 123
  What training programs have been presented to the administration and teachers each school year?
• R13

  Page 123
  Does your district or your school decide which training programs are recommended for use?
• R14

  Page 123
  Who decides the actual implementation of these training programs?
• R15

  Page 123
  Are teacher training programs assessed or evaluated for appropriateness and effectiveness, and if so, by whom and how are the results used?
• R16

  Page 124
  Did bullying or harassment incidents reports increase or decrease after programs were presented to the students?
• R17

  Page 124
  Have anti-bullying/anti-harassment incident reports increased or decreased after training programs were completed by the administration and teachers?
• R18

  Page 124
  What is your school/district‘s protocol for student/teacher incident report entries?
• R19

  Page 124
  How does your school and/or district determine if a bullying/harassment incident will be included in the formal incident reports? 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury Anti-Bullying Programs in Orange Schools County
• R20

  Page 124
  What additional efforts have the administration and/or teachers implemented on campus or in classrooms to help create an anti- bullying/anti-harassment atmosphere?
• R21

  Page 124
  If your district suggests the use of anti-bullying/anti-harassment programs how, if at all, are the schools tracked or monitored for program implementation?
• R22

  Page 124
  Please indicate the person, and/or committee, and/or department that would monitor program implementation.
• R23

  Page 124
  Mandatory Postings (AB354, Ed Code 234.1 (D) Do you have any anti-bullying/anti-harassment policies posted and where are they? (Office, staff lounge, student gov‘t room, etc.)
• R24

  Page 124
  Please provide copies of any materials available for students and staff regarding anti-bullying programs.
• R25

  Page 125
  Savanna School District
• R26

  Page 125
  Tustin Unified School District
• R27

  Page 125
  Westminster School District
• R40

  Page 153
  c n I 20 0 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 US Bureau of Labor Statistics; CPI Detailed Report; March 2012 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Findings/Conclusions presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its study of the Orange County Fire Authority, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following Findings/Conclusions: F1. The costs of labor of the OCFA, excluding benefits, are growing annually almost ten times faster than the increase of personnel and 3.5 faster than the Consumer Price Index-U. F2. Labor agreements of the past have included salary increases of 3 and 4 percent per year while the cost of living represented by the Consumer Price Index-Urban have averaged slightly more than 2.3 percent per year. Future wage increases are based on a “trigger formula” that is tied to the “secured property tax dollar amount” and any “General Fund Surplus/Deficit,” and the average of the top quarter of neighboring non-Authority fire departments. F3. Basing firefighter‟s salaries to the “secured property tax” that are founded primarily on the assessed value of the property served may not be the most economically responsive (or seemly rational to the public) method of calculating wages from a taxpayer perspective. This method produces salaries that do not appear to be compatible with actual wages within the communities they serve. Furthermore, basing salaries on those of neighboring firefighters can result in “spiraling” increases if those agencies base their wages on those of OCFA. F4. Labor agreements for the firefighters that do not appear to reflect the overall economy and finances of the taxpayers and cities they serve may show a deficiency of civic duty of the Directors in making the tough choices and balancing the needs of the citizens that they serve. F5. The terms of office of the Board of Directors (some of which are only a year) appear to be too short for directors to become thoroughly acquainted with the complex operations and finances of this large agency. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its study of the Orange County Fire Authority, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY R1. The OCFA should state on their website how firefighter‟s salaries are based in the past on the OCFA revenue, and currently on the OCFA general fund surplus/deficit rather than on the living costs and financial conditions of the cities and citizens they serve. R2. Prior to entering into or negotiating any labor agreements, the OCFA Board of Directors should ensure that the law of supply and demand or the overall economic health of the communities that they serve is reflected in the salaries and benefits packages. Preferably, methods in determining salaries and benefits, among others, might include: Relating salaries and benefits to what the market will bear, i.e., high applications numbers for a job would usually lead to offering lower salaries and benefits; Tying salaries and benefits to local economic indexes that reflect the economies of the community served. R3. OCFA salaries should be renegotiated annually to reflect the actual economic trends of those citizens they serve as opposed to entering into labor agreement that project salary and benefit increases too far in the future with set increases that do not reflect the unreliable economic volatile future. R4. The OCFA Board of Directors should clarify and explain which part of the current Memorandum of Understanding controls: Article XXIV that sets annual increases through 2015, or the requirement of Article XXIX that requires compatibility with neighboring non-Authority fire departments, and explain the reasoning for that rationale. This should be included on OCFA‟s website under the Memorandum of Understanding. R5. The OCFA Board of Directors should provide and make public both a short-term and long-term plan that brings the labor agreements in line with the living cost of the citizens they serve rather than solely upon the revenues derived from secured property tax of the property and city fees in their realm. R6. If the growth of firefighter‟s salaries is reduced to reflect the economy of the citizens they serve, the OCFA should consider reducing the fees that they charge their contract cities to reflect the change and to be responsive to the financial realities of the cities. R7. The OCFA should consider requiring the terms of office of the directors to be at least two years to provide longer time for continuity of the leadership. REQUIRED RESPONSES In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from the OCFA and the OCFA Board of Directors to the Findings/Conclusions and Recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY “Not later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section §914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and commendations…” The Penal Code lists the following response choices for a responding entity: Responses to Findings 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 in dispute and shall include an explanation of the reason. Responses to Recommendations 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. 3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope and parameters of that analysis and timeframe. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation. All responses should be received no later than October 1 (unless the agency or department has requested in writing an additional extension). Follow-up is the responsibility of the sitting Grand Jury. 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY