Evaluation of Responses to the

Recommendations 12

• R1
  Review of the Santa Clara County Agency of the City of San Jose Department of Family and Children’s There were five unnumbered findings Services and two recommendations in this Grand This report contained six unnumbered Jury report. Recommendation 1 was
• R2
  Review of the Redevelopment
• R3
  was addressed to the Clara and the City of San Jose. director of social services. The comments returned by the city of The comments returned by the county San Jose were prepared by the city were prepared by the social services attorney and approved by the RDA agency on August 6, 2001, and approved board on October 16, 2001. The by the board of supervisors on October responses were clearly written, 16, 2001. The response did not clearly addressing each of the findings and 2 recommendations as required by the 1; it will not implement recommendation penal code. 2; and it will implement recommendation 3. A timeline for completion of The comments returned by the county recommendation 3 was provided. The were prepared by the county executive county responded to recommendation 4: and approved by the board of “This recommendation is already being supervisors on October 16, 2001. The implemented....” A tentative completion response did not clearly address the date of the summer of 2003 was
• R4
  Men’s Work Furlough Program report ( Reference ) There were no comments to the findings. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury this 25th day of April 2002. __________________________________ Bruce E. Capron Foreperson _____________________________ Norman N. Abrahams, DDS Foreperson Pro Tem __________________________________ Joyce S. Byrne Secretary 9
• R5
  by disagreeing. The 16, 2001. The response clearly stated county’s comments on recommendations that the city agreed with the finding. 1 through 4 were lengthy and detailed, explaining the current processes or 8. Inquiry into Alleged Improprieties positions to each recommendation. by the Mayor Including Misuse of City of San Jose Funds 6. Inspection of the Men’s Work The report contained four numbered Furlough Program findings and one recommendation. The The report section titled Findings recommendation was addressed to the appears to contain four subjects that San Jose City Council. could be individual findings: status of prior year’s recommendations; Comments on the report were prepared maintenance inadequacies; a “jimmied” by the San Jose City Attorney on cover; and rules violations. There were October 11, 2001, and approved by the five recommendations contained in the city council on October 16, 2001. The report. Recommendations 1 through 3 city clearly stated that it agreed with all were addressed to the board of finding. supervisors and the county probation department. Recommendations 4 and 5 In responding to the recommendations, were addressed to the board of the city attorney, recommended to the supervisors and the general services city council that it adopt “...the current agency. management practice...as a policy”. The transmittal letter relating to the Grand Comments were prepared by the county Jury report, which was sent from the probation department on August 21, City of San Jose to the presiding judge, 2001, and approved by the board of on October 22, 2001, included a footnote 4 stating, “The City Council also directed This report contained one paragraph that the City Administration implement a under findings, and one unnumbered and nepotism policy in addition to the no- four numbered recommendations. These fraternization policy approved in its recommendations were a result of the discussion of the response to this 2000-2001 Grand Jury’s analysis of the report.” comments submitted to the 1999-2000 Grand Jury Final Report. The 9. Inquiry into Whether the City of recommendations as written combined Mountain View is in Violation of the Grand Jury’s finding and Proposition 218 recommendation. Responses that the Four numbered findings and no 2000-2001 Grand Jury considered recommendations were contained in the incomplete, or not responsive to the report. This report was sent to the City report’s recommendations were of Mountain View as a courtesy copy. identified and additional comments No response was requested by the 2000- solicited from the affected organizations. 2001 Grand Jury. The Santa Clara County Office of Education, Santa Clara County Board of 10. Inquiry into the City of San Jose Supervisors, San Jose City Council and Police Department’s “Use-of-Force” the Los Gatos Town Council were sent Training copies of the report and responded as The report contained five numbered requested.
• R6
  Inspection of the Men’s Work The report contained four numbered Furlough Program findings and one recommendation. The The report section titled Findings recommendation was addressed to the appears to contain four subjects that San Jose City Council. could be individual findings: status of prior year’s recommendations; Comments on the report were prepared maintenance inadequacies; a “jimmied” by the San Jose City Attorney on cover; and rules violations. There were October 11, 2001, and approved by the five recommendations contained in the city council on October 16, 2001. The report. Recommendations 1 through 3 city clearly stated that it agreed with all were addressed to the board of finding. supervisors and the county probation department. Recommendations 4 and 5 In responding to the recommendations, were addressed to the board of the city attorney, recommended to the supervisors and the general services city council that it adopt “...the current agency. management practice...as a policy”. The transmittal letter relating to the Grand Comments were prepared by the county Jury report, which was sent from the probation department on August 21, City of San Jose to the presiding judge, 2001, and approved by the board of on October 22, 2001, included a footnote 4 stating, “The City Council also directed This report contained one paragraph that the City Administration implement a under findings, and one unnumbered and nepotism policy in addition to the no- four numbered recommendations. These fraternization policy approved in its recommendations were a result of the
• R7
  Each Grand Jury should confirm agencies agreeing with previous Final Report recommendations have implemented the recommendations as promised. ATTACHMENT 1 California Penal Code 933.05, in relevant part: 933.05. Responses to findings (a) For the purpose of subdivision (b) of section 933, as to each grand jury
• R9
  Inquiry into Whether the City of recommendations as written combined Mountain View is in Violation of the Grand Jury’s finding and Proposition 218 recommendation. Responses that the Four numbered findings and no 2000-2001 Grand Jury considered recommendations were contained in the incomplete, or not responsive to the report. This report was sent to the City report’s recommendations were of Mountain View as a courtesy copy. identified and additional comments No response was requested by the 2000- solicited from the affected organizations. 2001 Grand Jury. The Santa Clara County Office of Education, Santa Clara County Board of
• R10
  Inquiry into the City of San Jose Supervisors, San Jose City Council and Police Department’s “Use-of-Force” the Los Gatos Town Council were sent Training copies of the report and responded as The report contained five numbered requested.
• R11
  Inquiry into Use-of-Force 2. The Grand Jury reports that included Training Policies--Santa Clara County numbered findings and recommendations Departments and Municipalities received clearer responses. Therefore, The report contained four numbered future Grand Juries are encouraged to
• R12
  Review of Santa Clara County 4. The Grand Jury report should clearly Audited Financial Reports state when a response is not necessary to No findings or recommendations were save time and effort by both the Grand identified in the report. A conclusion Jury and the affected agency. statement was included in the report. 5. Responses to two reports, San Jose’s
• R13
  Evaluation of Responses to the Use of the Redevelopment Agency’s 1999-2000 Civil Grand Jury Final 20% Low-Moderate Income Housing Report Fund and Inspection of the Men’s Work 5 Furlough Program, indicated that there was a need to further evaluate or analyze the recommendation. The penal code states that the timeframe to complete the analysis should not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury Final Report.