Score: -5
(0/0/5)
San Joaquin County Grand Jury
• 2011-2012
San Joaquin County Grand Jury Review and Investigation of Responses to the
⚠️ 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
F2
because F2 is untrue. While it is agreed that, at the time when the Grand Jury initially examined the Applicant’s file, certain items were missing from Applicant’s file, subsequently the Authority provided both pertinent documents and witnesses to confirm all necessary information. The absence of the pertinent documents at the time of the Grand Jury’s investigation may have been caused by misfiling. Or, the missing material may have been caused by unauthorized tampering by employees and/or ex-employees whose design was to remain anonymous and then conspire to complain to others, including the Grand Jury. If the Grand Jury had asked the Authority, we would have advised that the bank statements mentioned in the Grand Jury’s report were for the purpose of asset verification, not income verification. Income was appropriately verified with workplace pay stubs, all done in accordance with HUD regulation. Suffice it to say that the issue of ‘income’ was not then, nor now, an issue. Additionally the Grand Jury inaccurately summarizes the facts surrounding the processing time for the Applicant in question. Specifically, the Report discusses the sixty (60) applicants they ‘sampled’ from the ‘pull’ which took place from the November, 2010, ‘waiting list.’ In fact, there were three hundred (300) applicants taken from the November 2010 ‘pull’. Of the 300 applicants scheduled for interviews approximately 130 attended their appointment. Of these 130, only sixty-four (64) were determined to be ‘eligible’ for the program. Their application information, including any preferences, were then verified before issuance of vouchers. The Applicant was processed in the middle of the pack – there was no preference in the processing. Rather, the Authority agrees that the Grand Jury found no explicit or implicit evidence that the Applicant was not processed according to HUD regulations. The Grand Jury learned that the Complainant, as well as 299 other applicants, were accidently ‘pulled’ in August of 2010. This accidental pulling occurred months before the matter involving the subject relative Applicant. In short, these 300 applicants were, in error, given additional preference points. Of course, this error was remedied before any vouchers were issued and letters were sent to all, including the Complainant. It is understandable that the Complainant would have wanted to keep the extra preference points that had been assigned – as would the other 299 applicants who were accidently pulled – but the HUD regulations would prohibit such action. The Authority is acutely aware of the expectation of those seeking housing assistance and we regret any inconvenience caused to the unknown Complainant, but here the Authority complied with HUD regulations and the Authority’s policy and procedures when it determined eligibility. The Board of Commissioners is satisfied that the employee had no knowledge of an application being made by an adult family relative.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the Housing Authority’s response to the 2011-2012 Finding F2 and Recommendation R2.1 for clarification. The Grand Jury witnessed the computer program’s tracking system including a data entry example and security access characteristics for staff. No further action required. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.2 – All employees attend annual training for “Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct Policy”. Agency Response: “As required under current regulations Authority employees have and will continue to attend periodic training, budget permitting, that covers the subject of the Privacy Act, the Enterprise Income Verification regulations, HUD regulations and all related subject. In addition, every employee already executes the Authority’s own Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct agreeing to follow all applicable local, state and federal laws as a condition to employment.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed staff training requirements and documentation of training completion. The Housing Authority is commended for its organization of these records. No further action required. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F3: The Housing Authority has been lax in file room security and fire protection/prevention. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R3 – Continue with anticipated security improvement and fire prevention improvements. Agency Response to Finding F3 and Recommendation R3: “The Authority disagrees with F3 but agrees to continue to improve its security and fire prevention but only, again, as budget allows. As noted in the Report, the Authority, now having the ability under its budget to update security measures and prevent file tampering, has completed several security upgrades to the Administrative Offices and the file room that include more restrictive access, key code restricted entry to file rooms and Administrative offices, surveillance cameras, the addition of a confidential file clerk, and implementation of a new and more restrictive procedure for file checkout and return. The Authority wants to also correct any suggestion that the Authority’s file room and Administrative Offices do not meet all local building codes and HUD requirements for storage, when the buildings meet or exceed all building codes and the digital file storage is maintained as required by HUD. As stated above, in the course of the Grand Jury’s investigation, the Authority was concurrently investigating and believe that at least one applicant file may have been accessed inappropriately by staff not related to the Applicant. This matter will be investigated to determine if any regulations were violated.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury verified improvements in security. During a site visit, the Grand Jury observed upgraded security controls and noted that a designated employee was assigned to protect access to Housing Authority documents in the file room. No further action required. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F4: The Housing Authority’s published policy covering family members of employees who apply for vouchers under the HCVP is in need of augmentation to establish a cross reference to employee disclosure. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R4 – Amend the pre-application to provide for voluntary self-disclosure of relationship by applicants of relatives employed by the Housing Authority. Agency Response: “The Authority disagrees with F4 and R4 as the current law does not require applicants to ‘voluntary self-disclosure.’ However, the Authority can, and has, amended its Personnel Policy to require its employees to advise of any relationship with applicants once they become aware of the application. In short, the duty to disclose will be placed where the Authority has the most control, upon the current Authority’s employees.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed a complete package of the Housing Authority’s Personnel Policies including all forms, including self-disclosure, required for employees. The updated Pre-Application forms and policies were included in this package and they met the requirements of the recommendation. No further action is required. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F5: Complaint procedures are not clearly defined and are not posted. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R5 – Complaint procedures should be clearly defined and posted in a prominent location if requested by applicants. Agency Response to Finding F5 and Recommendation R5: “The Authority disagrees with this F5 and R5 as these procedures are both posted. All applicants receive instructions in their applications packet and during any subsequent evaluation on how to complain and appeal any adverse decision. However, the Authority agrees to post complaint procedures in additional locations.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed complaint procedures that are part of the Housing Voucher application package and are also located on the Housing Authority’s web site. No further action is required. Conclusion The 2012-2013 Grand Jury determined that there was sufficient evidence and documentation provided to satisfy the Housing Authority met all of the recommendations made by the 2011- 2012 Grand Jury. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury commends the Housing Authority for their organization of materials that are required for employees and applicants. 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 the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 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). San Joaquin County Grand Jury Follow-up Report to the 2011-2012 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0311 San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District Preface This report describes the summary from the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report including the background of their investigation. Described herein are the methods the 2012-2013 Grand Jury used to determine if the agency investigated responded appropriately to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury’s recommendations. The 2011-2012 Grand Jury findings and recommendations as well as the agency’s responses are listed in this report and is followed by the 2012-2013 Grand Jury’s follow-up results. The legal advisor for the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District submitted the initial response to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report. A copy of the original agency response may be located on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury web-site under Previous Grand Jury Rosters and Reports at http://www.stocktoncourt.org/grandjury/2011-2012.htm. Summary The 2011-2012 Grand Jury investigated the San Joaquin Mosquito and Vector Control District (District) due to a complaint alleging verbal sexual harassment, hostile work environment, management retaliation and nepotism. During the investigation, other issues were alleged relating to the secret and illegal spraying of a toxic chemical in the mosquito fish ponds and failure to report the spraying to the proper reporting agencies. Background The San Joaquin Mosquito and Vector Control District is an independent special district that provides many vital programs in the county. The District manages the mosquito population levels that help reduce the spread of viruses to humans and animals. According to the California Health and Safety Code Section 2002(K), Vector means any insect or animal capable of transmitting the causative agent of human disease or capable of producing human discomfort or injury including, but not limited to, mosquitoes, flies, mites, ticks, other arthropods, rodents and other vertebrates. The governing body of the District is composed of 11 Board of Trustee members; seven members are appointed by and represent each incorporated city in the county and four members are appointed by the County Board of Supervisor’s and represent the county at large. The Board employs a manager who oversees program functions, hires and supervises staff. The major funding sources to the District are derived from property taxes and assessments. On- going real estate foreclosures have resulted in an increased workload of neglected properties for the District to maintain. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report and the files regarding this investigation, conducted interviews, requested additional information and conducted a site visit to determine if the District responded appropriately to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury recommendations. Findings/Recommendations/Responses 2012-2013 Grand Jury Results 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F1: Sexual harassment had been committed in the form of rude, vulgar, and lewd remarks. These remarks were made on several occasions in the presence of several employees and met the criteria as specified in the District Policy #2210. Agency response: “The District disagrees in part with this finding. Management received a report that an employee had told lewd jokes to other employees. The reporting person was not present at the time of the alleged incident and the incident was reported to have occurred well before the report was made. No one present at the alleged incident ever reported it or complained to management. Because no complaint was ever made by those present, the alleged incident, if it did in fact occur, does not appear to have risen to the level of creating an ‘intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment’. However, such behavior, regardless of whether it created a hostile working environment, is in violation of Policy No. 2210 and the alleged violator was counseled not to engage in such behavior. Management did report to the Grand Jury a separate incident involving inappropriate banter. Those involved were counseled and to management’s knowledge no further instances have occurred.” 2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R1 – Review the effectiveness of the District’s current Sexual Harassment Policy and take appropriate steps to improve the training. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R2 – The District’s annual prevention of Sexual Harassment training be given as a separate program. Agency response to Recommendations R1 and R2: “Management considers the current Sexual Harassment Policy to be sufficient. Regarding training, the District complies with California law by sending all employees in a supervisorial role to attend 2 hours of Sexual Harassment Training on a biennial basis and provides annual in-house training to each employee on Harassment in the Workplace, which includes Sexual Harassment Prevention and Sexual Discrimination. Management is aware of one actual case of inappropriate sexual bantering and one reported case of inappropriate sexual comments and jokes over a period of 20 years. Currently management trains its employees on Sexual Harassment Prevention training in conjunction with other mandated safety/policy training subjects. Management will provide its next scheduled Sexual Harassment Prevention training as a stand-alone program.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the District’s current sexual harassment training program and reviewed documentation indicating its training program is approved by an organization specializing in sexual harassment training. The District provided information documenting their training program. The Grand Jury also reviewed documentation showing the District’s stand-alone training program had been completed, who attended and who conducted the training. The Grand Jury requires no further action. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F2: The Grand Jury found no evidence to support a claim of retaliation against the complaining employee. Agency response: “The District agrees with the finding.” 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F3: The Nepotism Policy #2230 applies to new applicants only. Agency response: “The District agrees with the finding.” 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F4: There was no evidence of criminal violations occurring based on the review by the District Attorney’s Office. Agency response: “The District agrees with the finding.” Conclusion The 2012-2013 Grand Jury determined there was sufficient evidence and documentation confirming that the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District met all of the
Recommendations 1
-
R12.1 above.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the police officers’ Management of Assaultive Behavior training records. The SUSD PD also provided a training log documenting MAB training completion. These documents met the requirements of the recommendation. The 2012- 2013 Grand Jury requires no further action. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F2: The complainants were not notified of the results of their complaint according to the sixty (60) day timeline set forth in the SUSD Board policies. Agency Response: “The District agrees with this finding. The District assumes this finding references a complaint filed in March 2010. The independent investigator experienced difficulties scheduling interviews with pertinent witnesses, and there was a large number of parties involved.” 2011/2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R2 – Follow District policy pertaining to the filling of complaints and adhere to the sixty (60) day timeline. Agency Response: “This recommendation requires further analysis to be completed on or before December 17, 2012. Currently, the District cannot implement this recommendation in every case. The District follows this timeline to the best of the District’s resources and ability. Where investigations involve a number of individuals or a number of issues, it is at times difficult to abide by the 60-day timeline set forth in policy. The 60-day timeline is aspirational and not legally mandated. However, the District strives to expeditiously resolve complaints. As such, the District will review its complaint policies and determine if timelines should be extended. Beyond District policy, it should be noted the Government Code allows up to one year for investigations of complaints lodged against police officer, which are often complex and time- consuming. The District is dedicated to resolving complaints as quickly as possible.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the amended District policy and regulation (BP/AR 1312.3) regarding the 60-day timeline response for complaints. The Grand Jury determined that the amended policy and regulation met the recommendation. No further action is required. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F3: Neither proof of insurance nor a fingerprint clearance through DOJ could be provided. There is also no proof of a TB test for the pilot as required by Board Policy and state law. Agency Response: “The District agrees with this finding. The District believes that the pilot in question was fingerprinted and passed a background clearance. However, California Penal Code Section 11105.2(d) requires agencies to notify the California Department of Justice when the fingerprinted person will no longer be connected with the school district. At the time a person’s association with the school district ends, the SUSD Police Department destroys all fingerprinting and criminal history records relating to that individual. The helicopter last flew in connection with SUSD on October 16, 2009. Because the helicopter program was over and the volunteer would no longer be associated with the Stockton Unified School District, records were likely destroyed at that time. The individual in question was never alone with students. He was surrounded by staff, administrators, police officers, Board members and others while at Nightingale Elementary. An SUSD police officer accompanied him during the Make-a-Wish type helicopter ride with one student. He had no other student contact. It is not the District’s practice to require TB testing for one-time presenters/visitors at our schools. Examples include community members who participate in the Rotary Read-in each year, or inspirational speakers at school assemblies. The pilot/volunteer had contact with students once and only for a limited period of time.” 2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R3 – Follow Board Policy §3.35 and California Health & Safety Code §121545 (mandatory TB test). Agency Response: “This recommendation requires further analysis. First, Administrative Policy 3.35 applies solely to parent volunteers and provides in pertinent part that ‘a parent/guardian needs to do the following:...Provide Tuberculosis clearance (negative TB skin test, or written clearance from physician).’ Second, H&S Code §121545, although cited in Administrative Policy 3.35, appears to apply only to private schools. Nonetheless, the District does comply with H&S Code §121545, which provides in part, ‘At the discretion of the governing authority of a private school, this section shall not apply to volunteers whose functions do not necessitate frequent or prolonged contact with pupils.’ Further, Education Code §49406 applies to public school employers. It provides also in part, ‘(f) At the discretion of the governing board, this section shall not apply to those employees not requiring certification qualifications who are employed for any period of time less than a school year whose functions do not require frequent or prolonged contact with pupils.’ As such, not all visitors to school campuses are required to have a TB test. For instance, President Bush visited Bush Elementary School, Governor Brown visited Van Buren Elementary school, parents attend school performances or sporting events and each year we have numerous visitors who participate in the annual Read-In without being subject to a TB test. The District will review its current policy and determine if a more stringent policy for TB testing should be adopted. The District shall provide notification to the Grand Jury upon review of the District policy on or before December 17, 2012.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the amended policy and regulation (BP/AR 1240) regarding tuberculosis testing. The Grand Jury determined that the amended policy and regulation met the recommendation. No further action is required. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F4: Evaluations have not been done on an annual basis for each employee. Agency Response: “The District agrees with this finding. However, as of July 31, 2012, all current Police Department employees were evaluated for the 2011-2012 school year.” 2011/2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R4 – Prepare timely evaluations in accordance with the Department Policy Manual. Agency Response: “This recommendation has been implemented. Evaluations are up to date for all Police Department employees. Evaluations will be completed in a timely manner in the future. Specifically, the Police Department will follow the schedule published by SUSD Human Resources for classified employees.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed documentation that verified evaluations were up to date and also reviewed the evaluation schedule. The Grand Jury is satisfied with the results and requires no further action. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F5: The small number of officers handling calls for service makes it very difficult to keep up with the report demand. Agency Response: “The District agrees with this finding. The officers of the Stockton Unified School District Police Department average over 300 reports per year per officer. Many of the cases are complex and require extensive time to investigate and to write up. This report writing burden is far heavier than the average for most other police departments. Despite the volume of reports, many of the officers complete reports in a timely manner. To alleviate this concern, the District is taking the following steps: The Board authorized the hiring of two additional police officers who were sworn in on July 11, 2012 SUSD PD has developed a simplified report form for minor cases that will take less time for officers to fill out (Exhibit C). The District has developed new guidelines for reports that can be completed by school site administrators rather than police officers.” 2011/2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R5 – Reassess the report taking procedure to find an alternative method for documentation of incidents, including the feasibility of electronic transmissions. Agency Response: “The District is in process of implementing this recommendation. The Police Department command staff is conducting an analysis of the current report writing system with the goal of reducing the report writing burden through process simplification. Supervisors are actively coaching officers who write reports with unnecessary information to streamline and shorten the time spent writing reports. The Police Department deployed a mobile report writing system in March 2011. Laptops were put in the patrol cars with a product called ARMS Mobile Report Writing, which allows for electronic submissions of all but two sections of a report. The vendor, End2End, Inc., has assured us that all areas will be available to ARMS mobile report writers in an upgrade scheduled for October 2012. This new technology, as well as the steps set forth in the response to Finding 5, will improve the report concerns.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury conducted a site visit to observe this new technology in use. The ARMS Mobile Report Writing technology was demonstrated to the Grand Jury in a classroom setting followed by a visit to an actual police vehicle that contained the laptop in a SUSD PD car. The Grand Jury did not see the ARMS Mobile Report Writing technology in use on patrol but is satisfied with the classroom demonstration. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury requires no further action. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F6: There is a perception of bias for the Lieutenant to investigate internal affairs complaints. Agency Response: “The District agrees that there are some individuals who believe bias does exist. These claims have been asserted for several years, and have been investigated both internally and externally by independent consultants on both the local and national level. All of these investigations came to the same conclusion: there is no credible evidence of bias. The District and the SUSD Police Department are committed to providing fair and unbiased investigations of all complaints. All sustained complaints are reviewed by the Chief of Police, independent legal counsel and the Human Resources Department. Previous charges of bias, as well as this Grand Jury Report, failed to substantiate any bias or discrimination. Nonetheless, the Police Department uses and will continue to use independent consultants for police internal affairs investigations when it is deemed appropriate. The decision of the appropriate investigator will be made by the Chief of Police in consultation with the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and District legal staff.” 2011/2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R6 – Establish Department Policy to use outside investigators to avoid any perception of bias. Agency Response: “The District will partially implement this recommendation within the next three months and forward the new policy to the Grand Jury. The District has historically utilized both internal and external investigators depending on the facts of each matter. Each investigation conducted by an outside investigator places an additional financial strain on the District. A determination must be carefully made on a case-by-case basis as to whether that additional cost is justified and necessary. The adopted policy will maintain this flexibility. The decision of the appropriate investigator will be made by the Chief of Police in consultation with the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and the District legal counsel.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the amended policy and determined that it met the 2011-2012 Grand Jury’s recommendation. No further is action required.
Conclusions 8
-
CL1The 2012-2013 Grand Jury determined that there was sufficient evidence provided to prove the Stockton Unified School District Police Department met all of the recommendations made by the 2011-2012 Grand Jury. 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 the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 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). San Joaquin County Grand Jury Follow-up Report to the 2011-2012 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0211 Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin Preface This report describes the summary from the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report including the background of their investigation. Described herein are the methods the 2012-2013 Grand Jury used to determine if the agency investigated responded appropriately to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury's recommendations. The 2011-2012 Grand Jury's findings and recommendations, as well as the agency's responses, are listed in this report and are followed by the 2012-2013 Grand Jury's follow-up results. The Chairperson of the Board of Commissioners for the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin submitted the response to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report. A copy of the original agency response may be located on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury web-site under Previous Grand Jury Rosters and Reports at http://www.stocktoncourt.org/grandjury/2011- 2012.htm. Summary The 2011-2012 Grand Jury investigated a citizen complaint alleging certain irregularities in the administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Program including preferential treatment of an employee's family member, now housed under the voucher program. The complaint alleged insufficient clarification in correspondence, discrimination and staff being nonresponsive to inquires. During the investigation, the 2011-2012 Grand Jury had concerns with the security of confidential files and intimidation of witnesses who testified.
-
CL2The 2012-2013 Grand Jury determined that there was sufficient evidence and documentation provided to satisfy the Housing Authority met all of the recommendations made by the 2011- 2012 Grand Jury. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury commends the Housing Authority for their organization of materials that are required for employees and applicants. 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 the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 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). San Joaquin County Grand Jury Follow-up Report to the 2011-2012 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0311 San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District Preface This report describes the summary from the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report including the background of their investigation. Described herein are the methods the 2012-2013 Grand Jury used to determine if the agency investigated responded appropriately to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury's recommendations. The 2011-2012 Grand Jury findings and recommendations as well as the agency's responses are listed in this report and is followed by the 2012-2013 Grand Jury's follow-up results. The legal advisor for the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District submitted the initial response to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report. A copy of the original agency response may be located on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury web-site under Previous Grand Jury Rosters and Reports at http://www.stocktoncourt.org/grandjury/2011-2012.htm. Summary The 2011-2012 Grand Jury investigated the San Joaquin Mosquito and Vector Control District (District) due to a complaint alleging verbal sexual harassment, hostile work environment, management retaliation and nepotism. During the investigation, other issues were alleged relating to the secret and illegal spraying of a toxic chemical in the mosquito fish ponds and failure to report the spraying to the proper reporting agencies.
-
CL3The 2012-2013 Grand Jury determined there was sufficient evidence and documentation confirming that the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District met all of the recommendations made by the 2011-2012 Grand Jury. 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 the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 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). San Joaquin County Grand Jury Follow-up Report to the 2011-2012 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0411 Department of Human Services – Child Welfare Service Preface This report describes the summary from the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report including the background of its investigation. Described herein are the methods the 2012-2013 Grand Jury used to determine if the agency investigated responded appropriately to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury's recommendations. The 2011-2012 Grand Jury findings and recommendations as well as the agency's responses are listed in this report and are followed by the 2012-2013 Grand Jury's follow-up results. The Chairman of the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors submitted the response to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report. A copy of the original agency response may be located on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury web-site under Previous Grand Jury Rosters and Reports at http://www.stocktoncourt.org/grandjury/2011-2012.htm.
-
CL4The 2012-2013 Grand Jury determined there was sufficient evidence and documentation provided by the Department of Human Services/Child Welfare Services to comply with all of the recommendations made by the 2011-2012 Grand Jury. 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 the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 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). San Joaquin County Grand Jury Follow-up Report to the 2011-2012 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0511 North San Joaquin Water Conservation District Preface This report describes the summary from the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report, including the background of its investigation. Described herein are the methods the 2012-2013 Grand Jury used to determine if the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District responded appropriately to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury's recommendations. The 2011-2012 Grand Jury findings and recommendations, as well as the agency's responses, are listed in this report and are followed by the 2012-2013 Grand Jury's follow-up results. The General Counsel for the North San Joaquin County Water Conservation District submitted the response to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report on July 31, 2012. A copy of the original agency response may be located on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury web-site under Previous Grand Jury Rosters and Reports at http://www.stocktoncourt.org/grandjury/2011-2012.htm.
-
CL5The 2012-2013 Grand Jury determined that evidence verifies the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District Board of Directors met all but two of the recommendations made by the 2011-2012 Grand Jury. After several requests from the Grand Jury, the Board of Directors has not provided documentation to prove two of its members have completed mandatory Ethics and Brown Act training. The General Counsel for the Board of Directors stated in his response letter to the Grand Jury's third request that he would provide the training certificates as soon as he receives them. Given a year to comply, the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District Board of Directors have not provided documentation that the required Ethics and Brown Act training has been completed. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury is concerned that the District's General Counsel has not taken action to compel the remaining two Board members to comply with mandatory State law. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury recommends that the District fully comply with the law and complete the Brown Act and Ethics training and provide documentation of attendance for all Board members. 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 the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 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 San Joaquin County Superior Court by (within 90 days). Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. David P. Warner, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 222 E. Weber Ave., Room 303 Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at grandjury@sjcourts.org San Joaquin County Grand Jury Follow-up Report to the 2010-2011 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report and 2011-2012 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0510 French Camp/McKinley Fire District Preface The 2010-2011 Grand Jury conducted an investigation of the French Camp/McKinley Fire District. The 2011-2012 Grand Jury followed-up with the findings and recommendations made by the 2010-2011 Grand Jury and was satisfied with all of the results except for one. The 2011- 2012 Grand Jury referred this one incomplete recommendation to the 2012-2013 Grand Jury for follow-up. This report describes the summary from the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report which includes the background of the investigation. Described herein are the methods the 2012-2013 Grand Jury used to determine if the French Camp/McKinley Fire District responded appropriately to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury's recommendations in its Final Report. Those findings and recommendations, followed by results from the 2012-2013 Grand Jury investigation and site visit are listed in this report. Summary The French Camp/McKinley Fire District (District) is a small fire district with a large geographic area as well as complex fire response responsibilities. A large part of the District encompasses the San Joaquin County Hospital, the San Joaquin County Jail and several of the Delta island properties. The 2010-2011 Grand Jury investigated a citizen complaint alleging misconduct within the District. The District Board initiated an investigation of the Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief. The Fire Chief was subsequently demoted from his position. During the course of the investigation, the Grand Jury received additional complaints alleging: unlawful audiotaping of a meeting, removal or destruction of personnel records and Brown Act violations. These complaints resulted in two Grand Jury recommendations that resulted in the need for the District to update its policies and procedures. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Reports, conducted interviews and site visits to determine if the District responded appropriately to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury recommendations that had not been completed as recommended by the 2011-2012 Grand Jury. Findings/Recommendations/ Responses 2012-2013 Grand Jury Results 2010-2011 Grand Jury Finding (Section 1.0): The Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief were not properly notified before being interrogated regarding the investigation. This is a direct violation of Government Code Section 3253. It was further determined that the removal of the Fire Chief from his position was also in violation of Government Code Section 3254. 2010-2011 Grand Jury Recommendation (Section 1.0): The Board must develop policies and procedures for issuing an investigation that do not violate government codes. Proper notification within the law must be observed. Agency Response: "The French Camp McKinley Fire District concurs with the finding. Since the initial investigation, there has been a change in the Fire District Board, and Administration. The Fire District is currently working on updating policies in regards to personnel investigations and the new Fire Chief is versed in personnel investigations and has received specialized training in conducting investigations." 2010-2011 Grand Jury Finding (Section 3.0): A meeting between a Board member, the Fire Chief and the Assistant Fire Chief was recorded by the Assistant Chief. Although the Grand Jury could not find any law which requires notification of recording, best practices would dictate that all present for the meeting be notified. The recording device being in plain sight does not constitute notification. 2010-2011 Grand Jury Recommendation (Section 3.0): Develop a policy mandating notification of recording to all participants in meetings. Agency Response: "The French Camp/McKinley Fire District concurs with your finding. We are currently developing a policy in regards to recording of meetings." The 2012-2013 Grand Jury conducted interviews and site visits to determine the progress on the development and implementation of the District's new policy and procedures manual. The policy and procedures manual was developed over several months and includes all aspects of the District's operations. The manual was approved at a December 2012 Board meeting, has been implemented and includes changes that meet the 2010-2011 Grand Jury recommendations. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury requires no further action.
-
CL6The 2012-2013 Grand Jury determined that there was sufficient evidence provided by the French Camp/McKinley Fire District to fulfill the recommendations made by the 2010-2011 Grand Jury. 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 the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 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). San Joaquin County Grand Jury Follow-up Report to the 2011-2012 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Law and Justice Report Deuel Vocational Institute Preface This report describes the summary from the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report including the background of its investigation and tour. Described herein are the methods the 2012-2013 Grand Jury used to determine if Deuel Vocation Institution (DVI) responded to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury's recommendations. Each 2011-2012 Grand Jury finding and recommendation, followed by results from the 2012-2013 Grand Jury tour, is listed in this report. The Grand Jury is required to tour and inspect state prisons that are located within San Joaquin County pursuant to California Penal Code 919 (b). Prisons are not required to respond to grand jury recommendations.
-
CL7The 2012-2013 Grand Jury determined that there was sufficient evidence provided to satisfy the Grand Jury that Deuel Vocational Institution met all of the recommendations provided by the 2011-2012 Grand Jury. 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 the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 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). San Joaquin County Grand Jury Follow-up Report to the 2011-2012 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Law and Justice Report Department of Juvenile Justice Preface This report describes the summary from the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report including the background of its investigation and tour. Described herein are the methods the 2012-2013 Grand Jury used to determine if the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) responded to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury's recommendations. Each 2011-2012 Grand Jury finding and recommendation is followed by the results from the 2012-2013 Grand Jury tour. The DJJ facilities are managed by the State of California and grand juries have no jurisdiction over these facilities. Nonetheless, grand juries are required to tour and inspect state correctional facilities that reside within their county, pursuant to California Penal Code Section 919 (b). Also, these state correctional facilities are not required to respond to grand jury recommendations. Summary The 2011-2012 Grand Jury toured the California Youth Authority's Stockton campus that consists of two detention facilities which houses about 550 youths. These two facilities are: O. H. Close Youth Correctional Facility, and N. A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility. N. A. Chaderjian houses male youths from 18 to 25 years of age in six housing units. Each unit is comprised of 12 halls containing individual cells. These halls are used to separate the youths into different risk levels, such as crimes of violence and sexual offenses. Those with emotional and mental issues are evaluated and receive care from the mental health professionals on the staff. High school and community college programs are offered along with vocational training in an industrial environment. The O. H. Close facility houses youths under the age of 18. They are housed in dormitory style units. Schooling is mandatory for all youths under 18; a fully accredited high school is operated at the site. A program for those wishing to leave the gang lifestyle is offered. Personnel observed and interviewed were professional and appeared to be dedicated to helping the youths move forward in life. Both facilities were clean and the grounds were in order.
-
CL8The 2012-2013 Grand Jury has determined there was sufficient evidence provided by the Department of Juvenile Justice to meet the recommendation requested by the 2011-2012 Grand Jury. 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 the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 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).
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.