Stanislaus County Grand Jury
• 2001-2002
Reason for Investigation The 2001-2002 Civil Grand Jury (cgj) initiated an investigation regarding the following
⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 82 findings
F1
The screening process for Grand Jury applicants is based on random selection, independent applications and recommendations by public officials in Stanislaus County. All persons interested in serving on the Grand Jury may return an application form. The Presiding Judge interviews all applicants who meet the 8 minimum statutory requirements. The Presiding Judge then chooses thirty (30) applicants from these interviews who participate in the final step; a random lottery where nineteen (19) names are drawn as the new jurors and four (4) additional names are drawn to serve as alternates. Penal Code Section 912 allows the Presiding Judge to select the Foreperson.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Grand Jury=s nineteen (19) member panel changes significantly every year. The staff person is the only constant in the office.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The GJ staff person has written and subsequently updated the Stanislaus County Grand Jury Handbook. The original 2000-2001 Grand Jury Handbook gave staff person the title of Grand Jury Administrator whose role is described as an advisor.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The GJ staff person prepared and refined the Grand Jury Handbook over the years based on personal experience with the Grand Jury and researching other Grand Jury Handbooks throughout the state.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The 2000-2001 Grand Jury Foreperson testifed that the full panel did not Areview the handbook. We accepted it for what it was and used it the best we could.@
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F6
County Counsel testified to having reviewed the Grand Jury Handbook written by the Grand Jury staff person, reporting it was reviewed by Deputy County Counsel as well. County Counsel does not recall the section describing the staff person attending full body meetings.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
County Counsel then testified to not reviewing the Grand Jury Handbook, but signed that he had.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
A 2000-2001 former grand juror testified, that while in a full panel meeting, he remarked it was inappropriate for the GJ staff person to write the handbook. Full panel disagreed and voted to keep the handbook Aas is@.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
The GJ staff person=s duties are to assist the grand jury in its day to day business including: retrieving and opening correspondence, scheduling appointments at the direction of the committees, transcribing testimony, and compiling the agenda and minutes of the meetings as directed by the foreperson and/or the grand juror designated as the recording secretary.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The GJ staff person testified her formal training in Grand Jury secretarial duties was non-existent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
In accordance with Penal Code Section 916, future Civil Grand Juries must receive training on statutory grand jury procedures. This should be done prior to being empaneled.
F11
A 2000-2001 Grand Juror testifies the Foreperson had no active role in distributing cases to her as a committee chair, nor did he interact with her at any time as a member or a chair. All interaction was with the GJ staff person.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury has taken the following corrective actions. The GJ staff person: a. no longer has input in selection of committee members and chairs. b. has been removed from full panel meetings. c. no longer edits handbook without the direction of the Grand Jury. d. no longer prepares agendas and minutes without the direction of the Foreperson or Recording Secretary.
R3
Future Grand Juries must understand they alone have full authority to make decisions concernin
R5
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F12
The GJ staff person was involved in the holdover process.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
GJ staff person asked a 1999-2000 Grand Juror to hold over. 9
No recommendations for this finding
F14
A 1999-2000 holdover juror testified to being asked by the GJ staff person to become committee chairman of a new case prior to the empaneling of the next jury. The GJ staff person denied this.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The 2000-2001 Foreperson testified the GJ staff person participated and gave input during committee and committee chair selections.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury has taken the following corrective actions. The GJ staff person: a. no longer has input in selection of committee members and chairs. b. has been removed from full panel meetings. c. no longer edits handbook without the direction of the Grand Jury. d. no longer prepares agendas and minutes without the direction of the Foreperson or Recording Secretary.
R3
Future Grand Juries must understand they alone have full authority to make decisions concernin
R5
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F16
Five (5) 2000-2001 Grand Jurors recall GJ staff person having particpated in the choosing of committees and chairs.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury has taken the following corrective actions. The GJ staff person: a. no longer has input in selection of committee members and chairs. b. has been removed from full panel meetings. c. no longer edits handbook without the direction of the Grand Jury. d. no longer prepares agendas and minutes without the direction of the Foreperson or Recording Secretary.
R3
Future Grand Juries must understand they alone have full authority to make decisions concernin
R5
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F17
The GJ staff person was responsible for in-service grand jury training.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
The Court Administrator testified he was asked by the GJ staff person if she could sit in during grand jury full panel meetings and was told ANo@.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
At the request of the 1999-2000 Grand Jury, GJ staff person asked and received permission from the then Presiding Judge to attend full panel meetings as a resource person only.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
Eight (8) prior Grand Jurors testified the GJ staff person was present during deliberations and voting in full panel meetings, functioned as the recording secretary, and prepared and distributed the agenda and minutes.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury has taken the following corrective actions. The GJ staff person: a. no longer has input in selection of committee members and chairs. b. has been removed from full panel meetings. c. no longer edits handbook without the direction of the Grand Jury. d. no longer prepares agendas and minutes without the direction of the Foreperson or Recording Secretary.
R3
Future Grand Juries must understand they alone have full authority to make decisions concernin
R4
The section of the Grand Jury Handbook pertaining to GJ staff person should be edited to read: The
R5
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F21
GJ staff person attendance in full body meetings was later brought to County Counsel=s attention. His office sent a letter recommending this section be stricken from the Handbook.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The section of the Grand Jury Handbook pertaining to GJ staff person should be edited to read: The
F22
A 2000-2001 Grand Juror testified the GJ staff person delayed him in making a presentation before the full panel regarding report writing procedures.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury has taken the following corrective actions. The GJ staff person: a. no longer has input in selection of committee members and chairs. b. has been removed from full panel meetings. c. no longer edits handbook without the direction of the Grand Jury. d. no longer prepares agendas and minutes without the direction of the Foreperson or Recording Secretary.
R3
Future Grand Juries must understand they alone have full authority to make decisions concernin
R5
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F23
The 2000-2001 Foreperson testified the GJ staff person tried to dissuade him from allowing a juror to address the full panel regarding Grand Jury procedures.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury has taken the following corrective actions. The GJ staff person: a. no longer has input in selection of committee members and chairs. b. has been removed from full panel meetings. c. no longer edits handbook without the direction of the Grand Jury. d. no longer prepares agendas and minutes without the direction of the Foreperson or Recording Secretary.
R3
Future Grand Juries must understand they alone have full authority to make decisions concernin
R5
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F24
The GJ staff person was not questioned regarding the issues in #23 and #24 above.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
GJ staff person prompted County Counsel to write a letter to the Grand Jury Foreperson insisting that the current methodology viewing a finding as a fact was to be kept intact.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The 2002-2003 CGJ should conduct a study of the final report writing methodology Aa fin COMPLAINT #2: A Letter of Complaint from a local elected official asking:
F26
Berkeley graduate student interviewed GJ staff person and testified that GJ staff person told him she: a. attended full panel meetings b. controlled agendas for upcoming meetings c. wrote the Grand Jury Handbook
Related Recommendations (4)
R1
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury has taken the following corrective actions. The GJ staff person: a. no longer has input in selection of committee members and chairs. b. has been removed from full panel meetings. c. no longer edits handbook without the direction of the Grand Jury. d. no longer prepares agendas and minutes without the direction of the Foreperson or Recording Secretary.
R3
Future Grand Juries must understand they alone have full authority to make decisions concernin
R4
The section of the Grand Jury Handbook pertaining to GJ staff person should be edited to read: The
R5
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F27
Berkeley graduate student testified GJ staff person showed him a confidential document from case file 01-10-C.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F28
In testimony, GJ staff person denied sharing a confidential document, and remembers only discussing the selection process and the final report with the Berkeley graduate student. 10
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F29
GJ staff person then testified the confidential document might have been on her desk, and the student could have looked at it when she left the room.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F30
Court Administrator testified the Assistant DA gave the GJ staff person permission to use the title of Grand Jury Administrator. CONCLUSIONS The Civil Grand Jury concluded that:
No recommendations for this finding
F31
The 2000-2001 Grand Jury Foreperson testified that the Mayor=s letter was a privileged document and should not have been released.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F32
County Counsel testified to requesting and receiving a copy of Mayor=s letter as well as the Foreperson=s response from GJ staff person.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F33
County Counsel testified he should have asked the Foreperson rather than the GJ staff person for a copy of the Mayor=s letter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F34
County Counsel testified he agreed with the following statements in a Modesto Bee article dated November 20, 2001 in which he was quoted: a. The Mayor=s letter to the Grand Jury was not confidential and was subject to the Public Records Act because: (1) The Mayor=s letter was on City of Modesto letterhead. (2) The letter had been discussed in numerous public conversations and on the radio. b. He had not released a copy of the letter to a current BOS member.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F35
The Mayor testified that his letter was already printed in the Modesto Bee prior to his discussing it on a radio program. 16
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F36
The Mayor testified he called the Court Administrator and the DA to ask if his letter was confidential.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F37
County Counsel testified he called the BOS member suggesting the letter be removed from his website due to public controversy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F38
County Counsel testified in retrospect he wished he had not advised the Supervisor to place the letter on the website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F39
County Counsel testified to the following eight (8) points as the basis he used to declare the Modesto Mayor=s letter to the 2000-2001 Civil Grand Jury and response to the Modesto Mayor by 2000-2001 Foreperson of the Civil Grand Jury as public information A...under the Public Records Act@: a. AFirst and foremost, California Law is very clear under the public records law that release of documents should be released to the public.@ [sic] b. ASecond, these two letters were discussed publicly by the Mayor ... on a public news radio station.@ c. AThird, by Mayor... publically discussing the letters and their contents in public on at least two occasions, any claim of confidentiality was eliminated in my opinion.@ A...there=s a Government Code Section 6254.5 that talks about if the documents are made public, they lose their confidentiality.@ d. AFourth, Mayor ... further discussed these two letters in the public forum on July 9th during the Civil Grand Jury orientation, once again placing these letters in the public domain.@ e. AFive, to the best of my knowledge, no laws in the State of California that apply...or clearly state that these two letters were confidential. The letters were not a part of a Civil Grand Jury investigation.@ f. ASix, the fact that Mayor...used City of Modesto letterhead and that the document was signed as Mayor makes the May 16, 2001 letter to the Grand Jury foreperson a public document which is subject to release under the Public Records Act. The response that was sent back from the Grand Jury foreperson to Mayor ... at the city address at City Hall then became part of the public record and those documents were subject to disclosure under the public records law.@ g. ASeven, Mayor ... letter of May 16th, as indicated earlier, did not rise to the level of a Grand Jury complaint or Grand Jury matter where confidentiality attaches.@ h. ANumber Eight, and last, I applied the appropriate balancing test also that is prescribed under California law in favor of not having secret communication and having all documents that are not specifically exempted under the Public Records Act or other applicable laws made available to the public.@
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F40
The Presiding Judge, Superior Court suggested that the 2001-2002 Civil Grand Jury might wish to investigate the matter of confidentiality. CONCLUSIONS 17 The Civil Grand Jury concluded that:
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F41
After reviewing this document, CGJ Foreperson expressed his concern and annoyance to County Counsel that he (County Counsel) would make such a request of the GJ staff person without his knowledge or that of the Presiding Judge. 22
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F42
In testimony, County Counsel denied that he received calls from 2001-2002 CGJ Foreperson voicing concerns regarding the presentation of this statement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F43
In testimony, County Counsel then recalled the conversation, but could not remember if he told the Foreperson there was or was not going to be a presentation to the BOS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F44
CGJ Foreperson notified County Counsel that since the document contained confidential grand jury information he was opposed to the presentation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F45
CGJ Foreperson informed the Presiding Judge who subsequently notified County Counsel of his opposition to said document in writing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F46
County Counsel later informed CGJ Foreperson (by calling his home that weekend) the presentation had been reconsidered and would not occur.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F47
County Counsel testified that GJ staff person has the right as a citizen to appear before the BOS during public comment period and make any statements she wants.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F48
County Counsel then testified GJ staff person has no legal right to make public statements if it would reveal confidential Grand Jury business.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F49
CEO testified that he was aware that the GJ staff person wanted to make a presentation to the BOS regarding case file 01-10-C.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F50
Two (2) 2000-2001 CGJ members testified that GJ staff person released confidential information to them regarding the reopening of Grand Jury case 01-10- C.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F51
In testimony, GJ staff person denied sharing with anyone the fact that the 2001-2002 CGJ was reopening a 2000-2001 Grand Jury case.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F52
In testimony, 2000-2001 Grand Jury member admits calling a current Grand Jury member regarding the reopening of CGJ case 01-10-C.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F53
GJ staff person testified to sharing with prior grand jurors that she was under investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F54
Four (4) 2000-2001 Grand Jurors testified receiving information from the GJ staff person that she was being investigated by the 2001-2002 Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F55
A 2001-2002 Grand Juror committee chairperson states that the GJ staff person tried on three (3) occasions to dissuade him from continuing an investigation regarding a County agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F56
The GJ staff person questioned a 2001-2002 Grand Juror regarding the progress of an ongoing investigation which involved her.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F57
A former local radio talk show host testified to a conversation with GJ staff person during which she told him that everything she did was approved by County Counsel. 23
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F58
The 2001-2002 Foreperson stated that on January 23, 2002, GJ staff person questioned and challenged him after being instructed to retrieve previous grand jury records.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F59
In testimony, GJ staff person admitted questioning the Foreperson on January 23, 2002 regarding his need for requested Grand Jury records.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F60
Approximately two (2) hours after the request for records, County Counsel called Foreperson to inform him that GJ staff person had filed a hostile work environment complaint due to interference in performing her job.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F61
County Counsel testified GJ staff person forwarded a written hostile work environment complaint to the CEO.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F62
CEO testified that the GJ staff person met with Deputy Executive Officer and County Counsel regarding a hostile work environment complaint, but to his knowledge a formal complaint was not filed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F63
Deputy Executive Officer testified she was on leave from December 7, 2001 through January 22, 2002 when the purported complaint was made. She had no contact with the GJ staff person until early April 2002, and has never received a hostile work environment complaint from GJ staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F64
Court Administrator and GJ staff person had disagreements over the secretarial position; the staff person wanted the position to be considered full time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F65
The DA testified that the GJ staff person, a Confidential Assistant IV, informed him that she was working out of class and should be a management employee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F66
The most recent formal job classification study of the GJ staff position was conducted by Melson and Boggs on June 20, 1997.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F67
Melson and Boggs= report regarding the GJ staff position job classification study, dated June 24, 1997, concluded the position should remain as a Senior Executive Secretary (now known as Confidential Assistant IV).
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F68
GJ staff person was promoted to Manager II position on September 22, 2001. Job description has changed and now staff person is reporting to the Deputy Executive Officer for administrative purposes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F69
CEO testified Deputy Executive Officer is assigned to work with GJ staff person regarding issues of budget, personnel and administrative matters.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F70
CEO testified that GJ staff person was previously under direct supervision of the Presiding Judge and the Court Administrator.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F71
In testimony, GJ staff person reported as of January 2001, after a Legislative change was made to court employees, a letter by Presiding Judge told her she would remain a County employee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F72
GJ staff person testified she is aware she reports to the Grand Jury foreperson, the 24 Presiding Judge, and the Court Administrator.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F73
A prior Grand Juror testified that GJ staff person discussed being intimidated by the Court Administrator.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F74
A prior Grand Juror testified she spoke with DA and Superior Court Deputy Executive Officer regarding the GJ staff person not wanting to work for the Court Administrator.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F75
Court Administrator testified that CGJ needs the staff person reporting to CGJ Foreperson, not the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F76
GJ staff person testified she would prefer to report to the DA rather than the Court.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F77
The GJ staff person testified that she was informed by the Court Administrator to report directly to him instead of the Presiding Judge.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F78
County Counsel testified Athe Court and the Grand Jury made a mistake@ in its
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F79
County Counsel testified had he been present when the CEO was notified of the Grand Jury request for reassignment of the GJ staff person, he would have advised him against taking this action.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F80
After reviewing documents received from Auditor-Controller=s office, dated January 2001 through June 2001, regarding Civil and Criminal Grand Jury expenditures, the names of confidential witnesses were discovered on invoices.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
R8
All billings and invoices must be screened for redaction or masking of names or other confidential evidentiary information prior to their release.
F81
The 2001-2002 CGJ members discovered that archived CGJ records were stored in a poorly secured area shared with another Stanislaus County agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
The Court locate a secure CGJ storage facility for archived Grand Jury records. Access to this location should be controlled by the Presiding Judge.
F82
The 2001-2002 CGJ was not kept informed of, nor had input into, Grand Jury budget matters. CONCLUSIONS The CGJ concluded that:
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
Outgoing CGJs should have input into the preparation of the budget for the following year=s CGJ. RESPONSE REQUIRED per Section 933 [c] and 933.05 of the California Penal Code: Stanislaus County Chief Executive Office. Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors. 2002-2003 Civil Grand Jury This Final Report will be available for public review on the Civil Grand Jury website located at: http://www.co.stanislaus.ca.us/COURTS/courts/grandjury/index.html and at the Stanislaus County Main Library 1500 I Street, Modesto, California 95354. '933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury Recommendations [c] No 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 27 of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elective 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. All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. '933.05 Response to Grand Jury Recommendations--Content Requirements A. Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code requires that a responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding(s); or (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding(s). If this response is chosen, the respondent will specify that portion of the
Conclusions 42
-
CL1 Page 12GJ staff person had assumed the primary responsibility for in-service Grand Jury training.
-
CL2 Page 13GJ staff person exceeded authority in seeking advice and direction from outside counsel on behalf of the CGJ without their knowledge or permission.
-
CL3 Page 12The GJ staff person reviews all applications to ensure minimum statutory requirements are met. All applicants meeting these requirements are invited to interview with the Presiding Judge. No indications of improprieties were found.
-
CL4 Page 12GJ staff person assumed the responsibility for writing, editing and formatting the Grand Jury Handbook.
-
CL5 Page 12The GJ staff person cannot legally function as the recording secretary.
-
CL6 Page 12At the direction of the Grand Jury, staff opens all mail, prepares minutes and agendas of meetings, makes appointments and transcribes interviews, which are necessary and appropriate job functions.
-
CL7 Page 12The GJ staff person was involved in choosing committees and committee chairs.
-
CL8 Page 12Former Presiding Judge approved 1999-2000 Grand Jury=s request to allow staff person to attend full panel meetings as a resource. She was not to offer direction, advice or guidance.
-
CL9 Page 12The current Presiding Judge reaffirmed restrictions on the GJ staff attendance during discussions, deliberations, and voting.
-
CL10 Page 12An error was made by allowing GJ staff person to be present during full panel meetings in violation of Penal Code Section 939. This error resulted in allowing the GJ staff person to have access to the discussions, deliberations and voting of the CGJ.
-
CL11 Page 12The GJ staff person led the members of the 2001-2002 CGJ to believe she was the Recording Secretary.
-
CL12 Page 12In a memo to GJ staff person, County Counsel insisted that the correct methodology of report writing (a finding is a fact), should be retained. 12
-
CL13 Page 13The GJ staff person used improper discretion when handling confidential CGJ information.
-
CL14 Page 13GJ staff person did not receive adequate training or supervision regarding day-to-day grand jury secretarial duties.
-
CL15 Page 18The CGJ is the ACustodian of Records@ for all documents in its possession.
-
CL16 Page 18After the Mayor=s letter was received, discussed, deliberated and voted upon by the full panel of the CGJ, it became and still remains a confidential document. For the same reasons the CGJ response letter is also a confidential document.
-
CL17 Page 18Release of these letters was in violation of Penal Code Section 929 which requires the approval of the Presiding Judge to A...make available to the public part or all of the evidentiary material, findings, and other information relied upon by, or presented to, a Grand Jury for its final report in any Civil Grand Jury investigation.@
-
CL18 Page 18As this letter became a confidential Grand Jury document, it is not a public document as described by the Public Records Act.
-
CL19 Page 18Neither the Mayor=s letter nor the Grand Jury response should have been released to County Counsel by the GJ staff person.
-
CL20 Page 18County Counsel should not have released copies of the letters to the BOS member.
-
CL21 Page 18The BOS member should not have posted the letters on his personal website.
-
CL22 Page 18GJ staff deemed herself obligated to comply with request for release of letters by County Counsel, because it came from her Alegal advisor@. 18
-
CL23 Page 19GJ staff person assumed County Counsel was correct in declaring the letter a public document since he is an attorney.
-
CL24 Page 19County Counsel is not the Alegal advisor@ to the GJ staff person. County Counsel=s only obligation to the CGJ is to simply provide Alegal advice@ if requested by the Grand Jury pursuant to Penal Code Section 934(a).
-
CL25 Page 19The GJ staff person released confidential CGJ documents without required authority.
-
CL26 Page 19The 2000-2001 Grand Jury=s vote to exclude County Counsel as an advisor and from reviewing case 01-10-C was appropriate due to County Counsel=s recusal in the case.
-
CL27 Page 19County Counsel continued to act as legal advisor after recusing himself from the investigation.
-
CL28 Page 25After more than ten (10) years of dedicated service, the GJ staff person became synonymous with the CGJ.
-
CL29 Page 25GJ staff person positioned herself to influence and direct activities, procedures and investigatio
-
CL30 Page 25GJ staff person was the primary provider of resources and training of the CGJ.
-
CL31 Page 25County and Court administrations and previous CGJs allowed GJ staff person to exercise too much independence and control over Grand Juries and their proceedings.
-
CL32 Page 25GJ staff person compromised the independence of the CGJ by improperly assuming its duties and responsibilities. 25
-
CL33 Page 26CEO took appropriate corrective action in reassigning GJ staff person per CGJ request.
-
CL34 Page 26County Counsel provided unsolicited legal advice to the CGJ.
-
CL35 Page 26County Counsel requested and received confidential CGJ information from GJ staff without approval of the Presiding Judge.
-
CL36 Page 26County Counsel directed the GJ staff person to draft a document containing confidential information for a presentation in a public forum.
-
CL37 Page 26County Counsel participated in the taking of a deposition of a witness in a civil case and used this information to formulate a CGJ complaint.
-
CL38 Page 26After testifying as a witness in CGJ case 01-10-C, County Counsel interfered and attempted to manipulate the CGJ investigation.
-
CL39 Page 26A political tug of war between the County and the Court over control of CGJ procedures and staff person has been detrimental to the effectiveness of the entire CGJ system.
-
CL40 Page 26Confidential information has been disclosed on billing invoices sent to the Auditor- Controller=s office for payment.
-
CL41 Page 26Archived CGJ records have been improperly stored.
-
CL42 Page 26The CGJ has a statutory right and obligation to protect complainants, witnesses, and the CGJ process from improper and unsolicited legal advice and outside manipulation.
Agency Responses 3
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.