⚠️ 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 3 findings
F1
There is a large cost-of-living and attorneys’ salary variance existing between Orange County and the neighboring counties of Riverside and San Bernardino.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Continue to alleviate the attorney compensation disparities between Orange County and the surrounding counties created by the findings in F-1 and F-2.
F2
The attorneys’ compensation problem continues to be exacerbated by the reduction in take-home pay brought about by the recent change in Orange County’s pension system and health care benefits. 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Continue the development and implementation of a computerized management system which would address the concerns in findings F-3... Response to Recommendation R-1 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. A Response to Recommendation R-2 is requested from the Orange County Public Defender. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: § 933.05. Responses to findings (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 9 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed…This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 1 0
F3
The Public Defender’s Office is collaborating in the development of an automated case management system which will unify the case management systems in use for the investigative and clerical branches of the offices. Responses to Findings F-1 and F-2 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. A Response to Finding F-3 is requested from the Orange County Public Defender. . RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following Recommendations:
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The Orange County Grand Jury found no major problems with the operation of the Offices of the Public Defender. In fact the Grand Jury was very impressed with the proactive posture existing in the office resulting in the overall efficient management and operation of the Public Defender’s Office.
Agency Responses 2
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.