📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Orange County Grand Jury • 2018-2019

The Result

View PDF View Full Original

Findings and Recommendations 11 findings

F1 Page 83
The Auditor Controller's department identity as a "taxpayer watchdog", complete with a "bulldog logo", created an adversarial image for some members of the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
Page 111
By December 31, 2019, using the authority derived from R1 (above), the Emergency Operations Center should establish specific minimum standards/expectations with regard to coordination and dissemination of Emergency Public Information that follow SEMS guidelines, by which committed cities must comply for multijurisdictional emergencies. (F1, F5, F10)
R3
Page 84
By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors and County elected officials should discuss and resolve differing opinions in a constructive and professional manner, without airing disagreements in a public forum. (F1, F2, F7)
F2 Page 83
The need for the Auditor Controller's "Community and Government Relations" team has been questioned by the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 84
By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors and County elected officials should discuss and resolve differing opinions in a constructive and professional manner, without airing disagreements in a public forum. (F1, F2, F7)
F3 Page 83
The Grand Jury has determined the Board of Supervisors had the right to take the action it did. However, independence, transparency and accountability may be flawed in a structure where people report to those that are being held accountable. F4. The Grand Jury found no evidence of inefficiency in the Auditor Controller's office prior to realignment of the Internal Audit Department to the Board of Supervisors. 2018-2019 Orange County Grand Jury If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 84
By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors should reevaluate their decision to remove $1 million from the Auditor Controller's budget and reallocate some or all of those dollars back to the Auditor Controller in order to fully staff the department and complete an Action Plan based on the Values Institute work on morale. (F3, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of the Grand Jury report: 2018-2019 Orange County Grand Jury If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It §933(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 of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or 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 of these 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 . . . " §933.05 "(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. (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, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department." Orange County Grand Jury 2018-2019 If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It Comments to the presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from:
F4 Page 110
The County's vendor for the AlertOC mass notification system had not updated its GIS mapping software, so some residents in newer neighborhoods did not receive an AlertOC message during the Holy Jim fire.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Page 112
By September 30, 2019, the Orange County Sheriff's Department should seek, at a minimum, semi-annual updates on AlertOC vendor software and concurrently request regular updates on its capabilities. (F4) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(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 of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or 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 of these 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. . . . " §933.05 "(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 2018-19 Orange County Grand Jury
F5 Page 84
Realignment of the Internal Audit Department from the Auditor Controller to the Board of Supervisors has reduced staff mobility and cross training and may have adversely affected morale. F6. Fifty-seven counties in California have combined departments of the Auditor Controller and Internal Audit; Orange County is the only county to have separate Auditor Controller and Internal Audit Offices, raising a question of efficiency and effectiveness.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
Page 111
By December 31, 2019, using the authority derived from R1 (above), the Emergency Operations Center should establish specific minimum standards/expectations with regard to coordination and dissemination of Emergency Public Information that follow SEMS guidelines, by which committed cities must comply for multijurisdictional emergencies. (F1, F5, F10)
R4
Page 84
By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors should reevaluate their decision to remove $1 million from the Auditor Controller's budget and reallocate some or all of those dollars back to the Auditor Controller in order to fully staff the department and complete an Action Plan based on the Values Institute work on morale. (F3, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of the Grand Jury report: 2018-2019 Orange County Grand Jury If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It §933(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 of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or 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 of these 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 . . . " §933.05 "(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. (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, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department." Orange County Grand Jury 2018-2019 If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It Comments to the presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from:
F6 Page 110
The outdated hotline telephone technology at the County Emergency Operations Center cannot track caller metrics, so staffing decisions are made based on observing the length of time between incoming phone calls.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 111
By September 30, 2019, the County Emergency Operations Center should modernize its hotline telephone technology. (F6)
F7 Page 84
Disagreements between the Board of Supervisors and the Auditor Controller's Office over Supervisor mailers and a controversial pension payment were argued in the public arena, creating public dismay as well as distrust between the departments.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
Page 84
By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors and County elected officials should discuss and resolve differing opinions in a constructive and professional manner, without airing disagreements in a public forum. (F1, F2, F7)
R6
Page 111
By September 30, 2019, the County Emergency Operations Center should ensure hotline personnel maintain current training and are provided appropriate physical access during emergencies. (F7, F8) 2018-19 Orange County Grand Jury Emergency Public Information - Should I Stay or Should I Go?
F8 Page 110
Some hotline operators are not current on the use of the software for logging incoming phone calls, thus decreasing their efficiency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Page 111
By September 30, 2019, the County Emergency Operations Center should ensure hotline personnel maintain current training and are provided appropriate physical access during emergencies. (F7, F8) 2018-19 Orange County Grand Jury Emergency Public Information - Should I Stay or Should I Go?
F9 Page 110
The County and interviewed cities do not seek sufficient public feedback of the perceptions of effectiveness of the Emergency Public Information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Page 112
By September 30, 2019, The Orange County Sheriff's Department and each interviewed city's Emergency Management Division should adopt a proactive process by which residents impacted by an emergency can easily provide feedback regarding their experience with Emergency Public Information, such as by telephone, mail-in, and/or online surveys. (F9)
F10 Page 110
The lack of standardized emergency management terminology among the various jurisdictions within Orange County causes delays and confusion in the dissemination of Emergency Public Information. 2018-19 Orange County Grand Jury Emergency Public Information – Should I Stay or Should I Go?
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 111
By December 31, 2019, using the authority derived from R1 (above), the Emergency Operations Center should establish specific minimum standards/expectations with regard to coordination and dissemination of Emergency Public Information that follow SEMS guidelines, by which committed cities must comply for multijurisdictional emergencies. (F1, F5, F10)
F11 Page 111
Orange County jurisdictions and the California Highway Patrol lack a joint plan for evacuation routes, thus evacuations can be chaotic, creating increased potential for danger to residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Page 112
By September 30, 2019, a task force, made up of representatives from all Operational Area jurisdictions, public safety Public Information Officers and state public safety professionals, such as California Highway Patrol, should be created to develop an emergency operations plan for large, wide-spread disasters. (F11)

Additional Recommendations 1

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.