Safe: More Bang for the Buck

Commendations 1

• CM1
  The Grand Jury wishes to commend SAFE management and staff for their pro-active, cost efficient and effective management of the program. We also wish to thank them for providing ample financial and historical documentation, much of which is included in this report, and for facilitating our visit to the SAFE CDSNet call center in Los Angeles. COMPLETE RECOMMENDATIONS The 2007/2008 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies: 08-37: Maintain the existing call box system as a Safety Net by not eliminating any stationary call boxes in rural areas and retaining at least 90% of the stationary call boxes in the remainder of the network, eliminating only those most infrequently used. We recommend that this 10% reduction be __ 15 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2007—2008 (filed April 17, 2008) completed by June 30, 2010, at which time the need for further reductions could be evaluated. 08-38: Evaluate publicizing the Mobile Call Box Program by installing at each stationary call box site a sign or durable poster which would highlight "511" in bold letters and would include a brief description of how to access the roadside assistance feature. 08-39: Evaluate publicizing the Mobile Call Box Program by developing, in conjunction with the Department of Motor Vehicles, an informational card on Mobile Call Box availability to be provided to County motorists when they register or re-register a vehicle. 08-40: Support the San Diego Association of Governments in its efforts to make Roving Service Trucks a permanent fixture of the Freeway Service Patrol Program. 08-41: Explore with the San Diego County Sheriff's Department the feasibility of upgrading the Copter Ten/Copter 12 Program to include night flying capability. 08-42: Complete the external audit for the program for fiscal year 2006/2007 and forward a copy to the Grand Jury as soon as possible after it is published. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) 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 therefore. (b) 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 time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 time frame 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 therefore. (c) 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. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency