Orange County Grand Jury • 2018-2019

People in 2023 Wifia*

Published: June 28, 2019 176 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Findings 18 findings

F1
In the past SWD has used revenue from its recreation rights as one of its sources to offset costs for maintenance and replacement of capital investments in water infrastructure.
F2
For OC Parks the revenue from rights and property assigned by TIC will be the source to cover costs associated with the restoration, maintenance and repairs of the newly-dedicated open space.
F3
Without sufficient historical financial information from SWD, OC Parks cannot project future financial opportunities at Irvine Lake.
F4
Minimal effort to engage one another, a lack of creative proposals and slow responsiveness between OC Parks and the water districts have allowed negotiations to stall.
F5
Although not a party to any recreation rights, IRWD does have a right of approval over decisions affecting water use rights and water quality. Therefore, settling easement rights issues in a successor document to the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among SWD, IRWD and TIC is required prior to concluding negotiations on recreation rights. Parties expect to complete this in the first half of 2019.
F6
SWD, OC Parks and IRWD acknowledge that to maximize recreational opportunities a more stable Irvine Lake water level is desirable.
F7
A master plan for recreational activities remains to be developed. 2018-2019
F8
There is currently minimal centralized technical oversight of the inmate telephone system within the OCSD.
F9
Lack of OCSD verification of the contractor's transfer of telephone numbers from the old to the new system is resulting in significant costs to the County of Orange. 2018-2019 "Your Call May Be Recorded"
F10
The OCSD does not provide periodic reminders to outside users (attorneys) of the Recording System regarding the method for placement of phone numbers on the DNR list.
F11
Available features of the current system are not being utilized by the OCSD to generate all available reports in order to support oversight.
F12
OCSD does not currently require its telephone system contractor to provide a systems engineer on site to resolve technical issues.
F13
The lack of centralized technical oversight of the Recording System by the OCSD has resulted in ineffective communication between the various OCSD units that use the system.
F14
The lack of centralized technical oversight of the Recording System by the OCSD causes a delay in resolving issues with the system.
F15
There is no instruction to inmates on either the inmate orientation brochure or the inmate orientation video regarding their attorney-client privilege rights for phone calls with their attorney.
F16
No evidence has been presented to the Grand Jury indicating that any defendant's rights to a fair and impartial trial have been improperly or adversely affected by the violation of their communication privilege with their legal counsel.
F17
The OCSD and the DA have been responsive and professional in handling the situation once the recorded inmate telephone calls were discovered in June 2018.
F18
As of the writing of this report, there has been no evidence of malicious intent by the OCSD or the DA regarding the use of any privileged telephone communications.

Recommendations 3

Conclusions 3

Commendations 15

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.