PDF of complete 2009-10 Grand Jury Final Report

Recommendations 11

• R1

  Page 17
  The Watsonville Personnel Commission should maintain a fair process free from suspicion of bias and to this end should limit the dinner attendees prior to the appeal hearings to commissioners, their legal counsel, and the recording secretary only. Response: Watsonville City Council – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED Dinners prior to future personnel hearings heard by the Personnel Commission will be limited to commissioners, the legal counsel to the commission and staff to the commission. Response: Watsonville City Manager – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED Dinners prior to future personnel hearings heard by the Personnel Commission will be limited to commissioners, the legal counsel to the commission and staff to the commission.
• R2

  Page 17
  To eliminate speculation about the role of the city attorney, the Watsonville City Charter should expand the description of the powers and duties of the attorney to include the representation of city commissions and committees. Response: Watsonville City Council – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED The Watsonville City Charter already authorizes the City Attorney to advise the Commission.
• R3

  Page 17
  To provide the greatest separation between the Personnel Commission and city management, the city should consider hiring independent counsel for the Commission. Response: Watsonville City Council – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED In a series of California published cases over the last few years, California courts have been very clear that it is perfectly proper for the City Attorney to represent the Commission. In Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water Resources Control Board, 45 Cal.4th 731 (February 9, 2009), the California Supreme Court addressed this very issue. In construing the constitutional due process right to an impartial tribunal, we take a more practical and less pessimistic view of human nature in general and of state administrative agency adjudicators in particular. In the absence of financial or other personal interest, and when rules mandating an agency's internal separation of functions and prohibiting ex parte communications are observed, the presumption of impartiality can be overcome only by specific evidence demonstrating actual bias or a particular combination of circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias. Unless such evidence is produced, we remain confident that state administrative agency adjudicators will evaluate factual and legal arguments on their merits, applying the law to the evidence in the record to reach fair and reasonable decisions. As we explain, any tendency for the agency adjudicator to favor an agency attorney acting as prosecutor because of that attorney's concurrent advisory role in an unrelated matter is too slight and speculative to achieve constitutional significance. 6 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 HOLDING: It did not violate license holder's right to due process for the prosecuting agency attorney to simultaneously serve as an advisor to the Board on an unrelated matter. The decision reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment. The Supreme Court's decision effectively overruled the decision in Quintero v. City of Santa Ana, 114 Cal. App. 4th 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). The Quintero court held that the internal separation of functions on a case-by-case basis was insufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirements for due process of law, and that an administrative agency's internal separation of functions must be complete not only as to each individual case, but as to all cases, related or unrelated, that are pending before the agency at any given point in time. In the case of Watsonville’s disciplined firefighter, the City hired a separate attorney from an outside law firm to advise the department and the City Attorney had no communications of any kind with the department or anyone else involved in the case except the Commission. The City could have hired an attorney from the same law firm if it followed particular protocols. Instead the City staff selected an attorney from a different law firm to avoid even an appearance of impropriety. It is also important to note that no one involved in the hearing process, including the employee ever claimed the City Attorney had a conflict of interest or any improper communications. The City follows best practices and the City’s practices well exceed the due process protections afforded under California law. Response: Watsonville City Manager – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED In a series of California published cases over the last few years, California courts have been very clear that it is perfectly proper for the City Attorney to represent the Commission. In Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water Resources Control Board, 45 Cal.4th 731 (February 9, 2009), the California Supreme Court addressed this very issue. In construing the constitutional due process right to an impartial tribunal, we take a more practical and less pessimistic view of human nature in general and of state administrative agency adjudicators in particular. In the absence of financial or other personal interest, and when rules mandating an agency's internal separation of functions and prohibiting ex parte communications are observed, the presumption of impartiality can be overcome only by specific evidence demonstrating actual bias or a particular combination of circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias. Unless such evidence is produced, we remain confident that state administrative agency adjudicators will evaluate factual and legal arguments on their merits, applying the law to the evidence in the record to reach fair and reasonable decisions. As we explain, any tendency for the agency adjudicator to favor an agency attorney acting as prosecutor because of that attorney's concurrent advisory role in an unrelated matter is too slight and speculative to achieve constitutional significance. HOLDING: It did not violate license holder's right to due process for the prosecuting agency attorney to simultaneously serve as an Does Appearance Trump Substance? ∫ 7 advisor to the Board on an unrelated matter. The decision reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment. The Supreme Court's decision effectively overruled the decision in Quintero v. City of Santa Ana, 114 Cal. App. 4th 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). The Quintero court held that the internal separation of functions on a case-by-case basis was insufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirements for due process of law, and that an administrative agency's internal separation of functions must be complete not only as to each individual case, but as to all cases, related or unrelated, that are pending before the agency at any given point in time. In the case of Watsonville’s disciplined firefighter, the City hired a separate attorney from an outside law firm to advise the department and the City Attorney had no communications of any kind with the department or anyone else involved in the case except the Commission. The City could have hired an attorney from the same law firm if it followed particular protocols. Instead the City staff selected an attorney from a different law firm to avoid even an appearance of impropriety. It is also important to note that no one involved in the hearing process, including the employee ever claimed the City Attorney had a conflict of interest or any improper communications. The City follows best practices and the City’s practices well exceed the due process protections afforded under California law. Commendations The Grand Jury commends the City of Watsonville for the disciplinary appeal process for its city workers. The catered dinner for the private citizen personnel commissioners also is noteworthy.
• R4

  Page 41
  The County Administrative Office, or other appropriate agencies, should announce publicly if and when the public defender contracts are being competed or extended by negotiation in a manner similar to other contract awards or announcements. In view of the extended period since this contract was put out for bid (1975), such an announcement would indicate that a formal public process is being used by the County to obtain these services. Response: Santa Cruz County Administrator Office and Board of Supervisors – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED Each year, the Board of Supervisors adopts the Public Defender Budget in a Public Hearing. The County Administrative Officer’s Recommended Budget and subsequent documents including the Supplemental Budget and Last Day Budget are made widely available to the public. For the past several years, existing contracts for the conflicts and main firms have only been re-opened by mutual consent solely to make reductions in the compensation schedules based on the County’s fiscal constraints. For each year that reductions have been agreed to by the contractors, the negotiations have included a one- year extension. These contracts are considered by the Board of Supervisors either in scheduled Public Hearings during budget considerations, or on publicly noticed Board of Supervisors’ Agendas.
• R5

  Page 41
  The County Administrative Office should have the comparability model reviewed and updated by another agency or organization, such as the County Auditor-Controller’s Office or an independent auditor, to verify that the model provides a valid basis for the decision to continue to use a contracted public defender. Response: Santa Cruz County Administrator Office and Board of Supervisors – HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT MAY BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE Working with County Counsel to assure confidentiality, the County Administrative Office will review the comparability model with the Auditor-Controller for the purpose of verifying that the model provides a valid basis for the comparison of costs between a contracted public defender and providing these services as a County department. 30 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010
• R6

  Page 110
  The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office should assign medical personnel to Rountree to administer medications. This would allow inmates who are housed at the Main Jail because they need medication, but who otherwise would qualify for Rountree, to be transferred to that facility, which perhaps would be a better setting for them and also ease overcrowding at the Main Jail. Commendations: 8. The Grand Jury commends the Rountree staff and correctional officers for the smooth transition during the combination of the minimum and medium detention facilities. The general well-being and safety of the inmates, staff, and correctional officers remained a priority and daily operations were not disrupted.
• R7

  Page 118
  The Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to update the Santa Cruz Holding Facility and to fully utilize the Watsonville Holding Facility and the Watsonville courthouse to alleviate the overcrowding of certain individual cells in the Santa Cruz Holding Facility. SANTA CRUZ COURT HOLDING FACILITY The Jail Inspection Reports ∫ 107 Commendations: 9. The Grand Jury commends the correctional officers and staff for maintaining a well- controlled environment within Court Holding, particularly given the need to update the facility.
• R8

  Page 126
  The Probation Department and the Board of Supervisors should provide funds to complete the door alteration project to increase safety as well as increase the amount of space for the detainee.
• R9

  Page 126
  The Probation Department and the Board of Supervisors should allocate funds to secure the backfield and install security cameras. SANTA CRUZ JUVENILE HALL The Jail Inspection Reports ∫ 115 Commendations: 11. The staff is to be commended for their persistance in obtaining funds from grants. 12. The staff is to be commended for their progressive attitude in incorporating state of the art and well-researched methodologies in juvenile offender rehabilitation. 13. The Grand Jury commends the kitchen staff for their continual efforts in enhancing nutritional offerings for detainees, including use of organic products as well as reducing fat content in the food served. 14. The staff is to be commended for their use of "high strictness, high warmth," which encourages a positive attitude among detainees and facilitates the quick re-entry into their home environment.
• R10

  Page 137
  The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation should install surveillance cameras at access points in the rear of the Camp 45 property to increase the safety and protection of staff and inmates.
• R11

  Page 137
  The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Camp 45 should establish partnerships with local colleges and/or universities to offer onsite GED and college CAMP 45 – INMATE FIRE CAMP 126 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 extension programs to provide a more convenient educational experience. Commendations: 15. The Grand Jury commends Camp 45 and CAL FIRE for the excellent working relationship and communication they have established at the camp. 16. The Grand Jury commends the management and staff of Camp 45 for creating a caring and supportive environment that contributes to the success of the rehabilitation process. 17. The Grand Jury commends Camp 45 for the utilization of inmates in creating delicious meals and baked goods as well as a very well-run kitchen. 18. The Grand Jury commends Camp 45 for creating a welcoming atmosphere with outside grounds that include tables and barbecues. Visitors are able to enjoy the beautiful surroundings while providing inmates a chance for contact with family and friends.