Orange County Grand Jury
• 2015-2016
Unfinished Business: Responses to 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Reports Unfinished Business: Responses to
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ 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
Some County responses to Grand Jury Reports are submitted after the date due by law or not at all. Greater County follow-up is necessary to ensure responses are submitted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The CEO should meet with each sitting OCGJ by March 31st of each year to provide a status report of open responses to previous grand jury reports. The status report should include a brief Executive Summary covering financial challenges and opportunities facing the county that could impact the timing of response implementation. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §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 Penal Code section §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Responses are required from the following governing bodies of the date of publication of this report: Orange County Board of Supervisors (Findings 1-3; Recommendation 1). Responses Requested: Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads: Orange County Chief Executive Officer (Findings 1-3; Recommendation 1). REFERENCES 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury. (2016). To Be Continued...Follow-Up for Open Formal Grand Jury Report Responses. Retrieved from Orange County Grand Jury: http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2015_2016_GJreport/2016-05- 03_Responses_Website_Report.pdf Administrative Office of the Courts. (2005). Model Guide for California Grand Juries. APPENDICES Appendix A: 2015-2016 Grand Jury Reports Responses
F2
Many responses to Grand Jury reports are not submitted in the format required by law and/or are incomplete. Greater follow-up by the County is needed to ensure required responses to findings and recommendations are submitted on time and in the appropriate format.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Many responses to Grand Jury reports declare that the recommendation “will be implemented in the future” or that the recommendation “requires further analysis” with future dates for implementation. Implementation of recommendations aimed at fixing complex problems or calling for expensive solutions can often run up against the realities of the budgeting or procurement processes. Improved mechanisms are required to ensure these responses come to fruition. Penal Code §933 and §933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested, from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections §933 and §933.05, the 2016-2017 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation entitled “Unfinished Business: Responses to 2015-2016 Grand Jury Reports” in Orange County, the 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendation:
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The OCGJ annually completes its term of service in a flourish of published reports on completed civil investigations. These reports generate scores of findings and recommendations, in turn often necessitating hundreds of required responses. The Grand Jury’s investigation revealed that 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury Page 5 Unfinished Business: Responses to 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Reports a significant number of required agency responses remain incomplete and that more consistent follow up by investigated agencies of “open” responses is needed. It is anticipated that the implementation of new tracking and reporting mechanisms will encourage greater agency compliance. Reporting publicly on the completion of previously committed actions goes a long way toward enhancing the positive impact of the OCGJ in its role as a public watchdog.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office