📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado
Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.
⚠️ 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 3 findings
F1
The change in the regulation had been recommended by the city attorney's office in 2012; however, the recommended change was not forwarded to the Hanford City Council at the time the banner permit was requested. This created confusion not only for the city employees, but also the city residents and organizations that submit permits to hang banners.
F2
In reviewing the application forms used in requesting a Banner Permit, the Grand Jury discovered errors in how the permits were processed. There was no continuity in the various Banner Permit Request Forms nor was there a means to provide accountability or authorization for the permit. The Banner Permit Request Form has since been changed with the implementation of Ordinance No. 14-10.
F3
The Kings County Grand Jury determined that the city employees involved acted appropriately and fairly to all parties involved in this matter, even with the confusion in the regulation.
Recommendations 5
-
R1Current city policies and regulations should be reviewed on a regular basis. Requests for changes to these policies should be sent to the Hanford City Council as soon as possible to prevent any confusion in the future. The Grand Jury recommends a review to be conducted at a minimum of every three years.
-
R2The denial of grants is preventing possible funding sources for those that could be displaced, regardless of the results of current litigations. The Board of Supervisors should not be blocking or denying beneficial funding sources for the county residents and businesses.
-
R3In this specific case, the Kings County Board of Supervisors should not have approved the spending of public funds in litigations involving privately owned lands. COMMENTS The Kings County Grand Jury appreciates the committed efforts of all citizens and public officials in regards to this controversial subject.
-
R4banner is to be erected and/or installed and re- for an annual permit: Any organization having facilities situ- moved; and
-
R5Such other information as the director ties Commission of the state of California; may require. Any organization holding a franchise C. Permits shall be issued only to civic or-