City of Berkeley Drug Houses

Conclusions 13

• CL1
  That the DRC partners are advancing the project before securing total right of way control over all track from the Union City Intermodal station to the CalTrain station in San Mateo. Unless the rights of way are owned by the DRC project, there is a danger that UPRR, which presently has priority scheduling rights over much of the track, will continue to give freight traffic priority over passenger traffic.
• CL2
  Within the DRC project's scope is the possibility of building the Niles freight bridge crossing Alameda Creek and Mission Boulevard, which proposal the grand jury understands is not a requirement of the DRC passenger train process. Since the Niles freight bridge still remains a proposal, it cannot at this time be deemed a public gift to the UPRR, but the grand jury hopes that the taxpayers receive quid pro quo if the project includes the bridge (e.g., transfer of ownership or significant usage of the track).
• CL3
  Connectivity to the Union City Intermodal station should be a priority to Alameda County as a whole as the purported purpose of DRC is to get commuter cars off of the surface streets and highways. Simply connecting the Newark Station to San Mateo would fall far short of achieving the goal of DRC, BART, Capital Corridor, ACE and connecting buses.
• CL4
  The grand jury believes that the funding projections for this project were significantly understated in the voter guide. The grand jury finds this highly worrisome. 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
• CL5
  In the course of its investigation, the grand jury learned that there is no single agency authorized to control or direct rail projects in the Bay Area, which currently has 27 agencies with varying levels of authority for this project. We recommend that subsequent grand juries monitor the progress of the DRC project at all stages of its development and build-out. Particular attention should be paid to the Union City Intermodal connectivity, resolution of right of way control, and, if applicable, the inclusion and cost to taxpayers of the Niles freight bridge. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report REGISTRAR OF VOTERS The grand jury investigated a mailing error by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters and a reported shortage of ballots at polling places for the 2008 Presidential Primary. During the course of our investigation, we met with the registrar of voters. MAILING ERROR For the February 2008 primary election, the registrar of voters intended to send a mailing to all permanent absentee non-partisan voters explaining that if they wanted to vote in the 2008 Presidential Primary Election, they would be permitted to vote in either the American Independent or Democratic parties but only if they requested a ballot in advance for one of these parties. Approximately 60,000 voters in Alameda County fit into this category. The letter was prepared and mailed to all of the approximately 234,000 voters in Alameda County who are permanent absentee voters, not just the non-partisan voters. Many of these voters had registered with a party and were confused as to why the letter was sent to them. The registrar of voters sent out second corrective letters shortly thereafter acknowledging the mailing error. The grand jury learned the first mailing was sent to the wrong group of voters as a result of an employee error. The postage cost alone of each mailing was approximately $20,000. As a result of the error, the registrar implemented a new policy that requires that before any mailing is sent to a printer, it must be approved by at least two employees. 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report BALLOT SHORTAGE During the 2008 Presidential Primary it was reported there were ballot shortages in Alameda County. The grand jury learned there were eight polling places that were affected with a shortage totaling 15 ballots. No voters were turned away due to the shortage of ballots. Instead, sample and provisional ballots were used. Contrary to news reports, no court order was issued. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report DUBLIN TO LIVERMORE I-580 CARPOOL LANES INTRODUCTION A complaint was received concerning a proposed HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane on highway I-580 East from I-680 to Vasco Road in the Pleasanton/Livermore area. The complaint asserts that a temporary short-term solution of traffic congestion on the I-580 corridor is a wasteful use of Alameda County transportation funds and precludes Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to Vasco Road in Livermore. INVESTIGATION The grand jury met with the executive director of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) who explained what is involved in planning, constructing and paying for regional transportation. ACCMA is the transportation policy and planning agency for Alameda County and oversees federal, state and regional transportation funding and sponsors key transportation improvements. ACCMA's transportation policy establishes a long-range 25 year county-wide transportation program, updated every four years, of projects funded with discretionary state and federal funds; develops a short-range congestion management program which includes a five year capital improvement program, updated every two years, funded by state funds; and oversees special planning studies and projects such as the I-580 HOV lanes. The general approach to relief in the I-580 corridor in the short term includes the addition of east and west HOV lanes and the acquisition of right of way. ACCMA 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report has announced the intention of incorporating tolls for single-occupancy vehicles in the HOV lanes. The long-term plans include the construction of BART extensions to Livermore, subject to the availability of funding. Additionally, the route into Livermore has yet to be determined. The I-580 Corridor is the second most congested corridor in the Bay Area. Federal and state funding for HOV lanes is mandated to reduce air pollution and has the stipulation that construction start by December 2012.
• CL6
  The grand jury understands that there are benefits to the city of Oakland in utilizing credit cards to facilitate certain types of purchases. However, this is also an area that can be easily abused and needs to be watched closely. It can be noted that during the fiscal year examined by the grand jury, most members of 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report the city council, who can approve their own expenses, seldom used their purchase cards. The grand jury discovered that the city's policies were insufficient and that in some cases there was no effective oversight of credit card charges. In addition, the grand jury determined, based on the shoddy and incomplete documentation submitted and accepted as the sole written support for credit card charges, it would be likely that a supervisor or the FMA employee who reviewed the monthly statements would not be able to determine whether the cardholder was abusing the credit card. Thus, opportunities for abuse abound and may not be easily detected. The grand jury found that a number of the cardholders used their credit cards for "business lunches," many of those at upscale restaurants including Max's, Verbena, Scott's and Bay Wolf. In most instances the documentation for those lunches failed to identify the purpose of the lunch or the names of those in attendance. One elected official had over 50 business meals at city expense during one fiscal year with total charges of over $3,000, dining mostly at the restaurants listed above. Most of the receipts lack itemization and purpose of meeting. One charge for $150 at Max's showed $26.89 for a tip as the only detail. There were also numerous charges for staff meals (working meals) by many of the cardholders. Again, many of those meals were at upscale restaurants. Recognition lunches were also charged by many departments, with many of those events being held at or catered by nicer establishments and sometimes for significant amounts of money. The grand jury concluded that many of these expenditures were excessive, particularly given the absence of policies for these types of expenditures. Some cardholders even listed the meals as "holiday" events, in clear violation of city policy. Many charges seemed inappropriate based on the documentation submitted, particularly given that city tax dollars were being expended (for example, logo 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report shirts for a cost to the city of $1,745 being purchased for one department; flower purchases by numerous cardholders for various reasons; gift cards from a variety of stores; and Palm Pilot and cell phone accessories). The grand jury was left with the impression that some of the cardholders were not exercising good judgment in their choice of expenditures. While it appeared that cardholders frequently attended conferences out of town at city expense, in most cases, the grand jury was not provided with the supporting documentation, including the justification for the travel. As noted above, the travel policies did not seem strict enough to preclude conference attendees from flying on more expensive airlines. The grand jury also was not able to determine whether the hotel charges were excessive based on the documentation provided. Personal charges did not appear to be caught in the review process. Hotel bills for one elected official were, for the most part, also lacking in detail. One trip that was detailed included $10 for laundry. In total this official's credit card charges for the year showed over $7,000 in travel expenses. Another cardholder, who is one of the highest paid departmental directors, had even higher travel expenses at over $7,700. This cardholder had many charges labeled "hospitality" items. Most were for staff meetings and one, while traveling at a conference, totaled $508.43 with no details given. The grand jury recommends that future grand juries expand this investigation to include review of the city's travel and conference policies and related expenditures. It is the grand jury's belief that the city of Oakland is particularly generous in allowing employees to attend conferences, based on the number and amount of charges for conferences attended. A small sampling of credit card expenses by city elected officials and employees for the 2006-2007 fiscal year follows. 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report FOOD/DINING EXPENSES $369.91 B Restaurant. Twice yearly staff luncheon. Scott's restaurant. Lunch with department head (two city $43.66 employees). $243.51 LJ Quinn's restaurant. Executive staff luncheon. $303.06 Max's restaurant. Lunch with city payroll staff. Entrees include steak and salmon. Scott's restaurant. Lunch for two department heads. $90.52 Lunch included seafood & shrimp. Various stores. Refreshments for National Public Works $1,253.08 week. Purchases include food, BBQ, London broil, BBQ supplies. Smart & Final store. Food for Oakland's tree service $542.93 department picnic. Purchases include piña coladas, tiramisu, BBQ supplies, wine coolers, serving utensils, chicken, cherries, other fruit, and beef brisket. The beef brisket cost $71.70. $79.50 One lunch ticket for OAACC luncheon meeting for one employee. Palomino's restaurant, San Francisco. "Business meeting." $124.05 No receipt or other details provided. $322.00 Kuleto's restaurant, San Francisco. Reason for lunch: "meeting with OPD personnel after appearance in Federal Court to discuss next steps regarding court orders." Items ordered included calamari, salmon steak, tiramisu and crème brule. Italian Colors restaurant. Reason for lunch: "Business lunch $92.41 with attorney." Soluna Café. Reason for lunch: "Business lunch with $135.90 attorney." La Farine Bakery. Food for holiday meeting. (cookies and $45.75 cupcakes). Saigon Restaurant. Working lunch. No notation of who or $26.02 reason for lunch. $59.81 La Cucina restaurant. Reason listed: "pre lunch." Lake Merritt restaurant. Staff holiday luncheon for city $2,296.00 attorney's office. $187.59 Pizza for staff meeting. Trader Joe's grocery store. Food for staff meeting. $76.47 $68.27 Francesco's restaurant. Lunch for two city employees. $70.90 Central Park restaurant. Lunch for two city employees. $26.00 Marriott Hotel. Breakfast meeting. Esquire Grill restaurant. Evening meeting. $30.85 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report FOOD/DINING EXPENSES, continued $53.00 Verbena restaurant. Multiple lunches. No indication of $100.00 number of guests or reasons for lunches. $70.00 $75.00 $66.00 Max's restaurant. Multiple lunches. No indication of $50.04 number of guests or reasons for lunches. $150.00 $6.52 Coffee for one, at the airport. Lunch meeting "to prepare for training." Included $10.00 $75.03 tip. Lunch expenses "to take employee who conducted staff $37.67 $13.00 training to lunch." Starbucks. Receipts lists items purchased as: 1 tall cider, 1 $16.40 morning bun, and 1 travel mug (costing $12.00) Reason for purchase: "Meeting." $75.61 Marriott restaurant. Lunch. No receipt. Reason listed: "Staff debriefing." $28.81 Beach Chalet Restaurant & Brewery, San Francisco. Lunch. "Board meeting." $43.33 Verbena restaurant. Lunch with two city employees. Included a 30% tip. Lake Merritt Pizza. Hospitality for volunteers. $338.48 Bay Wolf restaurant. "Lunch with mayor's staff." $65.55 $81.26 Piedmont Grocery. Hospitality. No receipt. $228.00 Lucky & Lucky Restaurant. "PR Committee dinner." No receipt. $83.11 Verbena restaurant. "Lunch for new budget director." $223.75 Nellie's Soul Food restaurant. "Hospitality." $2,796.00 Catered Holiday Lunch. Included crab cakes and chicken breasts. $31.00 Smart & Final store. Wine purchase. Trader Joe's grocery store. Reported as "snacks for council $23.54 hearing." Items purchased were: one chicken enchilada, grapefruit, nuts and cookies. Max's restaurant. Staff training luncheon. $100.00 $252.38 Jack's Bistro. Lunch meeting. Max's restaurant. "Managers Lunch Meeting." Receipt $30.72 showed two people, nachos with chicken, soda and seafood penne. Thanh Phat restaurant. Food for "Intimate Evening Event." $434.00 (no details). Max's restaurant. Reported as "Refreshments for $153.49 volunteers." Receipt shows: sirloin steak, corn beef Reuben, fettuccini with meatballs. 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report FOOD/DINING EXPENSES, continued Genova Deli & Safeway. "All Hands" meeting expenses. $468.00 $117.03 (Two receipts). Chen's restaurant. "Holiday Gala." $400.00 $226.48 Joann's Soul Food Café. Staff Appreciation dinner. $620.96 Max's restaurant. Staff appreciation lunch (combined with holiday party). $291.93 Jack's Bistro. Holiday staff retreat. Items ordered included prawns, crème brule, salmon. Max's restaurant. Staff lunch meeting. Items ordered $277.58 included Caesar salad with shrimp. Max's restaurant. Recognition meal for parking meter $384.62 collection staff. Items included salmon, calamari, and sirloin steak, prawns (14 people Avg. $27.47 per person). $2,165.00 Ribs on the Run restaurant. "All staff meeting/employee recognition event." (Two receipts). $541.25 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION/INCENTIVES/HOSPITALITY EXPENSES $71.33** Dollar Tree store. Miscellaneous supplies for holiday party for staff (candy, bonbons, loot bags, candles, photo frames, Christmas mug and paper, shirt boxes). Long's Drugs. Decorations for Employee of the year award $116.23** ceremony (poinsettias and trees). Michael's Arts & Crafts store. Decorations for employee of the year $91.69** ceremony (poinsettias, Christmas wrap, glitter, lights, garland). ** All three of the above purchases were made by the same employee in the same month. $50.00 Trader Joe's grocery store. Employee of the year incentives. (Two gift cards @ $25 each). $75.00 Bay Wolf restaurant. Employee of the year incentive. (One gift certificate @ $75). Regal Jack London Cinemas. Combined charities incentives. (Two $50.00 gift cards @ $25). Safeway grocery store. Hospitality gift cards for employees of the $382.89 year. Items purchased included 4 visa gift cards @ $50; 3 AMEX gift cards @ $25; and a purchase for "People's Best and Worst Dressed" magazine. $39.60 See's Candy. Candy for employee of the year. $54.38 Flowers for Employee of the year. $89.50 Starbucks. Reason for expense: "Conference to provide gifts." $750.oo Safeway grocery store. No receipt. "Revenue Department gift cards." $48.82 Barnes & Noble bookstore. Reported as "Revenue Department gift cards" but receipt shows two books (Social Intelligence @ $24.95 and Mind Set @ $19.96). Lady's Catering. Oakland police staff event, "Executive Breakfast." $600.00 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report RETAIL EXPENSES (including electronics) PalmOne store. Palm Pilot cradle kit. $112.34 $91.35 Flowers for volunteer. $783.99 IKEA. Sofa for office meeting space. 365 day subscription to "shutterstock.com" (for royalty-free $1,999.00 photographs). Flowers for a city employee's family member $99.99 $82.65 (Four separate purchases for four different employee's family $100.00 members). $154.99 $98.72 Greeting cards. Get well flowers. $60.00 $29.50 Harry & Sons store. Reported as "Organic Green Tea and Kitchen Supplies." Receipt showed only 4 packs of organic green tea. $800.00 Chris Club, Vallejo. Juneteenth Celebration. $70.18 Sprint store. Cell phone charger and pouch. $73.58 Cingular store, San Ramon store. Case, headset. $89.32 Amazon.com. Bluetooth headset. Circuit City. Three separate purchases for "digital recorder." $130.49 $173.98 $228.28 Heater for council office. $76.11 $399.00 Video camera (City Attorney's Office). Wireless Ground. Reported as "computer supplies." Receipt $64.79 shows "3 Verizon wireless car chargers." TechSmith Corp. Headphones. $39.95 $52.85 Flash Memory store. Flash drives for cell phones. $68.04 Wireless Ground. Reported as "Wireless Cell Supplies" Receipt says "travel charger, 3 pack stylus pen, Monaco flip leather case @ $29.95." $87.85 Treo Central store. Supplies for an elected official's TREO. (Items purchased were black case @ $49.95 and screen protector @ $15.95.) Holiday Greeting Cards. $339.00 IKEA. Furniture for recreation centers. $1,072.20 $103.68 Flowers for consulting firm. $1,972.00 Christmas Cards. $899.70 Amazon.com. 30 Kingston traveler 1GB flash drives ($29.99 each). $77.94 Pottery Barn store, Walnut Creek. 4 mugs/creamer set for hospitality of the Oakland library. Toshiba laptop. Costs included 2 day air shipping. $1,457.00 $1,592.00 Toshiba laptop. (Same credit card as above, different day.) Home Theatre projector. $1,087.00 $1,185.00 USB drives. $573.00 26-inch LCD flatscreen TV. 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report RETAIL EXPENSES (including electronics), continued $76.08 Office Depot. Office supplies. Three separate purchases. No $108.74 receipt for any purchase. $163.11 $220.00 Efax.com. Paid computer fax service. $80.00 in service fees, $10 $80.00 each. $1,987.49 Best Buy. Home theatre projector. $76.09 IKEA. Office lighting (3 lights). $1,592.38 Toshiba. Toshiba Satellite Pro laptop. $1,185.27 Best Buy. USB drives for ITD (26 @ $45 per drive). $172.40 The Great Frame Up store. Reported as "supplies." Receipt says, "One picture frame with matting." Best Buy. Reported as "computer supplies." Receipt says: "Mini $184.80 travel drives and flash drives." Fry's Electronics store. Computer supplies. No description. $237.29 $45.98 Palm Store. City cell phone accessory. No receipt. $137.10 One leather cell phone case. TRAVEL/CONFERENCES EXPENSES Seattle hotel. Included $101 room service charges. No notation as $1,034.00 to how many days. Conference registration, Las Vegas, one employee. $940.00 $1,427.12 Four nights at a Las Vegas hotel, one room, two people (room charges: $1169.96; Room service: $337.15). $995.00 Conference registration, Las Vegas, three employees, same city $995.00 department. $895.00 Mirage Hotel, Las Vegas. Three nights, two guests, one room. $1,333.76 ($1054.03 room charges; $38.00 mini bar charges; $210.10 room service food; $26.00 tips). No receipts or reimbursements provided to the city. Shingle Creek Resort & Golf Club, Orlando, Florida. One guest, $1,012.48 four nights. Fountainbleu Resort, Miami, conference. $855.41 $29.97 Gas for Miami rental car. W Hotel, New York City, conference. $802.92 $2,387.88 Las Vegas, hotel and airfare, conference (total includes $109.08 in hotel telephone charges and $51.98 in other charges, unlisted). $541.40 Rental car at a training seminar in Alabama. $807.69 Rental van at a conference in Boston. $242.26 Dinner while at the Boston conference (no details). $156.90 Dinner while at Boston conference (no details). $562.89 Rental car while at a Seattle conference. 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report TRAVEL/CONFERENCES EXPENSES, continued $1,118.26 Conference, Seattle. $926.00 Hotel bill included $150.00 in room service charges. $1,393.83 Hotel bill included $113 parking for a rental car. $508.43 Hospitality meal at a conference. No explanation or receipts. MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES $45.49 De Young Museum, San Francisco. Three calendars. $344.50 Park rental fee, East Bay Regional Park for summer community picnic. $65.20 Condolence flowers "for a constituent." Walgreen's. Cleaning supplies for office (no detailed receipt). $64.49 $45.58 Barnes & Noble bookstore. Books for staff (no details or receipt). Randolph Rose Collection. Sculptures/artwork for various $8,303.95 recreation centers. Receipt shows a balance due of $5,803.95, paid $2,500.00 for four sculptures from a New York artist. $195.64 Track Meet Expenses. Sports Authority, supplies. $218.37 Round Table Pizza, food for track meet. $428.61 Albertsons grocery store, lunch for staff volunteers at track meet. $48.94 JMiller, flowers for track meet commissioner. $45.00 Parking at Oakland airport while city employees attend $95.00 conferences. Home Depot, holiday decorations. $30.41 $46.76 Flowers for new city department director. $392.00 Janitorial supplies. No receipt. Ten copies of the book "Freakonomics," a book about the hidden $157.70 cost of things. Home Depot, Joann Fabrics, and Markus Hardware: "Exhibit $1,189.33 Supplies" for library. No details or receipts of items purchased. $220.00 Piedmont Party Rentals, rental of two canopy tents. $320.00 Facilities rental, off site meeting. $2.652.32 Office furniture for reception area. $338.90 Holiday cards (150 cards). Waterfront Plaza Hotel, conference room rentals (two rooms on $200.00 $242.35 separate days). Flowers for newly hired city department director, from another city $71.33 director, with a card that read: "You Go Girl!" World Market store. "Fake trees for cultural arts event." $376.29 $268.61 $268.61 $573.24 Costco, TV for main office, Park & Recreation. (26 inch LCD HDTV). Promotion shirts with city logo for Department of Information $1,745.05 Technology staff. No details of how many or cost. Partial order shows 4 shirts @ $12.50 each. 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report The grand jury was appalled by the city of Oakland's use of taxpayer funds for the questionable expenditures uncovered during this investigation. The current credit card program invites abuse due to its weak construction, bad policies and poor supervision. The grand jury strongly encourages further scrutiny of the city of Oakland's credit card usage and policies.
• CL7
  The ACCMA has developed a short-term strategy for delivering some congestion relief in this corridor, and the grand fury finds this strategy reasonable. This is a viable option due to current funding availability. At this time, the BART route to Livermore has not been determined. BART expansion to Livermore and beyond is entirely subject to the availability of funding, and sufficient funding at this time has not been identified. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report CITY OF BERKELEY DRUG HOUSES INTRODUCTION The grand jury investigated a complaint regarding drug houses in the city of Berkeley. A drug house is a private residence where illegal drug activity takes place. The complaint alleged that the city has been derelict in its duty to safeguard public safety and has shown willful intent to not enforce local and state laws pertaining to abating public nuisance drug houses. The grand jury requested information from the city with regard to what action had been taken with respect to drug houses in Berkeley. HISTORY Since 1990, neighbors in Berkeley have participated in ongoing meetings with city staff and police regarding one particular neighborhood drug house. Between 1992 and 2006, these neighbors won two judgments in small claims court against the specific property owner who was alleged to have a drug house. In the lawsuit, the neighbors testified how their quality of life was negatively affected. For example, bullet casings, drug paraphernalia and used condoms were frequently found in the neighbors' yards and on the street. In a court proceeding in April 2006, the owner of the drug house stipulated that the house was a legal nuisance. INVESTIGATION The grand jury learned that the city of Berkeley has a multi-faceted approach to addressing the problem of illegal drug use: 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Drug House Ordinance Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) chapter 13.56 allows the city manager to order a property owner to take corrective actions whenever it has been determined that "the unlawful sale, storage, manufacturing or selling or giving away of a controlled substance, precursor or analog has occurred in or about the premises of any privately owned property." (BMC section 13.56.020) Such corrective action "may include, but is not limited to, the hiring of a resident manager or security guard; the installing of secure doors at the front and rear of the buildings; the posting of 'no trespassing' signs in and on the property; the development of property rules which regulates [sic] the entrance to and egress from the property of nonresidents; and the institution of actions to remove any resident or others engaging in such illegal conduct on or about the premises." (BMC section 13.56.020.A) If an owner fails to comply with the city manager's directive, the owner may be fined $100 per day. (BMC section 13.56.030.B) Nuisance Abatement Law In 1999 the city revised its zoning ordinance, adopting chapter 23B.64, which permits the abatement of nuisances and expedites the processing of these cases. The city of Berkeley has the authority to use progressively stronger measures to abate illegal activities in drug houses. The city has been reluctant to apply the most severe measures to owner-occupied properties. In application of these measures the city does take into consideration the possibility of retaliation against neighbors. The city has been monitoring this problem property for many years. The grand jury learned that the city of Berkeley believes that under the law it must have a high benchmark for seizure of private property, particularly a home. 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
• CL8
  In 2006, the city of Berkeley failed to take action on the owner occupied drug house when the court concluded and the property owner stipulated that the property was indeed a nuisance. The court noted that the owner "need[ed] to either actively manage the property so as to eliminate the nuisance or sell it." The court further noted that there has been a 30-year history of drug problems with this property. The city failed to follow through with all possible measures to eliminate this drug house problem. The property remains a chronic nuisance to the neighborhood.
• CL9
  After nearly five years of state management, OUSD's budget remains unbalanced and the district's future is unclear. The budgeting process must be based upon accurate projections of student enrollment. The grand jury learned that previous accounting methods overstated enrollment significantly. Overstating ADA causes monies to be distributed by the state to the district, which in turn must eventually be repaid to the state. It also results in retention of excess teaching staff, which the district must retain unless pink slips are sent out by the legally mandated deadlines. Considering the financial situation of the district, all precautions should have been taken in the event of another year of an unbalanced budget. Once the school board gains full control from the state, it will be handicapped because of the actions of the current state administrator. Because the state administrator did not issue pink slips to teachers, the board will have little or no flexibility to reduce the number of teachers in the upcoming school year. With continued declining enrollment and likely cutbacks in state funding, the district's financial situation will worsen. 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Future grand juries should closely monitor OUSD in its financial reporting and the management of budget elements across the board. Particular attention needs to be paid with regard to aligning the number of salaried employees with projected funding. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report ALAMEDA COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER INTRODUCTION In California, responsibility for providing medical care to the indigent rests with the county. To meet these needs in Alameda County, in 1927 Highland Hospital opened its doors. Currently the Alameda County Medical Center (ACMC) operates a hospital and trauma center (Highland), a long term care and rehabilitation center (Fairmont), a psychiatric hospital (John George), and three community clinics in Oakland, Hayward, and Newark. In 2007, Highland Hospital's 236 bed facility served approximately 11,800 inpatient admissions, 73,000 emergency room visits, 2,400 trauma activations and had over 125,000 ambulatory care clinic visits. The Medical Center not only serves the indigent residents covered by Alameda County under its County Medical Services Program (CMSP) but also serves patients on Medicare, Medi-Cal and those with private insurance. Current sources of revenue of the ACMC are as follows: 19% County Medical Services Program (CMSP) 52% Medi-Cal 14% Medicare 5% Private Insurance 10% from other sources
• CL10
  The grand jury is encouraged by the current administration of the Alameda County Medical Center and the strides made so far. Although ACMC continues to endure financial challenges, this administration appears to be capable of handling future adversities. The grand jury must continue to monitor the budgeting process of ACMC. In order to facilitate a better understanding of ACMC's financial status, the grand jury recommends that ACMC provide complete financial statements on a monthly basis to the grand jury. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report JAIL INSPECTIONS California Penal Code section 919(b) requires the grand jury to "inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county." This year, the grand jury inspected jails and holding facilities that had not been inspected within the past three years. The grand jury inspected the Berkeley city jail, San Leandro city jail, Union City jail, the Glen E. Dyer Detention Facility, Camp Wilmont Sweeney, and the Wiley Manual Superior Court jail holding facility. It must be noted that all prisons, jails, holding facilities and juvenile detention facilities are inspected regularly by the Alameda County Department of Public Health and the California Board of Corrections. The grand jury's inspections are in addition to the inspections conducted by those agencies. With one exception, the grand jury found the facilities to be adequately maintained, and compliant with the many regulations that affect such facilities. The grand jury identified deficiencies in the cleanliness at the Glen E. Dyer jail which it inspected in the fall of 2007, and re-inspected it in the spring of 2008. 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report GLEN E. DYER DETENTION FACILITY, Alameda County Sheriff's Office The Glen E. Dyer Detention Facility, in Oakland, was opened in 1984, and was the second high-rise jail built in the United States, housing up to 904 inmates. This facility is managed by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office and houses federal, state and county prisoners. The services provided for the inmates are numerous, including recreational, educational, and medical. In November 2007, the grand jury inspected the housing floors, holding cells for both men and women, food storage facilities, outdoor inmate recreational areas, receiving and transportation locations, and public visitation booths. We also reviewed the safety and medical screening process for inmates. The grand jury reviewed the Sheriff's Office inmate grievance procedures and the ease of making complaints by inmates. In the spring of 2008, the grand jury re-inspected the facility to ascertain if corrections had been made to problems discovered during the grand jury's first inspection. INVESTIGATION During our initial inspection, the grand jury found the holding cell area to be cluttered with debris from lunch items, graffiti throughout the holding area, and the vents clogged or splattered with wetted toilet paper and other materials. There were feces in one of the sinks in a holding cell and what appeared to be blood splattered in another holding cell. Upon the re-inspection six months later, the grand jury found continuing unsanitary conditions, specifically: what the grand jurors who inspected the facility suspected to be blood around toilets and on the floors of several holding cells, vents clogged with toilet paper and debris, feces contamination, and general overall un-cleanliness of the facility. 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
• CL11
  Two separate inspections of empty cells at the Glen Dyer facility showed filthy conditions. The grand jury is concerned about the possible biohazard that unclean cells present. Although the Sheriff's Office has a policy that unclean cells are not used for inmates and are cleaned before reuse, the potential biohazard remains a concern that needs to be more rapidly addressed by the Sheriff's Office. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report OAKLAND POLICE STAFFING The grand jury investigated the issue of Oakland police officer staffing and whether there are sufficient numbers of police to protect and serve the citizens of Oakland. The grand jury interviewed the chief of the Oakland Police Department (OPD), the president of the Oakland Police Officers Association (OPOA), the city administrator, and the mayor of Oakland. INVESTIGATION The current debate focuses on whether or not the Oakland Police Department will reach its authorized staffing level of 803 officers by the end of the year as mandated by Measure Y. The grand jury believes that 803 officers are inadequate to address the high crime rate in Oakland. According to FBI statistics for 2005, Oakland has the second highest crime rate in the State of California; Morgan Quitno 2006 crime ranking statistics show Oakland as the eighth most dangerous city in the nation. Given the crime rate in Oakland, the grand jury believes the city needs more than 803 officers, and most of those officers must patrol the streets. Staffing for the police department is challenging, and recruiting officers admittedly is a difficult problem. With the rising crime rate, officers are unable to meet all of their challenges. Arbitrator Charles A. Askin stated his opinion in "In the Matter of a Controversy Between the City of Oakland and the Oakland Police Officers Association" that the city of Oakland has a serious crime problem. Two other experts cited in the opinion also found the OPD grossly understaffed. One Oakland neighborhood organization calls for 1,100 officers. This number may not be adequate but one 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report thing is clear: increasing the number of sworn officers that patrol the streets can only help reduce Oakland's serious crime problem.
• CL12
  Although the grand jury realizes that having more uniformed officers on the street reduces crime, it is not the sole solution. Many socioeconomic issues also need to be addressed. The city of Oakland must immediately find the money to increase uniformed police patrols. Adequate policing of city streets is an absolute necessity for the safety of Oakland's residents.
• CL13
  It is clear that the application process was seriously flawed. The fire department mismanaged the process for receiving applications. The city of Oakland had no contingency plan to avoid the firefighter application chaos.