Stanislaus County Grand Jury
• 2002-2003
• Agency Response
Stanislaus County Continuity Review Grand Jury Case No. 03-27-co
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F9
Findings and Recommendations 9 findings
F1
Page 1
KEYES FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (KFPD) REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The 2001-2002 Civil Grand Jury submitted a report on the Keyes Fire Protection District. The report addressed six different issues. The District prepared and submitted a response to the report, dated September 3, 2002, in which the District agreed with the report’s findings. The 2002-2003 Civil Grand Jury determined to verify that the responses to those recommendations were addressed. BACKGROUND This 2002-2003 Civil Grand Jury followed-up on the District response to insure that steps were taken to implement the recommendations of the 2001-2002 Civil Grand Jury Report. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED 1. The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the 2001-2002 Civil Grand Jury Report.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 1
The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the response to the 2001-2002 Civil Grand Jury Report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 1
Empire Sanitary District REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The 2001-2002 Civil Grand Jury submitted a report on the Empire Sanitary District. The report addressed six issues. The District prepared and submitted a response to the report, dated September 26, 2002, in which the District agreed with the reports findings. The 2002-2003 Civil Grand Jury determined to verify that the responses to those recommendations were addressed.
F3
Page 1
The Civil Grand Jury submitted a request to the KFPD for documents. Specifically, the Civil Grand Jury requested: a. List of all trucks/vehicles owned or operated by the District. b. Description of all licenses required to operate said vehicles. c. List of names and positions of all persons who have operated said vehicles during the designated period of time. d. List of names and positions of all persons who are properly licensed and /or certified to operate said vehicles. e. Copy of by-laws. FINDINGS 1. The District has not yet completed its by-laws and had requested additional time to complete it.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 8
The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors did not conduct an independent investigation nor seek alternate legal advice pertaining to the County Counsel’s decision to release Grand Jury documents.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 8
When the Supervisors accepted the County Counsel and staff person responses, they relied on the oral representations of the Stanislaus County Chief Executive Officer, made at the September 24, 2002, board meeting and on unsworn statements by various persons who addressed the Board of Supervisors at that same meeting.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Page 8
Statements of an investigation by the Stanislaus County Chief Executive, represented to be a “personal and thorough” investigation, that were made at the September 24, 2002, Board of Supervisors public meeting, consisted of the Responses of the County Counsel and staff person, not written under oath, and statements of eight persons taken by his staff, not made under oath. No questions or responses in his investigation dealt with County Counsel’s release of documents.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 8
The 2001-2002 Civil Grand Jury Report, Part 9, consisted of sworn testimony of 27 witnesses, made under oath, and 74 supporting letters, emails, memos, job descriptions and Grand Jury handbooks.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Page 8
The primary arguments County Counsel used in supporting his release of confidential Grand Jury documents was the California Public Records Act. 8 9. County Counsel was not requested by a Civil Grand Jury member to review for libel the released Civil Grand Jury confidential documents.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Page 9
The Attorney General Memo dated June 6, 2003, concluded: “In light of the factual circumstances presented by the Civil Grand Jury’s findings, in the 2001-2002 Final Report, Part Nine, Complaint # 2, and the legal authorities discussed above, the release by County Counsel of both Mayor’s letter to the Civil Grand Jury and the Foreperson’s reply in case 01-10-C is without legal support and deemed contrary to California’s statutory scheme controlling disclosure of grand jury proceedings.” CONCLUSIONS 1. The California Attorney General’s office provided a legal analysis of the issue of the release of confidential Grand Jury documents by County Counsel. It is the opinion of the Attorney General that the position of the County Counsel in releasing the confidential Grand Jury Documents is not supported by California legal authority.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 6
-
CL1 Page 9The California Attorney General’s office provided a legal analysis of the issue of the release of confidential Grand Jury documents by County Counsel. It is the opinion of the Attorney General that the position of the County Counsel in releasing the confidential Grand Jury Documents is not supported by California legal authority.
-
CL2 Page 9The California Attorney General’s opinion is consistent with 2001-2002 Grand Jury Report, Part Nine, pertaining to the release of confidential Civil Grand Jury documents, and inconsistent with the County Counsel response, which had been supported by the Stanislaus County Executive Officer and adopted by the County Board of Supervisors, publicly at its September 24, 2002, meeting.
-
CL3 Page 9The issue presented to the Attorney General was whether material presented to a Civil Grand Jury may be released to the public under the California Public Records Act. The County Counsel had concluded that it could. The office of the State of California Department of Justice Attorney General on June 6, 2003 concluded: “In light of the factual circumstances presented by the Civil Grand Jury’s findings in the 2001-2002 Final Report, Part Nine, Complaint #2, and the legal authorities discussed above, the release by the County Counsel of both the Mayor’s letter to the Civil Grand Jury and the Foreperson’s reply in case 01-10-C is without legal support and deemed contrary to California’s statutory scheme controlling disclosure of grand jury proceedings.”
-
CL4 Page 2The Civil Grand Jury concludes that all recommendations by the 2001/2002 Civil Grand Jury have been substantially complied with, except a revised and complete set of bylaws.
-
CL5 Page 4The Empire Sanitary District Board agreed that all board members should attend the first available county workshop on the Brown Act. The response of the District to the 2001- 2002 Civil Grand Jury Report was prepared in September, 2002. The training has not been completed as of April 28, 2003, as represented by the District in the last correspondence to the Civil Grand Jury.
-
CL6 Page 6The Board of Supervisors did not finalize and approve the drafts of the Audit Report and Purchasing Card Policy.
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Empire Lighting District
Other
Keyes Fire Protection District
Fire District
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office