Orange County Grand Jury
• 2021-2022
The Big Lack of Transparency Grand Jury 2021-2022
⚠️ 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.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
The City of Anaheim demonstrated persistent lack of transparency and rushed decision- making in its handling of the Stadium Property transactions, exacerbating distrust by the public, State and local government officials, and even some members of its own City Council.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
By December 31, 2022, the City Council should develop and implement guidelines to ensure a minimum 30-day period of public analysis and Council discussion of any public property sale and/or lease transactions. (F1, F2, F4)
F2
The City’s failure to timely disseminate and/or develop critical documents and information related to the Stadium Property transactions resulted in uninformed decision- making by the City Council.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
By December 31, 2022, the City Council should develop and implement guidelines to ensure a minimum 30-day period of public analysis and Council discussion of any public property sale and/or lease transactions. (F1, F2, F4)
F3
In conjunction with its alleged violations of the Surplus Land Act, the City limited creative affordable housing strategies with the Stadium Property transactions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Any future agreement regarding the City’s disposition of the Stadium Property should allocate low and very low-income affordable housing units for the local workforce including individuals who work in the entertainment, leisure, hospitality, and health services industries. (F3)
F4
On multiple occasions, the City Council majority blocked the Council minority from adding items to its agenda relating to the disposition of the Stadium Property, stifling public discussion about the pros and cons of such a significant land transaction.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
By December 31, 2022, the City Council should develop and implement guidelines to ensure a minimum 30-day period of public analysis and Council discussion of any public property sale and/or lease transactions. (F1, F2, F4)
R3
By October 4, 2022, the Anaheim City Council should revise Policy 1.6 so that any member of the City Council may place an item on its regular meeting agenda. (F4) RESPONSES California Penal Code Section 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 A 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 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows: (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 therefor. (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 therefor. (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. A