📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Merced County Grand Jury • 2007-2008 • Agency Response

Response to: Grand Jury Report 2007-2008

Grand Jury Final

Published: July 16, 2008 54 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ 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 3 findings

A strong effort, including assistance from the Office of the Sheriff and/or the Board of Supervisors if needed, be made to complete the power requirements for the decomposition room so that it can be fully utilized.

Although a radiation caused death is unlikely in this area, such an occurrence is possible. A standard procedure should be developed and published for handling and processing such cases. COMMENDATION

Deputy Coroner Mike Harris and his staff are to be commended for the improvements that have been made to the coroner's facility, and their continuing efforts to make further improvements. COMPLAINT # 07-08-01, 07-08-03 & 07-08-06 Livingston City Council Summary Several complaints were received from residents of Livingston about three members of the city council of that city. Specific complaints alleged that city staff was being harassed, non-agenda items were being voted on at council meetings, the Brown Act was being violated and improper conduct was taking place. The Grand Jury found that city staff are being intimidated, some improper requests of city staff are being made, one member of the council, Councilman Rodrigo Espinoza, did not comply with the California Health & Safety Code, the public is unaware of how to obtain copies of official minutes of council meetings and council meeting rules are not being followed. The Grand Jury also found that serious personal differences among city council members are negatively impacting the ability of the council to govern the city effectively. Introduction The complainants, of which there are three, allege that three members of the Livingston City Council, Mayor Gurpal Samra, Councilman Rodrigo Espinoza and Councilman William Ingram, repeatedly interrupt the work of and harass the city hall staff, vote on non-agenda items at City Council meetings, violate the Brown Act, and engage in conduct which is questionable and/or unethical. The Grand Jury agreed to investigate the complaints. All three complaints are related, so the Grand Jury decided to combine them into one investigation. Method of Investigation The County Administration/County Services Committee interviewed each of the complainants separately. All three stated that their primary complaint was that certain members of the city council do not follow proper procedures and protocol in contacting city hall staff, and that they make unreasonable demands of the staff. The complainants also stated that: The position of a Code Enforcement Officer, urgently needed in the city, had been provided for in past and current budgets, but has not yet been filled. Some council members' conduct and decision making is unethically made for self-gain and not in the best interests of the community which they were elected to serve. Council member Rodrigo Espinoza has purchased property in the redevelopment area while he is a director of the Redevelopment Agency, thus creating a conflict of interest. The committee also interviewed several senior city officials, members of the city staff and a member of the public, as well as city council members. One member of the council, Mr. Rodrigo Espinoza, even after being subpoenaed, refused to answer any questions, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination. He also refused to sign any documents, even the standard admonishment against discussing any matters or questions asked of him by the Grand Jury. The committee also reviewed audio recordings and published minutes of city council meetings, 26 memoranda of record written by city officials and staff, city ordinances and other official documents. Several grand jury members also attended selected city council meetings. Findings City staff members universally agreed that some members of the council habitually interrupted staffs workday to request special attention to council members' concerns. These requests were documented in letters and memoranda. Many staff members felt intimidated by the council members, fearing they could lose their jobs and/or have their department's budget cut if they did not acquiesce to the requests. Senior city officials and staff members, as well as the council members interviewed, all agreed that contacts between the council members and staff should go through the City Manager, but this protocol is obviously not consistently being followed. The three council members have made requests of city staff that are inappropriate and could be considered unethical. One example of this was an incident when a city staff member was asked to certify that a relative of the councilman had performed some community service which the relative had not actually performed. The position of Code Enforcement Officer was budgeted for in the 2006-2007 city budget, and again in the 2007-2008 city budget, but has never been filled. There is disagreement among council members as to whether direction has been given to the city manager to fill the position. Councilman Ingram stated that the city manager had been instructed by the council to fill the position, but this was not confirmed by any other council members. City hiring officials stated that they had not been told to fill the position, and could not do so until the council directed that the position be filled. Published minutes of city council meetings are incomplete and inaccurate. This finding was also addressed by the previous grand jury in their report on Complaint # 06-07-15. However, further inquiries revealed that the official minutes of council meetings consist of the audio recordings of such meetings. Those recordings are available for purchase by the public at a nominal cost. Published (written) minutes are essentially a synopsis of council meetings. Allegations of Brown Act violations could not be substantiated. Although numerous witnesses stated that the three council members were often seen together, none could confirm that any city business was being discussed by the three. Since the Brown Act explicitly permits social contact (CA Government Code 54952.2(c) (5)) among elected officials, the grand jury found no violations. City Council members allow their personal differences and conflicts to interfere with voting and decision making. This negatively affects the community. Council member Espinoza did purchase property within the Redevelopment area while he was a Director of the Redevelopment Agency. The California Form 700 was filed, but the purchase was never entered into the city council minutes, as required by California Health & Safety Code, Section 33130 (a). Since the filing of the Form 700 does constitute public disclosure, the grand jury does not believe there was any intent to conceal the purchase on Mr. Espinoza's part, and it is possible that the failure to enter the facts of the purchase in council minutes is merely an administrative oversight. Since Mr. Espinoza refused to be interviewed, the grand jury was unable to clarify this matter any further. The committee randomly selected and reviewed several audio recordings of city council meetings and was unable to verify that the council members regularly vote on non-agenda items. The grand jury also noted that time limits for individual comments (three minutes per individual as written in council meeting rules, and stated by the Mayor at each meeting) are not observed.

Recommendations 6

R1

While it appears that the Dos Palos Police Department has made efforts to implement the recommendations of last year's grand jury, there remains much work to be done. The job description for the police chief needs to be updated and revised to reflect current needs and standards. The city administrator then needs to assess the chief's qualifications and ensure that the chief meets those requirements.
R2

The department must obtain and utilize a more secure storage locker for the weapons kept in the evidence room.
R3

The evidence technician should attend current training for his position as soon as possible.
R4

Consideration should be given to provide a more secure area in which to park department vehicles. As currently configured, the vehicles could easily be vandalized.
R5

The department should reassess its need for a K-9 unit. In such a small department, it may prove to be unfeasible or impractical to have a K-9 unit.
R6

This grand jury strongly recommends that the 2008-2009 grand jury reinspect the Dos Palos 11 Police Department. MERCED COLLEGE POLICE DEPARTMENT On November 7, 2007, members of the Grand Jury inspected the Merced Community College Police Department located at 3600 M Street in the Services Building on the Merced College campus. The last inspection conducted by the Grand Jury was on November 17, 2003. The tour of the facility was conducted by Merced County Deputy Sheriff Jim Wilde. Deputy Wilde is the on-site Law Enforcement Manager for the department. The College District has contracted through the Merced County Sheriff Department for supervision and logistical support for the Police Department.

Commendations 8

CM1 Page 25

A strong effort, including assistance from the Office of the Sheriff and/or the Board of Supervisors if needed, be made to complete the power requirements for the decomposition room so that it can be fully utilized.
CM2 Page 25

Although a radiation caused death is unlikely in this area, such an occurrence is possible. A standard procedure should be developed and published for handling and processing such cases.
CM3 Page 25

Deputy Coroner Mike Harris and his staff are to be commended for the improvements that have been made to the coroner's facility, and their continuing efforts to make further improvements. 25 COMPLAINT # 07-08-01, 07-08-03 & 07-08-06 Livingston City Council Summary Several complaints were received from residents of Livingston about three members of the city council of that city. Specific complaints alleged that city staff was being harassed, non-agenda items were being voted on at council meetings, the Brown Act was being violated and improper conduct was taking place. The Grand Jury found that city staff are being intimidated, some improper requests of city staff are being made, one member of the council, Councilman Rodrigo Espinoza, did not comply with the California Health & Safety Code, the public is unaware of how to obtain copies of official minutes of council meetings and council meeting rules are not being followed. The Grand Jury also found that serious personal differences among city council members are negatively impacting the ability of the council to govern the city effectively. Introduction The complainants, of which there are three, allege that three members of the Livingston City Council, Mayor Gurpal Samra, Councilman Rodrigo Espinoza and Councilman William Ingram, repeatedly interrupt the work of and harass the city hall staff, vote on non-agenda items at City Council meetings, violate the Brown Act, and engage in conduct which is questionable and/or unethical. The Grand Jury agreed to investigate the complaints. All three complaints are related, so the Grand Jury decided to combine them into one investigation. Method of Investigation The County Administration/County Services Committee interviewed each of the complainants separately. All three stated that their primary complaint was that certain members of the city council do not follow proper procedures and protocol in contacting city hall staff, and that they make unreasonable demands of the staff. The complainants also stated that: The position of a Code Enforcement Officer, urgently needed in the city, had been provided for in past and current budgets, but has not yet been filled. Some council members' conduct and decision making is unethically made for self-gain and not in the best interests of the community which they were elected to serve. Council member Rodrigo Espinoza has purchased property in the redevelopment area while he is a director of the Redevelopment Agency, thus creating a conflict of interest. The committee also interviewed several senior city officials, members of the city staff and a member of the public, as well as city council members. One member of the council, Mr. Rodrigo Espinoza, even after being subpoenaed, refused to answer any questions, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination. He also refused to sign any documents, even the standard admonishment against discussing any matters or questions asked of him by the Grand Jury. The committee also reviewed audio recordings and published minutes of city council meetings, 26 memoranda of record written by city officials and staff, city ordinances and other official documents. Several grand jury members also attended selected city council meetings.
CM4 Page 9

The City and the Gustine Lions Club are to be highly commended for their collaboration on the new animal shelter. Chief Anderson is also to be highly commended for his community-based policing. 9 DOS PALOS POLICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTION INTRODUCTION The Merced County Grand Jury has, at its discretion under California Penal Code 925A, the option to investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of officers, functions, methods or system of performing duties of law enforcement agencies within Merced County. Since there were two complaints registered against the Dos Palos Police Department (PD) with the 2005-2006 grand jury and four more with the 2006-2007 grand jury, this panel chose to follow up and investigate the Dos Palos PD again this year. The grand jury's Law & Justice Committee visited the Dos Palos PD on two occasions, the first of which was to observe the overall operation and see what changes, if any, had been made since the previous grand jury had been there. The second visit was a follow-up to look at some records which had not been available on the first visit. Police Chief Barry Mann conducted a tour of the facility during the first visit, which included a trip to the newly built animal control center. The animal control officer conducted a thorough tour of the center. During the second visit, members again met with Chief Mann and discussed several questions which had been asked by other members of the grand jury during their meetings. The members also inspected appropriate officers' training records.
CM5 Page 14

Deputy Wilde and his staff should be commended for the improvements that have been made and implemented since the last Grand Jury tour. 14 CITY OF MERCED POLICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTION INTRODUCTION The Law and Justice Committee of the Grand Jury conducted an inspection of the Merced Police Department on November 28, 2007. The tour of the facility, located at 611 West 22nd Street, Merced, was conducted by Commander Jeff Shindler.
CM6 Page 15

The Merced Police Department is well organized and responsive to the community's needs. The facility is clean and well maintained and presents a professional appearance. Education of officers and staff and service to the community are top priorities of the chief and his administration. 15 MERCED COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT MAIN JAIL MANDATED INSPECTION INTRODUCTION The Merced County Grand Jury inspected the main Merced County jail at 700 W. 22nd Street, Merced, on November 14, 2007. This inspection is mandated to be performed annually by California Penal Code 919. Members of the grand jury met with Sgt. Dan Bobrowski and Commander Rick Thoreson, who provided an overview of jail operations and a report of employment needs. They also conducted a thorough tour of the facility.
CM7 Page 19

The staff and supervisory personnel at the Latorraca facility are to be commended for their efforts under trying and often dangerous conditions. 19 MERCED COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT IRIS GARRET JUVENILE JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL CENTER MANDATED ANNUAL INSPECTION INTRODUCTION California Penal Code, Section 919, mandates the grand jury inspect correctional facilities within the county each year. The grand jury undertook a tour and inspection of the Iris Garret Juvenile Justice Correctional Center located at 2586 West Sandy Mush Road, Merced, on December 5, 2007. The jury toured the entire facility, examining the intake area, medical service station, dormitories, classrooms and recreational facilities. The Assistant Chief Probation Officer and the Facility Supervisor conducted the tour.
CM8 Page 21

The staff and administration of the Merced County Juvenile Justice Center are to be commended for the excellent work they are doing. The facility is very secure and well managed, thus helping to ensure the safety of the community as well as the minors. 21 LOS BANOS JAIL MANDATED INSPECTION INTRODUCTION On January 9, 2008, the Merced County Grand Jury inspected the City of Los Banos jail at 945 5th St. Los Banos, Ca. The Grand Jury Law and Justice Committee spoke with Chief Chris Gallagher of the Los Banos Police Department (LBPD). The chief had been "at the helm" for approximately 16 months at the time of the meeting. He turned the tour and discussion over to Administrative Commander and Jail Manager Dan Fitchie who has served with the LBPD for 26 years.