Recommendation None Response Required None

Recommendations 17

• R1

  Page 68
  Develop police department policies which conform to the Welfare and Institutions code. Provide officer training sessions regarding these policies and their implementation. City Comments: The Lemoore Police Department has reviewed our policies regarding the placement of children. The policies has been changed to conform to the Welfare and Institutions code. Additionally, we are providing briefing training to all members of our department so they will be trained in the updated policy.
• R2

  Page 69
  None. City Comments: The Lemoore Police Department has taken positive steps toward a productive working relationship with CPS. We have asked members from CPS to attend briefings so our officers have a better understanding as to what CPS does on a daily basis. We will continue to work on strengthening our relationship with CPS for the safety of all children. In closing, the City of Lemoore appreciates the contributions that the Kings County Grand Jury provides for the community. Their dedicated public service is an invaluable tool and aid to the governance of Lemoore. Mayor .~?.t· !'-· .-.. t. i . (' .. } '""' K I NGS COU N TY , PROBATION STEVE BRUM Chief Probation Officer ~~~~~ ~ ~::iX>t.XOOQ~ 1424 FORUM DRIVE To: Honorable Judge James LaPorte HANFORD, CA 93230 Presiding Superior Court Judge TELEPHONE Kings County Government Center (559) 582-3211 1400 W. Lacey Blvd. ExT.1-2850 Hanford, CA 93230 # __,.., FAX Steve Brum (559) 583-1467 From: Chief Probation Officer Date: June 26, 2012 Subject: Response to 2011/2012 Grand Jury Report Kings County Probation Grand Jury Recommendations: 1. Develop written policies and procedures addressing conflict of interest issues Response: On May 25, 2012 this department received a recommendation by the Grand Jury to implement a written policy and procedure regarding Prosecutorial Conflict of Interest cases. While the department has held a high standard for identifying such conflicts and outsourcing sentencing reports, there was no written policy. To comply with your recommendation, · the following policy will be incorporated into the Department Policy and Procedures: NEPOTISM AND CONFLICTING RELATIONSHIPS PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this policy is to ensure effective supervision, safety, security, performance, assignments and discipline while maintaining positive morale by avoiding actual or perceived favoritism, discrimination, or other actual or potential conflicts of interest by or between members of this department.
• R3

  Page 83
  Establish a budget for facility maintenance and upkeep which includes general items and predictable major items. CDH currently budgets for facility maintenance and upkeep through its operating and capital budgets.
• R4

  Page 83
  When the IT system refunds are received, the grand jury recommends that those refunds be combined with unused bond monies for future new facility development. The IT system refunds, which are actually incentive bonus payments made by Medicaid and Medicare to encourage hospitals to invest in electronic medical record systems (EMRs), are presently earmarked by CDH to be used to satisfy its accounts payable. Once the accounts payable are current, CDH intends to reserve future net income, including bonus payments, for future facility development.
• R5

  Page 84
  Furnish a detailed breakdown on the $2,430,453 expenditure. CDH previously provided the grand jury with all documents requested related to this Recommendation.
• R6

  Page 84
  If the USDA loan is not drawn, the CDH Board should review whether the loan processing fee paid to the DBD qualifies for payment from bond funds. The CDH Board will review this Recommendation 6.
• R7

  Page 85
  If CDH plans to proceed with the Phase 2 Clinic or other building projects, consider soliciting bids from multiple qualified general contractors. No response required on this Recommendation 7.
• R8

  Page 85
  If CDH proceeds to build the Phase 2 Clinic or other projects, the project agreement should include penalty clauses for late completion. No response required on this Recommendation 8.
• R9A

  Page 85
  Do a full audit accounting report of the actual cost of this joint agreement project including related costs. Such an audit is unnecessary and is prohibitively expensive.
• R9B

  Page 86
  Consider seeking to recover 50% of the project cost due to this having been a partnership. CDH will consider this Recommendation.
• R11

  Page 86
  Put a hold on all work on Phase I during the time that Phase O is being considered. Refunds should be sought from both the architect and OSHPD. In mid-April, CDH notified its consultants and OSHPD that all work was being suspended on Phase JI (the new acute hospital is not Phase I) while Phase O is being analyzed Work on Phase II was completed by the consultants at the direction of CDH, and therefore their fees have been earned and paid
• R12

  Page 87
  If CDH proceeds with Phase 0, the board should seriously consider retaining other qualified architects and builders to perform the needed tasks. The current DBD & Architect could also bid as separate entities. This approach will potentially yield significant savings and a higher level of design creativity compared to the current design/build approach. It is suggested that architects and builders have experience with OSHPD projects of a similar magnitude. CDH continues to consider this Recommendation and other potential approaches in order to choose the best approach for CDH and the community.
• R13

  Page 87
  Consider putting a footer or header on the Bylaws showing the most recent revision date, the page number and the total number of pages in the document. Consider posting them on the website and updating that posting whenever the Bylaws change. No response is required on this Recommendation 13.
• R14

  Page 87
  Consider placing limitations on certain provisions in the Bylaws by requiring more than a simple board vote without extra notification to the public to make changes to those provisions. CDH will consider this Recommendation 14.
• R15

  Page 88
  With regards to public records, agendas are to be posted at least 72 hours prior to board meetings to conform to Brown Act Section 54954.2(a) meeting public notification requirements. Meeting minutes should be posted within ten days after the meeting date. Posting this information on the CDH web site would be beneficial. CDH does post its agendas at least 72 hours prior to Board meetings. CDH intends to implement a procedure by which both its agendas and meeting minutes will be posted on the CDH website in addition to the usual distribution methods.
• R16

  Page 88
  CDH needs to develop an effective system for storing financial statements, board minutes and other key documents in their computer and at a secure backup storage site. A yearly audit should be done to assure that this system is in place. CDH stores its financial statements, Board minutes, and other key documents both electronically and on hard copies.
• R18

  Page 89
  Hospital administration must ms1st that all administrative employees, board members and other CDH employees with possible ethical and/or financial conflicts are not to be involved in any way in transactions in which they or their families could benefit. CDH should have a Conflict of Interest Code and related reporting requirements per the Political Reform Act as outlined in detail by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) on their website. Policies conforming with these requirements should be enacted by the board and recorded in the minutes. The CDH Board presently does have in place a Conflict ofI nterest Code for its members, and for its CEO and its CFO; current Administration policy does insist that its employees report possible conflicts and avoid involvement in any transactions in which they could be construed as having ethical or financial conflicts. The Board will consider expanding its present Conflict ofI nterest Code to other employees. d. UA( 'f L . r 1 .r JOE NEVES STRATFORD-LEMOORE, DIST.I COUNTY OF KINGS RICHARD VALLE CORCORAN -AV ENAL, DIST. Ill BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOUG VERBOON NORTH HANFORD - NORTH LEMOOORE, DIST. Ill MAILING ADDRESS: KINGS COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, HANFORD, CA 93230 RICHARD FAGUNDES OFFICES AT: 1400 W. LACEY BLVD., ADMINISTRATION BUILDING# I, HANFORD HANFORD, DIST.V (559) 582-3211, EXT. 2362, FAX: (559) 585-8047 TONY BARBA Web Site: hitp://www.countyofkings.com HANFORD-ARMONA, DIST. IV August 21, 2012 Honorable James LaPorte Kings County Superior Court 1426 South Drive Hanford, CA 93230 Dear Judge LaPorte: In accordance with Section 933 of the California Penal Code, this letter is the Kings County Board of Supervisors' response to the Grand Jury Report entitled, "Kings County Probation Department," received by the County on May 25, 2012. Under the Findings Section of the Report the Grand Jury states: 1. Allegations of a possible conflict of interest are unfounded as they relate to the defendant and the probation officer. The officer was in court as a parent and not in an official capacity. The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Grand Jury stated that it received a written complaint letter, and that the result was unfounded. 2. Allegations of a conflict of interest between the District Attorney's office and the defendant are unfounded. An additional suspect in this matter who is related to the Deputy District Attorney was not cited and the defendant has no relationship with the Deputy District Attorney. The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Grand Jury stated that it received a written complaint letter, and that the result was unfounded. 3. Allegations that the court acted improperly by excluding the complainant from a closed meeting in the judge's chambers are unfounded. It was determined that the victim's counsel was present in chambers thus providing proper representation. The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Grand Jury stated that it received a written complaint letter, and that the result was unfounded. 4. During the course of this investigation it was discovered that the probation department has no written policy for conflict of interest cases coming from the courts regarding presentenced investigations. Their practice is to ask another county's probation department to do the investigation for the purpose of sentencing. Conflict cases generally are those successful prosecutions of law enforcement agency members or their family members. The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. At the time of the Grand Jury investigation there was no written policy. 5. The grand jury observes in this matter that it was only when the complainant hired an attorney that the case was put back on calendar. A question remains as to what would happen to a citizen who is unable to afford legal counsel. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with the finding. Any complainant would have the right to request a conference with the District Attorney's office to request to re-open the case. Under the Recommendations Section of the Report the Grand Jury states: 1. None. 2. None. 3. None. 4. This is far too important a matter to be implemented by practice alone. It is recommended that the probation department develop written policies and procedures addressing conflict of interest issues. The Board of Supervisors agrees with this recommendation. To comply with the recommendation, a policy will be incorporated into the Probation Department's Policy and Procedures. A copy of the Probation Department's response and the new policy is attached for your review. 5. None. tJ SincerelY,,) j I· ')_ f jZfJl11t} L~ Richard Fagundes Chairman, Board of Supervisors 2 JOE NEVES STRATFORD-LEMOORE. DIST. I COUNTY OF KINGS RJCBARD VALLE CORCORAN -A VENAL, DIST. Ill BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOUG VERBOON NORTH HANFORD - NORTH LEMOOORE, DIST. Ill MAILING ADDRESS: KINGS COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, HANFORD, CA 93230 RICHARD FAGUNDES OFFICES AT: 1400 W. LACEY BL VD., ADMINISTRATION BUILDING# 1, HANFORD HANFORD, DIST. V (559) 582-3211, EXT. 2362, FAX: (559) 585-8047 TONY BARBA Web Site: http://www.countyofkings.com HANFORD-ARMONA, DIST. IV August 21, 2012 Honorable James LaPorte Kings County Superior Court 1426 South Drive Hanford, CA 93 23 0 Dear Judge LaPorte: In accordance with Section 933 of the California Penal Code, this letter is the Kings County Board of Supervisors' response to the Grand Jury Report entitled, "Child Protective Services Emergency Response," received by the County on May 25, 2012. Under the Findings Section of the Report the Grand Jury states: 1. While there are exceptions, there has been minimal interagency communications or cross training between CPS and Law enforcement agencies. The content of this communication and cross training pertains to the procedures each entity is to follow when working with children in an emergency placement situation. The 2008-09 Grand Jury Report recommended CPS work with law enforcement agencies to develop an interagency training program relative to agency response requirements. In response, CPS stated, "the recommendation to develop a training program will be presented to all law enforcement entities in Kings County by CPS management with the outcome contingent upon the willingness or ability of law enforcement to participate. The invitation to collaborate in the creation of a training program will be initiated by June 2009". Compliance has not been attained as of April 2012. The Board of Supervisors agrees and disagrees with the finding. The Human Services Agency Management had not acted on this primarily because of economic reasons, however Management did offer training on child welfare legislation, regulations, and policies, as well as how to recognize child abuse and neglect to the Lemoore Police Department, the Naval Criminal Investigative Services, and the Lemoore Naval Air Station's (NAS) Security Department. More recently Child Protective Services (CPS) staff has trained Lemoore Police Department and base security and investigator staff on child abu.se and neglect symptomology. In June, 2012, the Human Services Agency met with the other law enforcement agencies in the county including A venal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore Police Departments, as well as the Kings County Sheriffs Office and agreed that CPS would provide annual training on welfare regulations, legislation, and procedures. Training was conducted in late June for A venal and Lemoore Police Departments, in July for Corcoran Police Department, and is being scheduled for Hanford Police Department and the Sheriffs Department. Under the Recommendations Section of the Report the Grand Jury states: 1. This grand jury agrees that CPS initiate and work with law enforcement agencies to develop a training program where both law enforcement officers and the emergency response social workers become aware of each other's views and requirements of their duties. This recommendation is consistent with the previous recommendation in 2008-2009 Kings County Grand Jury Report. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the finding. The Human Services Agency has had difficulty developing a formal training program due to economic instability, which continues to be ongoing. However, the Human Services Agency started meeting with all of the law enforcement agencies in the county in June of 2012 and provided training on welfare regulations, legislation, and procedures. The Human Services Agency will provide this training annually, and all of the law enforcement agencies agreed to send officers to applicable training as invited by the Child Protective Services division. 2. Assign a qualified liaison from CPS to work with law enforcement agencies. The Board of Supervisors agrees with this recommendation. The agency has assigned a Child Protective Services (CPS) Social Work Practitioner as the point of contact for law enforcement agencies to contact for briefing training throughout the year. There has also been a CPS Supervisor assigned over training ongoing who will continue to serve as the point of contact for law enforcement entities to coordinate training arrangements. The Human Services Agency has provided a response to the Board that is attached to this letter. Sincerely, a1~1w7 ;fo~~ Richard Fagundes, Chairman, Board of Supervisors 2 F<ECEIVEO MAR n r:: .·.; \,; J ,; CITY OF HANFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT CARLOS A. MESTAS, CHIEF OF POLICE August 2, 2012 Honorable Donna L. Tarter Superior Court of the State of California Advising Judge to County of Kings Grand Jury County of Kings Hanford, CA 93230 Dear Judge Tarter and the County of Kings Grand Jury: We received the Kings County Grand Jury, Final Report for 2011-2012. We would like to thank those that served on the Grand Jury and we appreciate the service they provided. Upon review of the Final Report we have responded below to the, "Hanford Police Department (HPD) Burglary Response" Section.