Riverside County Grand Jury
2014-2015
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (11)
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The current staffing does not constitute a Museum Board as per the conditions in the 1964 Agreement. When EDA acquired operations in 1999, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) assigned the Museum Board responsibilities to the Community Services Division of EDA. This includes a Senior Development Specialist who manages the day-to-day functions of the museum and facilities, a three-quarter time curator, and three assistant positions, one of which is vacant. The Principal Development Specialist oversees the museum and all of the County libraries. Condition #2 of the 1964 Agreement states, in part: A Museum Board shall be created by said Board of Supervisors to advise the Board of Supervisors on policies relating to the operation of the Center, to consist of qualified people, and to meet at least quarterly... A competent and qualified curator shall be employed and shall, under the County's usual governmental administrative procedures, be in charge of the Center at all times... Note: The term, Center, refers to the name defined in Condition #1 of the 1964 Agreement which states, in part: Said property shall be known as the Riverside County Art and Cultural Center, including as a part thereof improved grounds, buildings and museum personal property which shall continue to be known as the Edward-Dean Museum of Decorative Arts, herein- after respectively called "Center" and "Museum"... Pavilion Kitchen/Restrooms
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The BOS shall appoint a Museum Board by November 1, 2015, consisting of qualified members who shall meet at least quarterly to advise the BOS consistent with the 1964 Agreement. Pavilion Kitchen/Restrooms
F2:
The kitchen, adjacent to the Pavilion, has been condemned for over 10 years due to the presence of asbestos and mold. The kitchen is locked and unusable. However, restrooms attached to the building are still in use. The Riverside County 2008-006 Audit report recognized the need to renovate the Pavilion kitchen, and EDA's reply stated that corrective action was estimated to begin in July of 2011 and end June of 2012. As of the date of this report, no renovation has been initiated. Pavilion
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The EDA shall engage the services of a qualified contractor by November 1, 2015, to eradicate the asbestos and mold health hazards in the Pavilion kitchen and restrooms and to close the restrooms until repairs are completed. Pavilion
F3:
The Pavilion area needs cleaning and repair. The roof is dirty and the entire area needs paint and stucco work. There are cracks in the sidewalk which present serious trip hazards (see attached photos). The 1964 Agreement Condition #9 states: The County of Riverside shall at its own expense provide for the maintenance and operation of the property, all repairs and all refurbishing. Real Property
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
EDA shall, by November 1, 2015, clean or replace the pavilion roof, repair the stucco and cracked sidewalks, eliminate safety hazards, and paint to improve the appearance. Real Property
F4:
The property includes approximately 10 acres of unused land which currently has a few trees, some of which are dead (see Attachment #1). There is an area utilized for the accumulation of trash, miscellaneous debris, dead vegetation, and a dumpster. The 1964 Agreement Condition #12 states, in part: The County of Riverside shall have the right to use the portions of the real property not now improved with the Museum or its grounds for park and recreational purposes and related uses, or for agricultural purposes, either by its own activities or through appropriate leases to third persons or agencies... Rental Price Structure
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
EDA shall remove debris, dead trees, and vegetation. The trash shall be moved to a location not visible from the activity areas by November 1,
F5:
The Riverside County Auditor's report 2008-006 states that the rental rate of $2,500 for a Saturday event was found to be competitive. Since then, the fee has increased to $4,200 which is no longer competitive. The rental rate for day use of the facility includes the dining/reception hall or pavilion, as well as the gazebo, the pond or Legacy Garden. In addition, other services must be added, such as catering. Other venues include the use of the facility with the catering fee. There is no price structure for use of the reception hall only, nor is there flexibility in the system to allow for partial days or multiple events on the same day. Lack of Adequate Marketing
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
EDA shall return the rental rate to the $2,500 base price to be competitive with similar facilities. EDA shall provide options for rental of limited parts of the facility and offer other time options. EDA shall offer alternate packages. Lack of Adequate Marketing
F6:
The EDMDA has been inadequately marketed. In the past two years, the 18-20 rental events per year have proven inadequate to make the Center financially self-sufficient. There are very few EDMDA events that would attract residents from the Coachella Valley who live less than an hour away. Other western Riverside County communities are 30 to 45 minutes away, within easy driving time, but are not adequately targeted in its present marketing. Appraisals
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
EDA shall increase marketing efforts to caterers, wedding planners, bridal coordinators, party planners, shops. meeting and appropriate organizations. This would attract customers for weddings and other events such as business seminars and retreats, to utilize the facility on other days. Advertise through radio, television, regional magazines, sororities, and social media. To better advertise the value of the museum, EDA shall promote it to colleges, universities, and cultural clubs. Other opportunities for promotion include an on-line video mini-tour of the museum to attract visitors. Another on-line video would provide a visual tour of the grounds and facilities for potential renters. Appraisals
F7:
Obtaining appraisals is the financial obligation of EDA. Appraisals are not conducted on a regular basis. They were completed in 1980, 2008, and
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
EDA shall be responsible for obtaining appraisals, which shall be completed every five years. Security
F8:
There are cameras inside the museum with a DVR, but no outside cameras on the grounds to provide early detection of intruders or monitor activity that would be used as evidence. This will assist the County in refuting liability claims and protecting against loss of property. Museum Inventory
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
EDA shall immediately upgrade the surveillance system to include multiple cameras on the grounds to be recorded on the DVR system. EDA shall establish an internet connection to enable the cameras to be monitored in the office and at remote locations. Early warning alarms shall alert management and police. Museum Inventory
F9:
Inventory of the museum is being tracked by Past Perfect Museum Software which depends on accurate entry and upkeep of information, pictures, and other data. There is no cross-check system in place to verify the Past Perfect data. Backup Records
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Physical inventory of museum contents including basement and storage areas shall be taken quarterly and shall be verified against the Past Perfect software information. Backup Records
F10:
No backup records are stored off-premises. As of January 2015 the only current inventory record is maintained on the museum property. Venue Management
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Since the inventory is managed by Past Perfect, a copy of the data shall be sent to EDA and Risk Management monthly as a backup to the computer in the museum office. Venue Management
F11:
Crestmore Manor is another wedding venue located in Riverside County and owned by the County. This venue, which has a full schedule with more competitive rates, is operated by the Parks Department. Accreditation
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Transfer management of the non-museum activity and rentals to the Keep the museum under EDA management in Parks Department. conjunction with the BOS appointed Museum Board. Accreditation
F12:
Museum Accreditation was withdrawn in 1997 by American Association of Museums. In their letter to EDMDA dated August 4, 1997, the following deficiencies and areas of concern are noted:
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
EDMDA shall contact American Association of Museums, Director of Accreditation and Museum Standards, in Washington D.C. to determine what action is necessary to regain accreditation. Finances
F13:
EDMDA has a projected expense budget for fiscal year 2014-2015 of $338,000 and a projected income of only $262,000 (with $104,651 of that coming from EDA to subsidize the operation). EDMDA revenue is derived from museum admissions, facility rentals, special grants, a few special events that provide income from parking and admission fees, commissions from gift shop consignment sales, and support from Friends of the Museum. The result is a $76,000 deficit. Strategic Plan
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
To ensure viability and resolve potential deficits, the County Auditor- Controller shall do a comprehensive cost analysis of the operation of the EDMDA. Strategic Plan
F14:
EDMDA does not have a current strategic plan in place. The Grand Jury has been advised by EDMDA that "they are working on a plan." A Strategic Plan consists of a mission statement, an assessment of current state of business, a competitive landscape analysis, a plan of allocating time and financial resources, a plan on how the business will go about achieving goals, and a strategy for attracting customers. A strategic plan has a five-year timeline with yearly updates and goals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
EDA, in conjunction with EDMDA, shall develop a strategic plan by December 15, 2015, to review and revise annually. Report Issued: 05/27/2015 Report Public: 05/29/2015 Response Due: 08/25/2015 计域态度 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . رقراء الت eri Estados Die. - A 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 STA weeks and a 1 ACTOR DESCRIPTION OF THE PERSON OF THE PERSON OF THE PERSON OF THE PERSON OF THE PERSON OF THE PERSON OF THE PERSON OF THE PERSON OF THE PERSON OF THE PERSON OF THE PERSON OF THE PERSON OF THE PERSON OF THE PERSON OF THE P 2 Call 111! 2011000 • 1 the . . 32173 ĸ.
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The current staffing does not constitute a Museum Board as per the conditions in the 1964 Agreement. When EDA acquired operations in 1999, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) assigned the Museum Board responsibilities to the Community Services Division of EDA. This includes a Senior Development Specialist who manages the day-to-day functions of the museum and facilities, a three-quarter time curator, and three assistant positions, one of which is vacant. The Principal Development Specialist oversees the museum and all of the County libraries. Condition #2 of the 1964 Agreement states, in part: A Museum Board shall be created by said Board of Supervisors to advise the Board of Supervisors on policies relating to the operation of the Center, to consist of qualified people, and to meet at least quarterly... A competent and qualified curator shall be employed and shall, under the County's usual governmental administrative procedures, be in charge of the Center at all times ... Note: The term, Center, refers to the name defined in Condition #1 of the 1964 Agreement which states, in part: Said property shall be known as the Riverside County Art and Cultural Center, including as a part thereof improved grounds, buildings and museum personal property which shall continue to be known as the Edward-Dean Museum of Decorative Arts, herein after respectively called "Center'' and "Museum" ... Pavilion Kitchen/Restrooms
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The BOS shall appoint a Museum Board by November 1, 2015, consisting of qualified members who shall meet at least quarterly to advise the BOS consistent with the 1964 Agreement. Pavilion Kitchen/Restrooms
F2:
The kitchen, adjacent to the Pavilion, has been condemned for over 10 years due to the presence of asbestos and mold. The kitchen is locked and unusable. However, restrooms attached to the building are still in use. The Riverside County 2008-006 Audit report recognized the need to renovate the Pavilion kitchen, and EDA's reply stated that corrective action was estimated to begin in July of 2011 and end June of 2012. As of the date of this report, no renovation has been initiated. Pavilion
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The EDA shall engage the services of a qualified contractor by November 1, 2015, to eradicate the asbestos and mold health hazards in the Pavilion kitchen and restrooms and to close the restrooms until repairs are completed. Pavilion
F3:
The Pavilion area needs cleaning and repair. The roof is dirty and the entire area needs paint and stucco work. There are cracks in the sidewalk which present serious trip hazards (see attached photos). The 1964 Agreement Condition #9 states: The County of Riverside shall at its own expense provide for the maintenance and operation of the property, all repairs and all refurbishing. Real Property
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
EDA shall, by November 1, 2015, clean or replace the pavilion roof, repair the stucco and cracked sidewalks, eliminate safety hazards, and paint to improve the appearance. Real Property
F4:
The property includes approximately 10 acres of unused land which currently has a few trees, some of which are dead (see Attachment #1 ). There is an area utilized for the accumulation of trash, miscellaneous debris, dead vegetation, and a dumpster. The 1964 Agreement Condition #12 states, in part: The County of Riverside shall have the right to use the portions of the real property not now improved with the Museum or its grounds for park and recreational purposes and related uses, or for agricultural purposes, either by its own activities or through appropriate leases to third persons or agencies ... Rental Price Structure
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
EDA shall remove debris, dead trees, and vegetation. The trash shall be moved to a location not visible from the activity areas by November 1,
F5:
The Riverside County Auditor's report 2008-006 states that the rental rate of $2,500 for a Saturday event was found to be competitive. Since then, the fee has increased to $4,200 which is no longer competitive. The rental rate for day use of the facility includes the dining/reception hall or pavilion, as well as the gazebo, the pond or Legacy Garden. In addition, other services must be added, such as catering. Other venues include the use of the facility with the catering fee. There is no price structure for use of the reception hall only, nor is there flexibility in the system to allow for partial days or multiple events on the same day. Lack of Adequate Marketing
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
EDA shall return the rental rate to the $2,500 base price to be competitive with similar facilities. EDA shall provide options for rental of limited parts of the facility and offer other time options. EDA shall offer alternate packages. Lack of Adequate Marketing
F6:
The EDMDA has been inadequately marketed. In the past two years, the 18-20 rental events per year have proven inadequate to make the Center financially self-sufficient. There are very few EDMDA events that would attract residents from the Coachella Valley who live less than an hour away. Other western Riverside County communities are 30 to 45 minutes away, within easy driving time, but are not adequately targeted in its present marketing. Appraisals
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
EDA shall increase marketing efforts to caterers, wedding planners, bridal shops, meeting coordinators, party planners, and appropriate organizations. This would attract customers for weddings and other events such as business seminars and retreats, to utilize the facility on other days. Advertise through radio, television, regional magazines, sororities, and social media. To better advertise the value of the museum, EDA shall promote it to colleges, universities, and cultural clubs. Other opportunities for promotion include an on-line video mini-tour of the museum to attract visitors. Another on-line video would provide a visual tour of the grounds and facilities for potential renters. Appraisals
F7:
Obtaining appraisals is the financial obligation of ED A. Appraisals are not conducted on a regular basis. They were completed in 1980, 2008, and
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
EDA shall be responsible for obtaining appraisals, which shall be completed every five years. Security
F8:
There are cameras inside the museum with a DVR, but no outside cameras on the grounds to provide early detection of intruders or monitor activity that would be used as evidence. This will assist the County in refuting liability claims and protecting against loss of property. Museum Inventory
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
EDA shall immediately upgrade the surveillance system to include multiple cameras on the grounds to be recorded on the DVR system. EDA shall establish an internet connection to enable the cameras to be monitored in the office and at remote locations. Early warning alarms shall alert management and police. Museum Inventory
F9:
Inventory of the museum is being tracked by Past Perfect Museum Software which depends on accurate entry and upkeep of information, pictures, and other data. There is no cross-check system in place to verify the Past Perfect data. Backup Records
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Physical inventory of museum contents including basement and storage areas shall be taken quarterly and shall be verified against the Past Perfect software information. Backup Records
F10:
No backup records are stored off-premises. As of January 2015 the only current inventory record is maintained on the museum property. Venue Management
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Since the inventory is managed by Past Perfect, a copy of the data shall be sent to EDA and Risk Management monthly as a backup to the computer in the museum office. Venue Management
F11:
Crestmore Manor is another wedding venue located in Riverside County and owned by the County. This venue, which has a full schedule with more competitive rates, is operated by the Parks Department. Accreditation
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Transfer management of the non-museum activity and rentals to the Parks Department. Keep the museum under EDA management in conjunction with the BOS appointed Museum Board. Accreditation
F12:
Museum Accreditation was withdrawn in 1997 by American Association of Museums. In their letter to EDMDA dated August 4, 1997, the following deficiencies and areas of concern are noted: 1 . Governing body's (County of Riverside Board of Supervisors) lack of understanding of its public trust responsibilities to the museum.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
EDMDA shall contact American Association of Museums, Director of Accreditation and Museum Standards, in Washington D.C. to determine what action is necessary to regain accreditation. Finances
F13:
EDMDA has a projected expense budget for fiscal year 2014-2015 of $338,000 and a projected income of only $262,000 (with $104,651 of that coming from EDA to subsidize the operation). EDMDA revenue is derived from museum admissions, facility rentals, special grants, a few special events that provide income from parking and admission fees, commissions from gift shop consignment sales, and support from Friends of the Museum. The result is a $76,000 deficit. Strategic Plan
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
To ensure viability and resolve potential deficits, the County Auditor Controller shall do a comprehensive cost analysis of the operation of the EDMDA. Strategic Plan
F14:
EDMDA does not have a current strategic plan in place. The Grand Jury has been advised by EDMDA that "they are working on a plan." A Strategic Plan consists of a mission statement, an assessment of current state of business, a competitive landscape analysis, a plan of allocating time and financial resources, a plan on how the business will go about achieving goals, and a strategy for attracting customers. A strategic plan has a five-year timeline with yearly updates and goals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
EDA, in conjunction with EDMDA, shall develop a strategic plan by December 15, 2015, to review and revise annually. Report Issued: 05/27/2015 Report Public: 05/29/2015 Response Due: 08/25/2015 8 -· ,--·- .. -,· -~.·-;-: :~::1: ~,.->~- • ,-~ ....... -... r· ',.. ~t . _... ..... ~ .. . . '. .• ..~ ..' -.-•.¥ ~· ••• " ' I • J 4 ~ '
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
County Code Enforcement suffers from a systemic lack of supervision of its field Code Enforcement personnel. Field Code Enforcement personnel self-schedule their daily activities, and are not required to maintain an accounting of the time and location of their daily activities. This lack of supervision is conducive to abuse of County time and resources. CalRecycle Waste Tire Grant Program Supervision
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Re-evaluate the supervisory responsibilities and structure of the entire Code Enforcement Department to ensure that consistent oversight is obtained. Supervisors with direct responsibility over field personnel shall require the completion of a daily field activity log which chronicles the officers’ activities. The log shall consist of, but not limited to, time, location, type of activity, and disposition of each log entry. The logs shall be reviewed daily by the respective supervisor for accuracy. Supervisors shall make unannounced visits to field CEOs and obtain real time knowledge of their activities. Supervisors shall, in accordance with their job description, which states in part: …assign, review and evaluate the work performed by Code Enforcement personnel; direct day-to-day operations of the Code Enforcement function; create and assign work schedules as outlined in their job description. CalRecycle Waste Tire Grant Program Supervision
F2:
There is a full-time supervisor assigned to the Tire Grant Program; however, only 40 hours of supervision time is charged or billed to the 2 Program per year. The Supervisor of the Tire Grant Program stated his supervisory philosophy is to allow the people he supervises to “self- manage” themselves; and therefore, they require and receive very little oversight. This lack of supervision leads to abuse of County time and resources. CalRecycle Waste Tire Grant Program Agreement
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
To further enhance the efficiency of the operation of their organization, the supervisor assigned to the Tire Grant Program shall not be limited to waste tire activities only, but assigned additional code enforcement duties and responsibilities. The supervisor shall monitor employees on a regular basis to stop abuse of County time. CalRecycle Waste Tire Grant Program Agreement
F3:
The Tire Grant Program operates as an agreement with the State of California (State). The State, in its agreement, allows up to four hours per waste tire inspection. Most on-site tire inspections require much less time, some as little as 15 minutes. It is noted in the Tire Enforcement Grant Program Agreement (TEA 18-10-14) that inspection research, report writing, and actual time spent inspecting are included as part of the 3 ½ hours billed, but most on-site inspections are completed in one hour or less. Since the State is billed at 3 ½ hours per inspection, Tire Grant Program personnel are only tasked to perform three inspections per day. Testimony from some field CEOs has revealed they are “bored” with little to do at times. As a result, Tire Grant Program personnel are underutilized. Training
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Code Enforcement Officers assigned to the Tire Grant Program shall not be limited to waste tire activities only, but assigned additional Code Enforcement responsibilities. Training
F4:
Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures do not reflect any mandated training/certification requirements or subsequent in-service training, which leads to inconsistencies in code enforcement practices. All training is optional except for California Penal Code §832, which is titled, Course of training prescribed by commission on peace officer standards and training; examination; necessity to exercise powers; exemptions; examination fees. Communications
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
In lieu of the California Penal Code §832 Training, County Code Enforcement shall mandate a 40-hour Officer Training Program as offered by the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers. This training includes: Ethics, Basic Inspection Protocols, Vehicle Abatement, Drug Recognition and Gang Awareness, Abatement of Substandard Housing and Dangerous Buildings, Case Preparation for Administration, and Civil & Criminal Cases. County Code Enforcement shall establish training for all supervisors focused on the oversight of CEO’s duties and responsibilities to increase accountability. Communications
F5:
There is no practice of regularly scheduled staff meetings among the CEOs to facilitate the dissemination of County Code Enforcement related information, as outlined in the Policies and Procedures Manual. Operating Procedures
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
County Code Enforcement shall mandate regularly scheduled staff meetings conducted by supervisors or department heads to facilitate the dissemination of information to CEOs. Operating Procedures
F6:
The County Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures Manual is incomplete and outdated. The manual does not adequately reflect the current procedures nor communication equipment available to field personnel (e.g., handie – talkie). Various sections of the manual are seven to eight years old. County Counsel Interference
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The County Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures Manual shall be reviewed and revised to reflect current practices. County Counsel Interference
F7:
During the course of this investigation regarding abuses and deficiencies in the Code Enforcement Department, the Grand Jury encountered interference from the Riverside County Office of County Counsel (County Counsel). County Counsel has directed all County department heads to advise their subordinates to obtain legal representation from his office for sworn interviews, as well as screening of any documentation prior to complying with Grand Jury requests. County Counsel has taken the position that his office has the legal responsibility to represent all County employees in any matters involving the Riverside County Civil Grand Jury. The Grand Jury is tasked with examining County departments for possible improprieties or inefficiencies pursuant to California Penal Code §925. Efforts by County Counsel to hinder the examination process and impede transparency are not beneficial to the citizens of the County of Riverside.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors shall instruct County Counsel to comply with California Penal Code §925 titled, County officers, departments or functions; operations, accounts and records; investigations and reports. Report Issued: 06/10/2015 Report Public: 06/12/2015 Response Due: 09/08/2015 6
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Upon reviewing the supplemental page of Coroner’s Packets #2013- 10639 (Attachment #1) and #2013-11723 (Attachment #2), it was observed that each contained a similar misleading statement. They both read, on the applicable date, Riverside County Sheriff-Coroner Stanley Sniff conducted a Coroner’s Review in the matter of the death of the decedent. After the facts were presented, Sheriff-Coroner Stanley Sniff certified the death. These written statements are misleading as Sheriff-Coroner Stanley Sniff was not present at either review. Delay of Files/Documents
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The supplemental page of all Coroners’ packets recommending the cause, mode, and manner shall be reworded to reflect that a Coroner’s Review was conducted on behalf of Sheriff-Coroner Stanley Sniff. Delay of Files/Documents
F2:
On October 30, 2014, members of the Grand Jury attended Coroner’s Review of Coroner’s Case File #2013-11723. The Sheriff-Coroner Representative certified this death as: • Cause of death: Acute methamphetamine and heroin intoxication • Mode of death: Administered illicit drugs to self • Manner of death: Accident At the conclusion of the review, the Grand Jury requested a Coroner’s Packet for this case file. On November 5, 2014, a follow-up telephone call was made to the Coroner’s Office inquiring into the status of the requested Coroner’s Packet. Later that day, the Grand Jury Foreperson received a voice mail message advising the packet was not complete and the cause of death was still undetermined, even though the cause of death was certified on October 30, 2014. A second follow-up telephone call was placed on November 24, 2014. This time the Grand Jury was advised that the requested Coroner’s packet was awaiting final approval. A third follow-up call was placed on December 4, 2014, this time the Grand Jury was advised the packet was awaiting a signature. The requested packet was finally received on December 15, 2014. Inaccurate Information
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sheriff-Coroner shall not hold Coroner’s Reviews until cause, mode, and manner of death have been verified. Inaccurate Information
F3:
On two occasions, members of the Grand Jury met with a city chief of police. During these meetings, the chief expressed concerns, as he was advised by the Sheriff that the Grand Jury only attends three Coroner’s Reviews a year. The chief felt that this left his officers in a state of anxiety. He further stated he understood that if the Grand Jury was not present, a Coroner’s Review could not be conducted. The Grand Jury is invited to attend Coroner’s Reviews as the watchdog, representing the citizens of Riverside County. Accuracy/Amending Files
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Sheriff-Coroner personnel shall not advise anyone that the Grand Jury must be present for a Coroner’s Review to take place, and shall be written into the Sheriff-Coroner’s Policy and Procedure Manual. Accuracy/Amending Files
F4:
The Grand Jury requested a Coroner’s Packet for Coroner File #2013-
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Coroner Investigation Reports shall be amended as new information becomes available. Subpoenas
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
The Sheriff-Coroner shall comply with the delivery date and time as mandated within a Grand Jury Subpoena. Report Issued: 06/30/15 Report Public: 07/02/15 Response Due: 09/28/15 5 Attachment #1 6 Attachment #2 7
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
AB 622 became law in January 2012. The law added Section 939.22(a) to the California Penal Code. County Counsel has interpreted this law, and applied the new law to allow him to represent the officials and employees of the County as to County civil matters brought before the Grand Jury, and to be present at all interviews of County employees that are to be interviewed under oath. County Counsel has attempted to attend one interview and directed, on three occasions, a Deputy County Counsel to represent County employees who have been called to give testimony in Grand Jury interviews. This presents a conflict of interest due to the incompatibility of the professional duties of the County Counsel to 3 represent the County and the Grand Jury in the same matter. This is a direct violation of California Penal Code §934(a). Conflict arises when County Counsel acts in a dual representative role. The County Counsel’s primary duty is to the BOS, not the employees. This conflict places an onerous and improper burden on the witness, because such witness is not at liberty to speak openly and candidly while giving testimony. The witness faces retaliation or discipline by his/her department supervisor or manager due to the County Counsel’s presence (referenced in McClatchy Newspapers v. The Superior Court of Fresno County 751 P. 2d 1329 (Cal. 1988). It makes County Counsel cognizant of the nature of the Grand Jury’s inquiry and the areas being reviewed, as well as, exactly what testimony was given by the witness. A witness could believe that such information may be relayed to the employee’s department or managers. Even though County Counsel is admonished not to reveal the nature of the Grand Jury interview, the secrecy and integrity of the proceedings has already been compromised by County Counsel’s mere presence, which taints the integrity of the interview. The Office of the Attorney General, State of California, in an Opinion issued June 6, 2003, (02-1108) stated, in part: …We believe the Legislature’s policy of preserving the secrecy of grand jury proceedings is not only applicable when a grand jury is performing its criminal indictment function, but also when it is performing its civil watchdog function. In McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court, supra, 44 Cal.3d 1162, the Supreme Court observed: The importance of secrecy is well established in the context of the grand jury’s criminal indictment function. By the same token, when the grand jury conducts a watchdog investigation of local government operations as in the instant case, secrecy appears equally vital. Compared with indictment proceedings, the efficacy and credibility of watchdog investigations no less require that witnesses testify without fear of reproach by their peers or their superiors. Though the watchdog investigation and report serve a different social purpose than the criminal indictment, eliciting candid testimony is obviously critical to both functions of the grand jury. Significantly, the separate and distinct functions of watchdog and indictment grand juries are sometimes intermingled, in the sense that watchdog inquiries into alleged corruption may involve the weighing of possible criminal indictments against county officials and others being investigated…. Whether or not a watchdog grand jury actually undertakes the weighing of indictments, secrecy 4 ‘provides the proper atmosphere in which to generate uninhibited testimony from county employees who might otherwise be intimidated by political and employment considerations.’ [Citations.] “Secrecy also serves to protect the reputations of those who may be unjustly accused during the course of a watchdog investigation. ‘Grand jury secrecy…is “as important for the protection of the innocent as for the pursuit of the guilty.” [Citation Omitted.]’ [Citation.]” (Id.at. pp. 1175-1176.) Transparency and Accountability
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To maintain secrecy, County Counsel, or its Deputy County Counsel, shall not represent an employee of the County when testifying before the Grand Jury, pursuant to California Penal Code §934(a). Rather than protecting county agencies from the Grand Jury’s scrutiny, County Counsel shall be receptive to such inquiries. Transparency and Accountability
F2:
County Counsel has advised department heads, on or about January 21, 2015, to delay release of information to the Grand Jury, which is a violation of the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code §§6250- 6276.48) (PRA). County Counsel’s actions obscure the transparency and accountability throughout the County. As the court in Monroe v. Garrett (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 280, 284 [94 Cal.Rptr.531] observed: In our system of government, a grand jury is the only agency free from possible political or official bias that has an opportunity to see the picture of crime and the operation of government relating thereto on any broad basis. It performs a valuable public purpose in presenting its conclusions drawn from that overview. The public may, of course, ultimately conclude that the jury’s fears were exaggerated or that its proposed solutions are unwise. But the debate which reports, such as the one before us, would provoke could lead only to a better understanding of public governmental problems. They should be encouraged and not prohibited. Inaccurate, Incomplete, and Misleading Statements
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
County Counsel shall advise department heads to allow access to all documents requested by the Grand Jury. The department shall provide assistance by helping identify records and information relevant to the request, which is part of the PRA, and suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access to PRA documents (see PRA §6253.1). Any denial of a request by the Grand Jury must be justified in writing, by demonstrating that the record is exempt or that the public interest in confidentiality outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Inaccurate, Incomplete, and Misleading Statements
F3:
The 2012-2013 Riverside County Grand Jury Report, which reflected the time period when the present County Counsel was then City Attorney for the City of Riverside, indicated the reason he revealed confidential information, was “to make them aware of what the Grand Jury was doing.” On May 20, 2013, he was admonished in writing by County Counsel. (See Attachment #1) 5 In a letter of reply dated May 21, 2013, from Riverside City Attorney, to the County of Riverside County Counsel (see Attachment #3), he excused his actions with the following statement, in part: …The reference to the nature of the pending Grand Jury Investigation was made in order to assist the District Attorney, County Counsel, and the presiding judge in their evaluation as to the appropriateness and legality of the Grand Jury’s conduct. In a letter to the Presiding Judge of the Riverside County Superior Court dated July 10, 2013, the then City Attorney responded to a 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report by inaccurately stating, in part: …As the court is aware, the Grand Jury is not a wholly independent body. Rather, it is under the control of the Superior Court and its Presiding Judge… The Grand Jury is an investigative arm of the superior court and has judicial, as well as, investigatory and inquisitional responsibilities and powers as defined in California Penal Code Sections 888 through 945. Once the Grand Jury is duly impaneled and sworn, its functions are conducted as a separate and independent body, acting apart from the jurisdiction of the court, beholding to no one body, entity or court. A letter from the current County Counsel to the Grand Jury dated January 8, 2015, misstates the Penal Code by omitting words, “at all times,” intrinsic to the Penal Code §934(a). Obstruction of the Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
County Counsel shall refrain from making inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading statements. Obstruction of the Grand Jury
F4:
The Grand Jury has a twelve-month period to complete its work. Delay can effectively foreclose Grand Jury scrutiny, and a strategy of delay is apparent in the conflict of interest with County Counsel who is a legal representative of both Grand Jury and the agencies it seeks to examine. County Counsel has made numerous attempts to thwart the Grand Jury’s investigations of departments of the County. This obstruction included attempts to block access to information, delaying the Grand Jury’s hearings, by requiring subpoenas, making access to witnesses and records difficult and invoking attorney-client privilege to protect the 18,000 plus County employees when such privilege may not exist rather than the legitimate interests of the 2.2 million County residents. County Counsel has devised a plan, as evidenced by an email dated December 4, 2014, (see Attachment #2), to hamper the process of the Grand Jury’s pursuance of its legal and authorized duties granted them under California Penal Code §925(a). County Counsel’s scheme of 6 orchestrating this plan is accomplished by advising department heads, in staff meetings, by email, and by PowerPoint presentations. This PowerPoint presentation contains significant references pertaining to Criminal Grand Juries, which does not apply to Civil Grand Juries. His plan of action has the effect of disrupting the Grand Jury’s mission by weakening and delaying the normal process of the Grand Jury’s legal authority as outlined in California Penal Code §888 through §945. County Counsel’s actions not only attempt to gain unauthorized information and insight into the areas being reviewed, but also in effect, to usurp the legal process for which the Grand Jury exists. County Counsel’s efforts to circumvent the Grand Jury’s legal domain over its legal duties and jurisdiction constitutes an obstruction of the operations of the Grand Jury. County Counsel’s response to Grand Jury inquiries are designed to obstruct transparency, protect the BOS, County agencies, and the Office of County Counsel from scrutiny, rather than to cooperate with the legitimate intergovernmental fact-finding and investigative functions of the Grand Jury. This finding discusses a few specific instances which are typical of the resistance the Grand Jury is encountering. Evaluative techniques lead the Grand Jury to conclude the County Counsel and Executive Officer, using the email of December 4, 2014, that stated: “We will then coordinate with the affected County Department and Executive Office on the appropriate response in order to properly protect the interests of the County, its officials and employees,” expressed plans to protect the BOS from another controversial Grand Jury Report, such as the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report on Political Reform concerning CID funds. County Counsel has either been directed to, or on his own as evidenced by his current actions, chosen to ignore California Penal Code §934(a), which states, in part: …Unless advice is requested, the judge of the court, or county counsel as to civil matters, shall not be present during the sessions of the grand jury. A voicemail received by the Grand Jury foreperson on March 19, 2015, at 1:15 p.m., from County Counsel’s Administrative Assistant, stated, “we don’t represent the Grand Jury anymore,” is also a violation of California Penal Code §934(a), which states, in part: The grand jury may, at all times, request the advice of the court, or the judge thereof, the district attorney, the county counsel, or the Attorney General… 7 Choice of Having Counsel
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
County Counsel shall discontinue interference with the work of the Grand Jury. County Counsel shall be available to the Grand Jury to provide advice, at all times, as to civil matters as stipulated in California Penal Code §934(a). Choice of Having Counsel
F5:
California Penal Code §939.22(a) permits a witness giving testimony under oath to have counsel present during a Grand Jury interview. It allows the witness to make the determination whether or not to have counsel present. It is not the determination of County Counsel. It is inappropriate for County Counsel or a Deputy County Counsel to represent the witness who is a County employee, when the Grand Jury is investigating a County department because; it violates the secrecy and confidentiality of the Grand Jury sessions. County Counsel has advised County departments and special districts, if they have been contacted by the Grand Jury for information or to give testimony under oath, to then contact County Counsel for representation. This has given the impression County Counsel must be used by County employees, when in fact, said employees, if they choose to have representation, may bring an independent attorney. The Grand Jury does not object to the County employee witnesses having counsel represent them, pursuant to California Penal Code §939.22, so long as it is not County Counsel pursuant to California Penal Code §934(a). California Penal Code §939.22(c) states: Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant a witness a constitutional right to counsel under the United States or California Constitutions nor grant any right to discovery for the subpoenaed witness. Violation of Board Policy C-35
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
When a witness, who is a County employee, desires to be represented by counsel, in a matter regarding the performance of his/her duties, or the operations of his/her department, the County shall allow or provide an attorney not affiliated with the County Counsel, to represent the witness assuring his/her rights are not violated. Violation of Board Policy C-35
F6:
The BOS established Policy C-35 and implemented it on September 1,
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
In order to maintain the provisions of anonymity of Policy C-35, County Counsel shall not ask, or direct, County employees to notify him of their contact with the Grand Jury. County Counsel shall complete appropriate training courses relevant to California Penal Codes and Government Codes governing the California Grand Juries. (This continuing education may assist County Counsel in understanding that the Civil Grand Jury is an independent and autonomous body beholden to no one.) Riverside County Executive Office
F7:
In an email dated December 4, 2014, County Counsel, at the direction of the Executive Office, issued a directive requesting departments of the County to advise the County Counsel regarding inquiries made by the Grand Jury. County Counsel has been directed “to establish a consistent and coordinated approach to handle these inquiries, and respond to requests for information.” This is a concerted effort to breach the confidentiality of Grand Jury proceedings. (See Attachment #2) Violation of Code of Ethics
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
County Executive Office shall cease from issuing these directives pertaining to Grand Jury requests. County Executive Office shall direct County Counsel to cease making presentations, forcing or advising County departments and special districts, and agencies, on how to coordinate their responses to the Grand Jury. Violation of Code of Ethics
F8:
County Counsel has a history of bias and contempt against the Grand Jury, as evidenced in a 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report, City of Riverside, Office of the City Attorney. The report detailed issues with the Office of the City of Riverside City Attorney, the position he occupied at the time. Hence, County Counsel has continuously interfered with the legal duties of the Grand Jury, and has violated the provisions of the Business and Professions Code pertaining to lawyers, Section 6068. This report has precipitated County Counsel to disrespectfully neutralize the Grand Jury from performing its legal and authorized duties. Business and Professions Code Section 6068 states lawyers shall observe rules of law, including the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act. Business and Professions Code §6068 states, in part: It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following: (a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state… (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. (e)(1) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client… (g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest… 10 Failure to Provide Upjohn Warning
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
County Counsel shall adhere to the tenets of the Business and Professions Code §6068. Failure to Provide Upjohn Warning
F9:
The scope of attorney-client privilege in a corporate context was defined by the United States Supreme Court in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 101 S. Ct. 677, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). Since Upjohn, courts and commentators have discussed an Upjohn or Corporate Miranda warning. The need for such warnings stems from the fact that Corporate Counsel’s client is the corporation and not the employees, officers, or directors of the corporation. If an Upjohn warning has not been given, an employee may believe that he or she is represented by Corporate Counsel. Thus the attorney representing a governmental agency is best served to provide an Upjohn warning to the person consulting him/her to make the representation clear. This warning is generally given to an employee, officer or director before an interview begins. An Upjohn warning generally consists of the following requirements: (1) that the attorney represents the County, City or other unit of government and does not represent the individual personally; (2) that the communications between the attorney and the individual are privileged; (3) that the privilege belongs solely to the County, City, or other unit of government which may in its discretion choose to waive the privilege and disclose the communication to third parties; and (4) that so long as the privilege attaches, the employee may not disclose the communication to third parties. The Upjohn warning may be verbal, but the warning should be documented by a signed acknowledgement as a contemporaneous memorandum of the interview. The Grand Jury has found no evidence County Counsel informed County employees with an Upjohn Warning that clearly states to the employee that County Counsel represents the government agency and not the employee, pursuant to (Upjohn Co. v. United States, 101 S. Ct. 677, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). Conversely, County Counsel has expressed to County employees that County Counsel is the legal representative of all 18,000 plus Riverside 11 County employees and that an attorney-client relationship exists between County Counsel and all employees in the County. The result of County Counsel’s/Executive Officer’s directive, as outlined in the email of December 4, 2014, initiated a sequence that is designed to breach the secrecy provisions of the Grand Jury. All County employees are directed by County Counsel, to ask if the interview will be sworn or unsworn. He then informs the employee if the nature of the investigation is of a sensitive nature and the Grand Jury determines that sworn testimony will be necessary, then the County Counsel instructs the employee that County Counsel will be present at the interview. This act is a clear violation of California Penal Code §934(a), which states, in part: …Unless advice is requested, the judge of the court, or county counsel as to civil matters, shall not be present during the sessions of the grand jury. Employees are also directed to ask the Grand Jury to put in writing, what questions will be asked and or documents to be presented prior to the interview which is a violation. This would be a breach of the Grand Jury’s sworn oath of secrecy pursuant to California Penal Codes §924.1. Superior Court Case
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
County Counsel shall refrain from misleading County employees into believing they may have protections when they may not. County Counsel shall inform all employees of the Upjohn Warning and shall have employees sign an acknowledgement form as proof they are aware of the Upjohn Ruling and circumstances. This policy shall be incorporated into County Counsel’s policy and procedures manual. Superior Court Case
F10:
In Riverside Superior Court Case #RICMISC20151 the 2014-2015 Riverside County Grand Jury raised the issue of a potential conflict between County Counsel and County employees they may be representing. The Riverside Superior Court Judge stated: To the extent that that [sic] conflict exists, and there may be one, County Counsel, as with any other attorney, is obligated to properly advise its clients, employees about a potential conflict, and to obtain waivers appropriate or separate counsel if a waiver can’t be obtained, but that’s between the attorney and its client. County employee may have an attorney of their choice including but not limited to a private attorney, union attorney, etc., there is no mandate that the attorney has to be County Counsel. The Grand Jury found no evidence that County Counsel has or had properly advised any County employee of a potential conflict and obtained any waivers. 12
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
County Counsel shall properly advise County employees of potential conflict, and to obtain waivers appropriate or separate counsel if a waiver can’t be obtained. A County employee shall be advised that representation by an attorney is at his/her request and is not mandated that it be County Counsel. Report Issued: 06/10/2015 Report Public: 06/12/2015 Response Due: 09/08/2015 14 15 16 17
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
AB 622 became law in January 2012. The law added Section 939.22(a) to the California Penal Code. County Counsel has interpreted this law, and applied the new law to allow him to represent the officials and employees of the County as to County civil matters brought before the Grand Jury, and to be present at all interviews of County employees that are to be interviewed under oath. County Counsel has attempted to attend one interview and directed, on three occasions, a Deputy County Counsel to represent County employees who have been called to give testimony in Grand Jury interviews. This presents a conflict of interest due to the incompatibility of the professional duties of the County Counsel to 3 represent the County and the Grand Jury in the same matter. This is a direct violation of California Penal Code §934(a). Conflict arises when County Counsel acts in a dual representative role. The County Counsel’s primary duty is to the BOS, not the employees. This conflict places an onerous and improper burden on the witness, because such witness is not at liberty to speak openly and candidly while giving testimony. The witness faces retaliation or discipline by his/her department supervisor or manager due to the County Counsel’s presence (referenced in McClatchy Newspapers v. The Superior Court of Fresno County 751 P. 2d 1329 (Cal. 1988). It makes County Counsel cognizant of the nature of the Grand Jury’s inquiry and the areas being reviewed, as well as, exactly what testimony was given by the witness. A witness could believe that such information may be relayed to the employee’s department or managers. Even though County Counsel is admonished not to reveal the nature of the Grand Jury interview, the secrecy and integrity of the proceedings has already been compromised by County Counsel’s mere presence, which taints the integrity of the interview. The Office of the Attorney General, State of California, in an Opinion issued June 6, 2003, (02-1108) stated, in part: …We believe the Legislature’s policy of preserving the secrecy of grand jury proceedings is not only applicable when a grand jury is performing its criminal indictment function, but also when it is performing its civil watchdog function. In McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court, supra, 44 Cal.3d 1162, the Supreme Court observed: The importance of secrecy is well established in the context of the grand jury’s criminal indictment function. By the same token, when the grand jury conducts a watchdog investigation of local government operations as in the instant case, secrecy appears equally vital. Compared with indictment proceedings, the efficacy and credibility of watchdog investigations no less require that witnesses testify without fear of reproach by their peers or their superiors. Though the watchdog investigation and report serve a different social purpose than the criminal indictment, eliciting candid testimony is obviously critical to both functions of the grand jury. Significantly, the separate and distinct functions of watchdog and indictment grand juries are sometimes intermingled, in the sense that watchdog inquiries into alleged corruption may involve the weighing of possible criminal indictments against county officials and others being investigated…. Whether or not a watchdog grand jury actually undertakes the weighing of indictments, secrecy 4 ‘provides the proper atmosphere in which to generate uninhibited testimony from county employees who might otherwise be intimidated by political and employment considerations.’ [Citations.] “Secrecy also serves to protect the reputations of those who may be unjustly accused during the course of a watchdog investigation. ‘Grand jury secrecy…is “as important for the protection of the innocent as for the pursuit of the guilty.” [Citation Omitted.]’ [Citation.]” (Id.at. pp. 1175-1176.) Transparency and Accountability
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To maintain secrecy, County Counsel, or its Deputy County Counsel, shall not represent an employee of the County when testifying before the Grand Jury, pursuant to California Penal Code §934(a). Rather than protecting county agencies from the Grand Jury’s scrutiny, County Counsel shall be receptive to such inquiries. Transparency and Accountability
F2:
County Counsel has advised department heads, on or about January 21, 2015, to delay release of information to the Grand Jury, which is a violation of the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code §§6250- 6276.48) (PRA). County Counsel’s actions obscure the transparency and accountability throughout the County. As the court in Monroe v. Garrett (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 280, 284 [94 Cal.Rptr.531] observed: In our system of government, a grand jury is the only agency free from possible political or official bias that has an opportunity to see the picture of crime and the operation of government relating thereto on any broad basis. It performs a valuable public purpose in presenting its conclusions drawn from that overview. The public may, of course, ultimately conclude that the jury’s fears were exaggerated or that its proposed solutions are unwise. But the debate which reports, such as the one before us, would provoke could lead only to a better understanding of public governmental problems. They should be encouraged and not prohibited. Inaccurate, Incomplete, and Misleading Statements
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
County Counsel shall advise department heads to allow access to all documents requested by the Grand Jury. The department shall provide assistance by helping identify records and information relevant to the request, which is part of the PRA, and suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access to PRA documents (see PRA §6253.1). Any denial of a request by the Grand Jury must be justified in writing, by demonstrating that the record is exempt or that the public interest in confidentiality outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Inaccurate, Incomplete, and Misleading Statements
F3:
The 2012-2013 Riverside County Grand Jury Report, which reflected the time period when the present County Counsel was then City Attorney for the City of Riverside, indicated the reason he revealed confidential information, was “to make them aware of what the Grand Jury was doing.” On May 20, 2013, he was admonished in writing by County Counsel. (See Attachment #1) 5 In a letter of reply dated May 21, 2013, from Riverside City Attorney, to the County of Riverside County Counsel (see Attachment #3), he excused his actions with the following statement, in part: …The reference to the nature of the pending Grand Jury Investigation was made in order to assist the District Attorney, County Counsel, and the presiding judge in their evaluation as to the appropriateness and legality of the Grand Jury’s conduct. In a letter to the Presiding Judge of the Riverside County Superior Court dated July 10, 2013, the then City Attorney responded to a 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report by inaccurately stating, in part: …As the court is aware, the Grand Jury is not a wholly independent body. Rather, it is under the control of the Superior Court and its Presiding Judge… The Grand Jury is an investigative arm of the superior court and has judicial, as well as, investigatory and inquisitional responsibilities and powers as defined in California Penal Code Sections 888 through 945. Once the Grand Jury is duly impaneled and sworn, its functions are conducted as a separate and independent body, acting apart from the jurisdiction of the court, beholding to no one body, entity or court. A letter from the current County Counsel to the Grand Jury dated January 8, 2015, misstates the Penal Code by omitting words, “at all times,” intrinsic to the Penal Code §934(a). Obstruction of the Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
County Counsel shall refrain from making inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading statements. Obstruction of the Grand Jury
F4:
The Grand Jury has a twelve-month period to complete its work. Delay can effectively foreclose Grand Jury scrutiny, and a strategy of delay is apparent in the conflict of interest with County Counsel who is a legal representative of both Grand Jury and the agencies it seeks to examine. County Counsel has made numerous attempts to thwart the Grand Jury’s investigations of departments of the County. This obstruction included attempts to block access to information, delaying the Grand Jury’s hearings, by requiring subpoenas, making access to witnesses and records difficult and invoking attorney-client privilege to protect the 18,000 plus County employees when such privilege may not exist rather than the legitimate interests of the 2.2 million County residents. County Counsel has devised a plan, as evidenced by an email dated December 4, 2014, (see Attachment #2), to hamper the process of the Grand Jury’s pursuance of its legal and authorized duties granted them under California Penal Code §925(a). County Counsel’s scheme of 6 orchestrating this plan is accomplished by advising department heads, in staff meetings, by email, and by PowerPoint presentations. This PowerPoint presentation contains significant references pertaining to Criminal Grand Juries, which does not apply to Civil Grand Juries. His plan of action has the effect of disrupting the Grand Jury’s mission by weakening and delaying the normal process of the Grand Jury’s legal authority as outlined in California Penal Code §888 through §945. County Counsel’s actions not only attempt to gain unauthorized information and insight into the areas being reviewed, but also in effect, to usurp the legal process for which the Grand Jury exists. County Counsel’s efforts to circumvent the Grand Jury’s legal domain over its legal duties and jurisdiction constitutes an obstruction of the operations of the Grand Jury. County Counsel’s response to Grand Jury inquiries are designed to obstruct transparency, protect the BOS, County agencies, and the Office of County Counsel from scrutiny, rather than to cooperate with the legitimate intergovernmental fact-finding and investigative functions of the Grand Jury. This finding discusses a few specific instances which are typical of the resistance the Grand Jury is encountering. Evaluative techniques lead the Grand Jury to conclude the County Counsel and Executive Officer, using the email of December 4, 2014, that stated: “We will then coordinate with the affected County Department and Executive Office on the appropriate response in order to properly protect the interests of the County, its officials and employees,” expressed plans to protect the BOS from another controversial Grand Jury Report, such as the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report on Political Reform concerning CID funds. County Counsel has either been directed to, or on his own as evidenced by his current actions, chosen to ignore California Penal Code §934(a), which states, in part: …Unless advice is requested, the judge of the court, or county counsel as to civil matters, shall not be present during the sessions of the grand jury. A voicemail received by the Grand Jury foreperson on March 19, 2015, at 1:15 p.m., from County Counsel’s Administrative Assistant, stated, “we don’t represent the Grand Jury anymore,” is also a violation of California Penal Code §934(a), which states, in part: The grand jury may, at all times, request the advice of the court, or the judge thereof, the district attorney, the county counsel, or the Attorney General… 7 Choice of Having Counsel
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
County Counsel shall discontinue interference with the work of the Grand Jury. County Counsel shall be available to the Grand Jury to provide advice, at all times, as to civil matters as stipulated in California Penal Code §934(a). Choice of Having Counsel
F5:
California Penal Code §939.22(a) permits a witness giving testimony under oath to have counsel present during a Grand Jury interview. It allows the witness to make the determination whether or not to have counsel present. It is not the determination of County Counsel. It is inappropriate for County Counsel or a Deputy County Counsel to represent the witness who is a County employee, when the Grand Jury is investigating a County department because; it violates the secrecy and confidentiality of the Grand Jury sessions. County Counsel has advised County departments and special districts, if they have been contacted by the Grand Jury for information or to give testimony under oath, to then contact County Counsel for representation. This has given the impression County Counsel must be used by County employees, when in fact, said employees, if they choose to have representation, may bring an independent attorney. The Grand Jury does not object to the County employee witnesses having counsel represent them, pursuant to California Penal Code §939.22, so long as it is not County Counsel pursuant to California Penal Code §934(a). California Penal Code §939.22(c) states: Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant a witness a constitutional right to counsel under the United States or California Constitutions nor grant any right to discovery for the subpoenaed witness. Violation of Board Policy C-35
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
When a witness, who is a County employee, desires to be represented by counsel, in a matter regarding the performance of his/her duties, or the operations of his/her department, the County shall allow or provide an attorney not affiliated with the County Counsel, to represent the witness assuring his/her rights are not violated. Violation of Board Policy C-35
F6:
The BOS established Policy C-35 and implemented it on September 1,
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
In order to maintain the provisions of anonymity of Policy C-35, County Counsel shall not ask, or direct, County employees to notify him of their contact with the Grand Jury. County Counsel shall complete appropriate training courses relevant to California Penal Codes and Government Codes governing the California Grand Juries. (This continuing education may assist County Counsel in understanding that the Civil Grand Jury is an independent and autonomous body beholden to no one.) Riverside County Executive Office
F7:
In an email dated December 4, 2014, County Counsel, at the direction of the Executive Office, issued a directive requesting departments of the County to advise the County Counsel regarding inquiries made by the Grand Jury. County Counsel has been directed “to establish a consistent and coordinated approach to handle these inquiries, and respond to requests for information.” This is a concerted effort to breach the confidentiality of Grand Jury proceedings. (See Attachment #2) Violation of Code of Ethics
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
County Executive Office shall cease from issuing these directives pertaining to Grand Jury requests. County Executive Office shall direct County Counsel to cease making presentations, forcing or advising County departments and special districts, and agencies, on how to coordinate their responses to the Grand Jury. Violation of Code of Ethics
F8:
County Counsel has a history of bias and contempt against the Grand Jury, as evidenced in a 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report, City of Riverside, Office of the City Attorney. The report detailed issues with the Office of the City of Riverside City Attorney, the position he occupied at the time. Hence, County Counsel has continuously interfered with the legal duties of the Grand Jury, and has violated the provisions of the Business and Professions Code pertaining to lawyers, Section 6068. This report has precipitated County Counsel to disrespectfully neutralize the Grand Jury from performing its legal and authorized duties. Business and Professions Code Section 6068 states lawyers shall observe rules of law, including the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act. Business and Professions Code §6068 states, in part: It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following: (a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state… (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. (e)(1) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client… (g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest… 10 Failure to Provide Upjohn Warning
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
County Counsel shall adhere to the tenets of the Business and Professions Code §6068. Failure to Provide Upjohn Warning
F9:
The scope of attorney-client privilege in a corporate context was defined by the United States Supreme Court in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 101 S. Ct. 677, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). Since Upjohn, courts and commentators have discussed an Upjohn or Corporate Miranda warning. The need for such warnings stems from the fact that Corporate Counsel’s client is the corporation and not the employees, officers, or directors of the corporation. If an Upjohn warning has not been given, an employee may believe that he or she is represented by Corporate Counsel. Thus the attorney representing a governmental agency is best served to provide an Upjohn warning to the person consulting him/her to make the representation clear. This warning is generally given to an employee, officer or director before an interview begins. An Upjohn warning generally consists of the following requirements: (1) that the attorney represents the County, City or other unit of government and does not represent the individual personally; (2) that the communications between the attorney and the individual are privileged; (3) that the privilege belongs solely to the County, City, or other unit of government which may in its discretion choose to waive the privilege and disclose the communication to third parties; and (4) that so long as the privilege attaches, the employee may not disclose the communication to third parties. The Upjohn warning may be verbal, but the warning should be documented by a signed acknowledgement as a contemporaneous memorandum of the interview. The Grand Jury has found no evidence County Counsel informed County employees with an Upjohn Warning that clearly states to the employee that County Counsel represents the government agency and not the employee, pursuant to (Upjohn Co. v. United States, 101 S. Ct. 677, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). Conversely, County Counsel has expressed to County employees that County Counsel is the legal representative of all 18,000 plus Riverside 11 County employees and that an attorney-client relationship exists between County Counsel and all employees in the County. The result of County Counsel’s/Executive Officer’s directive, as outlined in the email of December 4, 2014, initiated a sequence that is designed to breach the secrecy provisions of the Grand Jury. All County employees are directed by County Counsel, to ask if the interview will be sworn or unsworn. He then informs the employee if the nature of the investigation is of a sensitive nature and the Grand Jury determines that sworn testimony will be necessary, then the County Counsel instructs the employee that County Counsel will be present at the interview. This act is a clear violation of California Penal Code §934(a), which states, in part: …Unless advice is requested, the judge of the court, or county counsel as to civil matters, shall not be present during the sessions of the grand jury. Employees are also directed to ask the Grand Jury to put in writing, what questions will be asked and or documents to be presented prior to the interview which is a violation. This would be a breach of the Grand Jury’s sworn oath of secrecy pursuant to California Penal Codes §924.1. Superior Court Case
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
County Counsel shall refrain from misleading County employees into believing they may have protections when they may not. County Counsel shall inform all employees of the Upjohn Warning and shall have employees sign an acknowledgement form as proof they are aware of the Upjohn Ruling and circumstances. This policy shall be incorporated into County Counsel’s policy and procedures manual. Superior Court Case
F10:
In Riverside Superior Court Case #RICMISC20151 the 2014-2015 Riverside County Grand Jury raised the issue of a potential conflict between County Counsel and County employees they may be representing. The Riverside Superior Court Judge stated: To the extent that that [sic] conflict exists, and there may be one, County Counsel, as with any other attorney, is obligated to properly advise its clients, employees about a potential conflict, and to obtain waivers appropriate or separate counsel if a waiver can’t be obtained, but that’s between the attorney and its client. County employee may have an attorney of their choice including but not limited to a private attorney, union attorney, etc., there is no mandate that the attorney has to be County Counsel. The Grand Jury found no evidence that County Counsel has or had properly advised any County employee of a potential conflict and obtained any waivers. 12
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
County Counsel shall properly advise County employees of potential conflict, and to obtain waivers appropriate or separate counsel if a waiver can’t be obtained. A County employee shall be advised that representation by an attorney is at his/her request and is not mandated that it be County Counsel. Report Issued: 06/10/2015 Report Public: 06/12/2015 Response Due: 09/08/2015 14 15 16 17
F2009:
This policy addresses the Subject: Standards of Ethical Conduct to Address Fraud, Waste, and Abuse. This policy applies to all County employees and officers. Section 7 of Policy C-35 addresses: Acknowledgement in writing of this policy by all current and future employees as evidence of receipt. Whereas this policy in Section 4 l, states that county employees have a duty to identify, report, and work to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. Section 4 m, highlights the duty of every employee to cooperate in an investigation involving a violation or an alleged violation of this policy.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The review of the incident report log disclosed several instances of pharmaceutical mishaps. Some examples are: Wrong medications were sent home with the patient • Inventory disclosed missing or expired medications • Unauthorized person was granted access to the pharmacy room • Medication administered at the wrong time • Medication transcribed with the wrong dispensing frequency • Medication ordered but not transcribed or dispensed • Doctor transcribed medication to the wrong patient chart • ETS/ITF Arlington Campus
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Hospital administration shall require ETS/ITF nursing and pharmacy staff to participate in ongoing training for the proper distribution of pharmaceuticals and the importance of pharmaceutical security. ETS/ITF Arlington Campus The Riverside County Board of Supervisors (BOS) shall "Fast Track"
F2:
ETS/ITF Arlington Campus is inadequate: The average patient load of 36-42 patients per day at ETS exceeds • the 20 patients per day capacity the facility was designed to serve Fire safety requires external doors to remain unlocked allowing • patients held involuntarily the opportunity to leave the facility There are not enough interview rooms for the current patient load • Nurses' stations are cramped • Medical equipment is antiquated • Computer systems are several generations behind current • standards The lack of wireless communication within the facility requires • manual charting No connectivity to RCRMC main campus servers prevents the consolidation of patient records compounding the opportunity for charting errors The quagmire of EDA and the Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development (OSHPD) policies hinder any efforts to repair the facility. ETS/ITF Policies and Procedure No. 15.1 – Death of Patient
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
through EDA the scheduled repairs to the Arlington Campus while simultaneously negotiating with an experienced hospital construction firm to design and begin construction of a new facility. ETS/ITF Policies and Procedure No.15.1 – Death of Patient Policy No. 15.1 shall be rewritten:
F3:
Policy No.15.1 describes procedures to be followed upon the death of a patient. The policy as written is not clear. Section 1 of Policy No. 15.1 prioritizes internal staff notification without suggesting that "911" be called to assess the patient. Section 1-c indicates a call to the Coroner/Public Administration be made "when appropriate," while Section 1-d indicates that the Coroner must always be notified. Section 2 requires staff to call for an ambulance to transport the patient to an emergency room for pronouncing of death, but Section 1-d indicates that the Coroner's office will pick up the body. Section 3 requires a call to OneLegacy, an organ transplant facilitator, without regard to patient or family desires (see Attachment #1). Policy No. 12.1 Levels of Observation This policy is dated "3/12." The policy is incomplete, consisting of pages 4. "1 of 5," "3 of 5" and "5 of 5" (see Attachment #2). Policy No. 20.1
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Section 1 "Notify" shall state that "911" be called first In accordance with Section 1-d the Coroner shall always be • notified, therefore, Section 1-c is redundant and shall be removed The responsibility to call OneLegacy shall be transferred to emergency room staff Policy No. 12.1 Levels of Observation
F4:
"1 of 5," "3 of 5" and "5 of 5" (see Attachment #2). Policy No. 20.1
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Policy No. 12.1 shall be revised to include: Policy shall be rewritten to be complete with full dates and all policy information included ì Policy No. 20.1 RCRMC shall make the following changes:
F5:
There are two policies numbered No. 20.1 One is dated "3/12" and titled "Therapeutic Groups (Process)" superseding Policy No. N8.03. This policy contains page "1 of 2," but is missing. The second policy has a revision date of "6/7/2013" and titled "EMERGENCY TREATMENT SERVICES (ETS) / INPATIENT TREATMENT FACILITY (ITF) DISCHARGE PROCEDURE" superseding Policy No. N12.05 (see Attachments #3 and #4).
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
· Policy numbers shall be corrected to be unique
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The review of the incident report log disclosed several instances of pharmaceutical mishaps. Some examples are: Wrong medications were sent home with the patient • Inventory disclosed missing or expired medications • Unauthorized person was granted access to the pharmacy room • Medication administered at the wrong time • Medication transcribed with the wrong dispensing frequency • Medication ordered but not transcribed or dispensed • Doctor transcribed medication to the wrong patient chart • ETS/ITF Arlington Campus
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Hospital administration shall require ETS/ITF nursing and pharmacy staff to participate in ongoing training for the proper distribution of pharmaceuticals and the importance of pharmaceutical security. ETS/ITF Arlington Campus The Riverside County Board of Supervisors (BOS) shall "Fast Track"
F2:
ETS/ITF Arlington Campus is inadequate: The average patient load of 36-42 patients per day at ETS exceeds • the 20 patients per day capacity the facility was designed to serve Fire safety requires external doors to remain unlocked allowing • patients held involuntarily the opportunity to leave the facility There are not enough interview rooms for the current patient load • Nurses' stations are cramped • Medical equipment is antiquated • Computer systems are several generations behind current • standards The lack of wireless communication within the facility requires • manual charting No connectivity to RCRMC main campus servers prevents the consolidation of patient records compounding the opportunity for charting errors The quagmire of EDA and the Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development (OSHPD) policies hinder any efforts to repair the facility. ETS/ITF Policies and Procedure No. 15.1 – Death of Patient
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
through EDA the scheduled repairs to the Arlington Campus while simultaneously negotiating with an experienced hospital construction firm to design and begin construction of a new facility. ETS/ITF Policies and Procedure No.15.1 – Death of Patient Policy No. 15.1 shall be rewritten:
F3:
Policy No.15.1 describes procedures to be followed upon the death of a patient. The policy as written is not clear. Section 1 of Policy No. 15.1 prioritizes internal staff notification without suggesting that "911" be called to assess the patient. Section 1-c indicates a call to the Coroner/Public Administration be made "when appropriate," while Section 1-d indicates that the Coroner must always be notified. Section 2 requires staff to call for an ambulance to transport the patient to an emergency room for pronouncing of death, but Section 1-d indicates that the Coroner's office will pick up the body. Section 3 requires a call to OneLegacy, an organ transplant facilitator, without regard to patient or family desires (see Attachment #1). Policy No. 12.1 Levels of Observation This policy is dated "3/12." The policy is incomplete, consisting of pages 4. "1 of 5," "3 of 5" and "5 of 5" (see Attachment #2). Policy No. 20.1
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Section 1 "Notify" shall state that "911" be called first In accordance with Section 1-d the Coroner shall always be • notified, therefore, Section 1-c is redundant and shall be removed The responsibility to call OneLegacy shall be transferred to emergency room staff Policy No. 12.1 Levels of Observation
F4:
"1 of 5," "3 of 5" and "5 of 5" (see Attachment #2). Policy No. 20.1
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Policy No. 12.1 shall be revised to include: Policy shall be rewritten to be complete with full dates and all policy information included ì Policy No. 20.1 RCRMC shall make the following changes:
F5:
There are two policies numbered No. 20.1 One is dated "3/12" and titled "Therapeutic Groups (Process)" superseding Policy No. N8.03. This policy contains page "1 of 2," but is missing. The second policy has a revision date of "6/7/2013" and titled "EMERGENCY TREATMENT SERVICES (ETS) / INPATIENT TREATMENT FACILITY (ITF) DISCHARGE PROCEDURE" superseding Policy No. N12.05 (see Attachments #3 and #4).
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
· Policy numbers shall be corrected to be unique
F8:
At time of Discharge, complete the followmg: a. When other disciplines have completed their port1ons of the Aftercare Instructions, the Registered r'-lurse will sit with the patient and revievv and complete Aftercare lnstru::;tions with the patient ensuring confidentiality. b. Ask the patient if she/he wouio like a designated person (e.g., family member, tnend, significant other. etc.l to join the Reg1stered Nurse and the patient, to hear the discharge mstructions Nursing staff will sit with the patient in the day room to discuss the aftercare instructions with the patient (and family/significant other if present) while maintair1ing patient confidentiality (Obtain written consent from the patient as needed. and indicate so on the form). Aftercare Instructions will also mclude follow-up appointments and may rnclude special dietary needs. c. If the pat1ent is under conservatorship, the Conservator must be notified of the pending dtscharge. Pnvate Conservator's number should be in the' chart or contact Riverside County Conservators Office at (951) 34 ·1-6440 d:. Have the ;:JEliient verbalize understandtng of instructions. and tndicate so on the form. e Review possible tood/drug tnteracttons ancl give thE: Food and Drug pamphlet to the patrent and mdicate so on the form. Encourage patient compliance with the Aftercare Instructions. g. Up:::late Treatment Plan, resolvtng patient problem(SJ wl11ch led to admission. h. F>rov1de thE: Patient with the Client Survey. and indicate so on tt1e form .A.sk the pattent if they would be willing to complete the su·vey before they leave the U'1it or they can mai: it tn. (Does not apply to ETS patio:1ts) 1-\sstst the patient Ill gathering all of his/her property hom the pattent s bedroom j, Ass1st the patient m gathering al' of hts/her property from the patient's locker. k Tile Regrstered Nurse will w~ite the dtscharge note. and ensure the time of discharge and the time on the Satety Check sheet, coincide NOTE: lnte:-prP.ter/Translatlon Servtces t'-l be .nil1zed as needed Distribuuon Dupannwnt a' :::>:;yc:llwtry Nurs/11[1 - -- . ---- ----··-- --------- --- ;SubjectEM ~ E · RGENCYTREATMENT i Policy No. 20.1 SERVICES (ETS)IINPATIENT TREATMENT I ! FACll::_ITY iiT_f)_QIS(_;Ij_~RGE PROC_;Dl)_B_; j___ _______ .. ---···--------~- ---~-------------·---___] 6 A F1rearms Pronibit1on must bt: completed and explained to the follow1ng patients if applicable a Patients admitted to ITF on 5150 tor clan3er· to self ancl/or others. I). Patrents rn 1-:·F on 5250 for danger to sel:. danger tu others. and/or grave: disability. c. Patrenb rn I'TF on Temporary Conservatorship or permanent Conservc::norship. NOTE: Patients admitted to ITF voluntanly m S150 as Gravely Drsabled 01--JL )1 do not · :·equrre a Firearms Prohioitron. Obtarn discharge medications and pauent's personal medicatrons (if patient brough: medicat1ons to the hospital with nrrn) a. Compare medicat1on bottles with the physician's discharge order. b. Confirm medrcatrons are fo: the correc: parient, correct medications, dosages, and frequency. c Confirm medication intormatior sheets are included fron, pharmacy. and that mformat1on sheets are for the correct medication.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
At time of Discharge, complete the followmg: a. When other disciplines have completed their port1ons of the Aftercare Instructions, the Registered r'-lurse will sit with the patient and revievv and complete Aftercare lnstru::;tions with the patient ensuring confidentiality. b. Ask the patient if she/he wouio like a designated person (e.g., family member, tnend, significant other. etc.l to join the Reg1stered Nurse and the patient, to hear the discharge mstructions Nursing staff will sit with the patient in the day room to discuss the aftercare instructions with the patient (and family/significant other if present) while maintair1ing patient confidentiality (Obtain written consent from the patient as needed. and indicate so on the form). Aftercare Instructions will also mclude follow-up appointments and may rnclude special dietary needs. c. If the pat1ent is under conservatorship, the Conservator must be notified of the pending dtscharge. Pnvate Conservator's number should be in the' chart or contact Riverside County Conservators Office at (951) 34 ·1-6440 d:. Have the ;:JEliient verbalize understandtng of instructions. and tndicate so on the form. e Review possible tood/drug tnteracttons ancl give thE: Food and Drug pamphlet to the patrent and mdicate so on the form. Encourage patient compliance with the Aftercare Instructions. g. Up:::late Treatment Plan, resolvtng patient problem(SJ wl11ch led to admission. h. F>rov1de thE: Patient with the Client Survey. and indicate so on tt1e form .A.sk the pattent if they would be willing to complete the su·vey before they leave the U'1it or they can mai: it tn. (Does not apply to ETS patio:1ts) 1-\sstst the patient Ill gathering all of his/her property hom the pattent s bedroom j, Ass1st the patient m gathering al' of hts/her property from the patient's locker. k Tile Regrstered Nurse will w~ite the dtscharge note. and ensure the time of discharge and the time on the Satety Check sheet, coincide NOTE: lnte:-prP.ter/Translatlon Servtces t'-l be .nil1zed as needed Distribuuon Dupannwnt a' :::>:;yc:llwtry Nurs/11[1 - -- . ---- ----··-- --------- --- ;SubjectEM ~ E · RGENCYTREATMENT i Policy No. 20.1 SERVICES (ETS)IINPATIENT TREATMENT I ! FACll::_ITY iiT_f)_QIS(_;Ij_~RGE PROC_;Dl)_B_; j___ _______ .. ---···--------~- ---~-------------·---___] 6 A F1rearms Pronibit1on must bt: completed and explained to the follow1ng patients if applicable a Patients admitted to ITF on 5150 tor clan3er· to self ancl/or others. I). Patrents rn 1-:·F on 5250 for danger to sel:. danger tu others. and/or grave: disability. c. Patrenb rn I'TF on Temporary Conservatorship or permanent Conservc::norship. NOTE: Patients admitted to ITF voluntanly m S150 as Gravely Drsabled 01--JL )1 do not · :·equrre a Firearms Prohioitron. Obtarn discharge medications and pauent's personal medicatrons (if patient brough: medicat1ons to the hospital with nrrn) a. Compare medicat1on bottles with the physician's discharge order. b. Confirm medrcatrons are fo: the correc: parient, correct medications, dosages, and frequency. c Confirm medication intormatior sheets are included fron, pharmacy. and that mformat1on sheets are for the correct medication.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Board of Supervisors, by appointing the current County Counsel, has effectively impeded the Grand Jury’s ability to investigate complaints submitted by County employees, as well as, citizen complaints against the County. A simple Grand Jury request for public documents has become difficult, if not impossible to obtain. His appointment is having the effect of eliminating all transparency into the governmental operations of the County of Riverside. Since the appointment of County Counsel and at the direction of the Riverside County Executive Office, County Counsel directed, via email, to the County department heads, the need to develop a plan to deal with the Grand Jury (see Attachment #1). The position of County Counsel does not report to the Riverside County Executive Office. The position of County Counsel has been designated At-Will by the Board of Supervisors, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6, Section 601E(1) of the Management Resolution and serves at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors. Recruitment
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors shall allow full transparency in all operations of the County of Riverside. Recruitment
F2:
A supervisorial chief of staff, during testimony, was asked how extensive was the geographic area searched for the position of County Counsel, the reply was, “Three blocks.” Although not required, the Board of Supervisors chose not to use competitive procedures. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The contract between the County of Riverside and County Counsel shall be nullified. The Board of Supervisors shall conduct an actual, advertised recruitment for the position of County Counsel so that the best qualified candidate can be appointed as County Counsel. Report Issued: 06/30/15 Report Public: 07/02/15 Response Due: 09/28/15 3 Attachment #1 4
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.