Sacramento County Grand Jury
2012-2013
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that the council members authorized by the City Council to author arguments in favor of Measures M, T, and U did not author those arguments submitted to the City Clerk, and did not publicly disclose their intention not to author the arguments before submitting the arguments to the City Clerk. The council members’ failure to author the arguments deprived the City Council of statutory priority for its arguments in the event other arguments in favor of each measure had been submitted to the City Clerk. The council members’ failure to author the arguments and to disclose their intention not to author the arguments was contrary to the City Council’s intent in authorizing the members; contrary to the California Elections Code, City Code, and City Elections Guidelines provisions for obtaining priority; and contrary to the best practices for transparent election procedures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Clerk promulgate, and the City Council approve, election guidelines that ensure that council members authorized by the City Council to author an argument respecting a measure, will do so.
F2:
The Grand Jury finds that the Mayor failed to timely file a ballot argument in opposition to Measure U because his assistants who were assigned to prepare and submit the argument to the City Clerk misunderstood the filing requirements. This failure to timely file the argument was negligent, not intentional. 18
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Clerk develop and provide formal training for the City Council and staff, as well as the general voting public, regarding the filing requirements for ballot measures and arguments.
F3:
The Grand Jury finds that the City Council authorized council members to author arguments both in favor of and in opposition to measures it approved for placement on the ballot. Given the statutory preference accorded arguments authorized by the City Council, the Council’s authorization of arguments both in favor of and in opposition to a measure it has approved for placement on the ballot can preclude the filing of other opposition arguments to a measure or, at minimum, may discourage the submission of other opposition arguments, creating the possibility that the City Council could effectively limit legitimate opposition to a measure, either by submitting a token opposition argument or failing to submit an opposition argument.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In the absence of state law barring such a practice, the Grand Jury recommends that the City Council adopt guidelines precluding authorizing council members to author arguments both in favor of and in opposition to a measure that the City Council approves for placement on the ballot.
F4:
The Grand Jury finds that the City Clerk’s Office staff advised a council member authorized to author arguments in favor of measures placed on the ballot by the City Council, to delay submitting the arguments to the City Clerk’s Office until just before the filing deadline and until after the opposition argument had been submitted (informing the council member of the date and time a measure opponent was scheduled to submit its opposition), in order to prevent the media and measure opponents from reviewing the argument in advance of the opposition’s submission. In response to the staff’s advice, the council member delayed submitting arguments to the City Clerk’s Office until just before the filing deadline and after the measure opponent had submitted its argument. The staff’s communication with the council member was inconsistent with the non-partisan role of the City Clerk’s Office with respect to municipal elections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Clerk provide training to its staff regarding the Elections Office’s non-partisan role with respect to municipal elections. 19
F5:
State prisoners transferred to county jail pursuant to Assembly Bill 109 and
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
State prisoners transferred to county jail pursuant to Assembly Bill 109 and
F6:
Teachers, parents, administrators, and staff must be held accountable for student education.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Teachers, parents, administrators, and staff must be held accountable for student education.
F7:
In order for no student to be “left behind” or to get lost in the education system, efforts must be made by all relevant government agencies to work together. GRAND JURY TOUR NOTES
F22:
It would be impractical for small districts and often inefficient for larger districts to serve these students. The SCOE also educates at-risk students in juvenile hall and community schools; SCOE works to provide these students with the skills and knowledge that they will need in order to better their educational outcome, and increase their prospects to lead successful, productive lives. The SCOE also has a program called Community Action for Responsive Education (CARE), which is an intervention and diversion program for at-risk students. School districts partner with CARE to develop strategies for academic and social success for at-risk students. Part of the intervention process is directly related to continuing the LINKS program using transition specialists. The specialists, along with the teaching staff, focus on credit recovery, acquisition of diplomas and/or a General Education Development (GED) equivalency examination, as well as assisting with college applications, career exploration, internships, community service opportunities, preparation for return to home schools and tutoring. LINKS (Leadership in everyday life, Ingenuity in thought and practice, Navigating choices, Keeping promises, Sufficiency in preparation) is an academic and career technical education model aimed at helping high-risk students succeed. Services are tailored to individual students based on their specific needs instead of traditional, scripted education. The model is infused into the curriculum implemented in programs serving all SCOE Court and Community School students and Special Education students at Leo A. Palmiter Jr./Sr. High School. By teaching employability skills, practicing those skills in a "real life" environment, and providing positive adult connections, students succeed in measurable ways. Other direct services include the Regional Occupational Programs (ROP) that prepares students for a variety of careers. The SCOE also operates the Sly Park Environmental Center that offers weekly outdoor educational programs for over 6,000 students annually. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The SCOE provides leadership, professional development and technical assistance to districts and schools in areas of current need and interest. Examples include the new California Common Core Standards, transitional kindergarten, instructional technology, support of new teachers and aspiring school administrators through a 65 leadership program that confers a Preliminary Administrative Services Credential and staff training in the content areas of Mathematics, English/Language Arts, Science and the Arts. SCOE PROGRAMS English Language Services are provided for English as a Second Language (ESL) students at schools operated by SCOE, as part of each student’s educational program. The SCOE also acts as the regional lead for Federal Title III accountability, and in that role supports local school districts to improve programs and services for ESL students, with the ultimate goal of helping students attain English proficiency and academic achievement. Special Education The SCOE provides extensive and specialized services for students with disabilities. The SCOE Special Education Department provides special education related services for severely disabled students in all 14 school districts within the County. The SCOE supports the Infant Development Program, special preschools, Supporting Early Education Delivery Systems, and is a partner in the Sacramento County Quality Child Care Collaborative, which provides training and resources to childcare providers for students with special needs. The SCOE has special day class programs for students with emotional, severe cognitive, physical, medical and/or autistic disabilities from the ages of 5 to 22. There are 40 special day classrooms settings on 23 sites and six special education teachers in twelve inclusion sites. In addition to these unique and specialized services, SCOE serves as the Sacramento County Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) Administrative Unit for nine of the school districts. SELPA’s goal is to deliver high quality special education programs and services in an efficient and cost- effective manner. The SCOE receives the funds and is responsible for seeing that each child receives appropriate services. The SELPA helps districts comply with legal requirements, and provides professional development activities to foster better relationships between schools and families, serving over 8,000 special education students and their families. Students incarcerated in the county youth facility receive instruction from Sacramento County Office of Education teachers. The Sacramento Juvenile Court Schools provide a support network of quality services that promote and lead in educational excellence. The curriculum is continuously adjusted to meet the competitive educational needs of our changing student population. Juvenile Court School programs currently operate at El Centro Junior/Senior High School (Juvenile Hall). The SCOE also provides a junior and senior high school curriculum for students who are detained in facilities that are supervised by the Sacramento County Probation Department. The education programs utilize standards-aligned curriculum and career-technical education to provide relevant learning experience for students enrolled in the programs. These schools provide the means for students to develop and implement a student success plan for effective living and learning. In partnership with the Sacramento County Probation Department, students are better prepared for transition to a future without recidivism. While both programs are successful and independent of each other, the coordination between the two programs is minimal. Charter Schools Charter schools are either funded directly by the California Department of Education, and treated as a local school district, or through their local school district, and are locally funded. The governance structure of charter schools varies. Schools that have been created by the district board and are a part of the districts portfolio of schools are dependent, while schools formed by parents, teachers, community members or charter management organizations are independent. As of 2012, 31 charter schools exist in Sacramento County. Of these, 11 are dependent. Budget The SCOE budget is approximately $85 million per year. Half of the budget comes from education funding for the specific student populations served by SCOE (special education, juvenile court school, at-risk students). The remainder comes from competitive grants and contracts and fees for services which include programs which support and enhance education in the districts. Funding for local school districts comes directly from the state and does not pass through SCOE. School lunch programs are funded by state and federal governments. The Emergency Repair Program was born out of the Williams lawsuit that sought to entitle every student to a clean, safe and functional school. The program is funded at $800 million from Proposition 98 reversion funds. The Office of Public School Construction has not added to the workload priorities since December
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that the council members authorized by the City Council to author arguments in favor of Measures M, T, and U did not author those arguments submitted to the City Clerk, and did not publicly disclose their intention not to author the arguments before submitting the arguments to the City Clerk. The council members’ failure to author the arguments deprived the City Council of statutory priority for its arguments in the event other arguments in favor of each measure had been submitted to the City Clerk. The council members’ failure to author the arguments and to disclose their intention not to author the arguments was contrary to the City Council’s intent in authorizing the members; contrary to the California Elections Code, City Code, and City Elections Guidelines provisions for obtaining priority; and contrary to the best practices for transparent election procedures.
F2:
The Grand Jury finds that the Mayor failed to timely file a ballot argument in opposition to Measure U because his assistants who were assigned to prepare and submit the argument to the City Clerk misunderstood the filing requirements. This failure to timely file the argument was negligent, not intentional. 18
F3:
The Grand Jury finds that the City Council authorized council members to author arguments both in favor of and in opposition to measures it approved for placement on the ballot. Given the statutory preference accorded arguments authorized by the City Council, the Council’s authorization of arguments both in favor of and in opposition to a measure it has approved for placement on the ballot can preclude the filing of other opposition arguments to a measure or, at minimum, may discourage the submission of other opposition arguments, creating the possibility that the City Council could effectively limit legitimate opposition to a measure, either by submitting a token opposition argument or failing to submit an opposition argument.
F4:
The Grand Jury finds that the City Clerk’s Office staff advised a council member authorized to author arguments in favor of measures placed on the ballot by the City Council, to delay submitting the arguments to the City Clerk’s Office until just before the filing deadline and until after the opposition argument had been submitted (informing the council member of the date and time a measure opponent was scheduled to submit its opposition), in order to prevent the media and measure opponents from reviewing the argument in advance of the opposition’s submission. In response to the staff’s advice, the council member delayed submitting arguments to the City Clerk’s Office until just before the filing deadline and after the measure opponent had submitted its argument. The staff’s communication with the council member was inconsistent with the non-partisan role of the City Clerk’s Office with respect to municipal elections.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Clerk promulgate, and the City Council approve, election guidelines that ensure that council members authorized by the City Council to author an argument respecting a measure, will do so.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Clerk develop and provide formal training for the City Council and staff, as well as the general voting public, regarding the filing requirements for ballot measures and arguments.
R3:
In the absence of state law barring such a practice, the Grand Jury recommends that the City Council adopt guidelines precluding authorizing council members to author arguments both in favor of and in opposition to a measure that the City Council approves for placement on the ballot.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Clerk provide training to its staff regarding the Elections Office’s non-partisan role with respect to municipal elections. 19
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that the decision by the District Attorney to discontinue the independent review of officer-involved shootings has negatively affected the perception of law enforcement accountability in the county and public confidence in the review process. The Grand Jury further finds the independent 28 review of deputy-involved shooting cases should be conducted by the OIG or the District Attorney.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors provide sufficient funds to support the comprehensive, objective review and analysis of officer-involved shootings by either the OIG or the District Attorney, or both, as the Board determines is appropriate and necessary.
F2:
The Grand Jury finds the Sheriff’s Department and the OIG do not conduct an analysis of deputy-involved shooting incidents to identify the behavior, policy, or tactical issues that are present. The Grand Jury further finds the Sheriff’s Department does not routinely review shooting cases to identify “lessons learned” that can be incorporated in training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff consider restoring the use-of-force review process in the Department with a specific focus on the identification of behavior, policy, and tactical issues, and “lessons learned.” The Grand Jury further recommends the review panel include both tactical and training staff.
F3:
The Grand Jury finds that there is insufficient communication between the Office of the Inspector General and the administration of the Sheriff’s Department concerning the “lessons learned” from the shooting cases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Inspector General adopt a more proactive review of deputy-involved shooting incidents, beyond simply reviewing the findings of the Department’s internal investigation. Rather, the Inspector General should review each incident with the goal of communicating “lessons learned” to the Department.
F4:
The Grand Jury finds the policies and orders of the SSD concerning use-of-force and deadly force are relatively generic and not comprehensive.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff initiate a review of the orders and policies concerning the use-of-force and deadly force, and revise those orders as appropriate and legally competent to specifically address topics that are not addressed in the current policies (e.g., shooting at a moving vehicle). The Grand Jury further recommends the Sheriff consider the inclusion of use-of-force policy in tactical and firearms training courses developed and presented in the Department. 29
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that the decision by the District Attorney to discontinue the independent review of officer-involved shootings has negatively affected the perception of law enforcement accountability in the county and public confidence in the review process. The Grand Jury further finds the independent 28 review of deputy-involved shooting cases should be conducted by the OIG or the District Attorney.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors provide sufficient funds to support the comprehensive, objective review and analysis of officer-involved shootings by either the OIG or the District Attorney, or both, as the Board determines is appropriate and necessary.
F2:
The Grand Jury finds the Sheriff’s Department and the OIG do not conduct an analysis of deputy-involved shooting incidents to identify the behavior, policy, or tactical issues that are present. The Grand Jury further finds the Sheriff’s Department does not routinely review shooting cases to identify “lessons learned” that can be incorporated in training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff consider restoring the use-of-force review process in the Department with a specific focus on the identification of behavior, policy, and tactical issues, and “lessons learned.” The Grand Jury further recommends the review panel include both tactical and training staff.
F3:
The Grand Jury finds that there is insufficient communication between the Office of the Inspector General and the administration of the Sheriff’s Department concerning the “lessons learned” from the shooting cases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Inspector General adopt a more proactive review of deputy-involved shooting incidents, beyond simply reviewing the findings of the Department’s internal investigation. Rather, the Inspector General should review each incident with the goal of communicating “lessons learned” to the Department.
F4:
The Grand Jury finds the policies and orders of the SSD concerning use-of-force and deadly force are relatively generic and not comprehensive.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff initiate a review of the orders and policies concerning the use-of-force and deadly force, and revise those orders as appropriate and legally competent to specifically address topics that are not addressed in the current policies (e.g., shooting at a moving vehicle). The Grand Jury further recommends the Sheriff consider the inclusion of use-of-force policy in tactical and firearms training courses developed and presented in the Department. 29
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that the council members authorized by the City Council to author arguments in favor of Measures M, T, and U did not author those arguments submitted to the City Clerk, and did not publicly disclose their intention not to author the arguments before submitting the arguments to the City Clerk. The council members’ failure to author the arguments deprived the City Council of statutory priority for its arguments in the event other arguments in favor of each measure had been submitted to the City Clerk. The council members’ failure to author the arguments and to disclose their intention not to author the arguments was contrary to the City Council’s intent in authorizing the members; contrary to the California Elections Code, City Code, and City Elections Guidelines provisions for obtaining priority; and contrary to the best practices for transparent election procedures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Clerk promulgate, and the City Council approve, election guidelines that ensure that council members authorized by the City Council to author an argument respecting a measure, will do so.
F2:
The Grand Jury finds that the Mayor failed to timely file a ballot argument in opposition to Measure U because his assistants who were assigned to prepare and submit the argument to the City Clerk misunderstood the filing requirements. This failure to timely file the argument was negligent, not intentional. 18
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Clerk develop and provide formal training for the City Council and staff, as well as the general voting public, regarding the filing requirements for ballot measures and arguments.
F3:
The Grand Jury finds that the City Council authorized council members to author arguments both in favor of and in opposition to measures it approved for placement on the ballot. Given the statutory preference accorded arguments authorized by the City Council, the Council’s authorization of arguments both in favor of and in opposition to a measure it has approved for placement on the ballot can preclude the filing of other opposition arguments to a measure or, at minimum, may discourage the submission of other opposition arguments, creating the possibility that the City Council could effectively limit legitimate opposition to a measure, either by submitting a token opposition argument or failing to submit an opposition argument.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In the absence of state law barring such a practice, the Grand Jury recommends that the City Council adopt guidelines precluding authorizing council members to author arguments both in favor of and in opposition to a measure that the City Council approves for placement on the ballot.
F4:
The Grand Jury finds that the City Clerk’s Office staff advised a council member authorized to author arguments in favor of measures placed on the ballot by the City Council, to delay submitting the arguments to the City Clerk’s Office until just before the filing deadline and until after the opposition argument had been submitted (informing the council member of the date and time a measure opponent was scheduled to submit its opposition), in order to prevent the media and measure opponents from reviewing the argument in advance of the opposition’s submission. In response to the staff’s advice, the council member delayed submitting arguments to the City Clerk’s Office until just before the filing deadline and after the measure opponent had submitted its argument. The staff’s communication with the council member was inconsistent with the non-partisan role of the City Clerk’s Office with respect to municipal elections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Clerk provide training to its staff regarding the Elections Office’s non-partisan role with respect to municipal elections. 19