Sacramento County Grand Jury

2020-2021

2 reports

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: The Isleton City Council violated Government Code section 36512(b) by failing to appoint and/or failing to call for a Special Election to replace a vacancy on the Isleton City Council.
F2: The Isleton City Council disregarded Government Code section 36512(b), the advice of its City Attorney, the advice contained in the Staff Report dated June 22, 2021, and
F3: Failure of the Isleton City Council to follow the mandate of Government Code section 36512(b) was a breach of the City of Isleton Code of Conduct for City Council Members.
F4: Failure to appoint a person to fill the vacancy on the Isleton City Council dilutes the public’s representation in government since there is one fewer Council Member to express views, opinions, ideas, and diverse opinions as well as potentially resulting in split decisions which would inhibit the Council from making appropriate decisions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: The Isleton City Council should appoint a person to fill the vacancy on the Isleton City Council by June 30, 2022.
R2: If the Isleton City Council fails to appoint a replacement by June 30, 2022, a Special Election should be held.
F5: The lack of a penalty provision for failure to comply with Government Code section 36512(b) motivated the Isleton City Council to ignore the mandatory requirement to either appoint or call for a Special Election to fill the vacancy on the City Council and leave its constituency with no redress. 5
Findings & Recommendations 14 findings
F1: The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors abdicated its responsibility to determine community needs and to provide oversight in the development and implementation of the County COVID-19 response.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: The County Board of Supervisors should engage in an active process to identify and address community needs and develop a plan to deliver appropriate funding and services to the community outside of County operations. A policy should be developed and approved to ensure community input in the use of supplemental emergency funding by December 2022.
R4: A policy should be developed by the County Board of Supervisors directing the County Executive to provide clear and specific direction and oversight to county operations to ensure that the Board’s plans and strategic directions in response to community emergencies are properly carried out. This policy should be developed and approved by December 2022.
F2: The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors used the vast majority of the CARES Act funding it received to augment the county budget and support county operations while providing minimal support to the Sacramento County Health Department or other County agencies to address community needs resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, neglecting its public support responsibility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The County Board of Supervisors should engage in an active process to identify and address community needs and develop a plan to deliver appropriate funding and services to the community outside of County operations. A policy should be developed and approved to ensure community input in the use of supplemental emergency funding by December 2022.
F3: The vast majority of the Sacramento County CARES Act dollars were used to fund County operations. No funds were distributed to the cities within the County to assist their effort to directly address the COVID-19 pandemic.
F4: Each department within the Sacramento County Administration had to create its own action plan to address the COVID-19 pandemic because there was no overarching County Plan nor was specific direction provided from the County Executive regarding these action plans. 7
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: A policy should be developed by the County Board of Supervisors directing the County Executive to provide clear and specific direction and oversight to county operations to ensure that the Board’s plans and strategic directions in response to community emergencies are properly carried out. This policy should be developed and approved by December 2022.
F5: The Sheriff's Department final FY 2019-2020 budget was not increased due to the use of CARES Act funding of $104.2 million. At year-end closing, Sacramento County provided the Sheriff's Department with $104.2 million of CARES Act funds, and removed an equivalent amount of General Funds from the Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff used these CARES Act funds for standard non-COVID-19 operations. The Grand Jury was unable to determine if the switching of funds was in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.
F6: Sacramento County's allocation of the majority of CARES Act funds to the Sheriff's Department achieved several benefits. It ensured there was no loss of CARES Act funds, provided the County with greater financial flexibility in funding services, and addressed the COVID-19 emergency. The Grand Jury was unable to determine if the switching of funds was in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.
F7: The County Executive's decision to allocate 70% of Sacramento County's FY2019/2020 CARES Act expenditures to the Sheriff's Department ignored many of the critical public health needs to contain the spread of COVID-19. The Grand Jury was unable to determine if this action was in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.
F8: While the Sheriff's Department conducted COVID-19 mitigation efforts within detention facilities, it expressly chose not to enforce the Governor's active emergency orders related to minimizing the spread of COVID-19 among the general public. The Grand Jury was unable to determine if the lack of enforcement of the Governor’s emergency orders while using CARES Act funding was in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.
F9: The CARES Act prohibited use of its funds for already budgeted staffing activities. But these CARES Act funded "public safety" employees simply continued to perform their same duties as they had prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Grand Jury was unable to determine if this action was in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should appoint an independent panel by June 2022 to conduct an audit to determine whether County actions were, in fact, in compliance with federal CARES Act requirements.
F10: The Board of Supervisors, the County Executive, and the Sheriff's Department were not transparent in the use of the CARES Act funds. There was no written notice provided in the Board meeting agenda nor explanation within the Board Packet meeting materials regarding the replacement of allocated Sheriff's Department General Funds with CARES Act funds.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: The Sacramento Board of Supervisors, the County Executive, and the Sheriff’s Department should each adopt a transparent and properly noticed budget allocation and approval process to be used upon receipt by the County for all funding sources, including surplus dollars. This process should include adequate notice, extensive engagement with county residents, and utilize detailed public notices, media briefings, stakeholder workshops and appropriate social media outreach. This recommendation should be in place by December 2022.
R5: A policy should be developed by County Board of Supervisors to require that the County Executive provide monthly updates on the use of special funding. This policy should be developed and approved by December 2022.
F11: The lack of governance and oversight by the Board of Supervisors allowed the County Executive to violate the first goal of the County's stated criteria for use of CARES Act funds.
F12: The City of Sacramento used a significant majority of its federal CARES Act funding to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the local community.
F13: The City of Sacramento actively solicited community input on the allocation of CARES Act funding from local community. 8
F14: The Sacramento City Council actively engaged in the planning and oversight of CARES Act funding and determined five categories of funding included in the City’s “COVID-19 Response: CARES Act Investments.”