Sacramento County Grand Jury
2020-2021
Quick View
Full Details →
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
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
0 The number of inmates in the minimum-security section at RCCC will likely continue to decrease as a percentage of the total inmate population as the courts pursue alternatives to incarceration for low-risk non-violent offenders. As a consequence an increase in the custodylevel of inmates will occur.
F2:
0 The aging infrastructure of RCCC, with its abundance of fences and key-locked gates, is labor intensive and requires higher staffing levels to insure the safetyof staff and inmates.
F3:
0 The modular classrooms are remote and deputyresponse to an emergency situation maynot occur in sufficient time to avoid a major incident.
F4:
0 The Sandra Larsen Facility for female inmates offers a vocational program not available at the SCMJ.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
2 The Sacramento CountyBoard of Supervisors, the Sacramento CountySheriff, and RCCC should develop and adopt a long-term comprehensive plan, to address the needs of the changing inmate population.
R2:
1 The Sacramento CountyBoard of Supervisors and the Sacramento County Sheriff should staff RCCC to the level recommended by the Corrections Standards Authority, the Inspector General and internal management.
R3:
1 The RCCC Management Team should provide a personal alarm device for summoning assistance to the adult education teachers.
R4:
1 Funding to house female inmates and the vocational education program at the Sandra Larsen Facility should continue. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court by October 1, 2010, from: · The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors · Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Steve White, Presiding Judge Sacramento County Superior Court 720 9th Street, Dept. Sacramento, CA 95814 In addition, email the response to Becky Castaneda, Grand Jury Coordinator, at castanb@saccourt.com 136 Informational Reports Preface The 2009-2010 Sacramento County Grand Jury wrote eleven informational reports. These reports were written to enlighten the citizens of the county of Sacramento to the variety of departments located throughout the county that provide services to the general public. Most of the information received from these reports was received through touring and briefings from employees at the various city/county/state departments. The tours of the county and state correctional facilities are mandated by California Penal Code Section 919 (b) which states in part, “The grand jury shall inquire into the conditions and management of the public prisons within the county.” The informational report titled, “Sacramento City Unified School District-Last Chance to Put Children First,” was released publicly prior to the release of this final report. The remaining informational reports are: · Sacramento County Main Jail · Sacramento County Coroner’s Office · Sacramento Emergency Call Centers · The Children’s Receiving Home of Sacramento · Carson Creek Boys Ranch · California State Prison-Sacramento-New Folsom · Folsom State Prison · Sacramento County Mental Health Services-A System in Crisis · Child Protective Services Follow-up Report · Sacramento County Traffic Fines-What You See Isn’t What You Get 137 This page was intentionally left blank. Sacramento City Unified School District Last Chance to Put Children First
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
0Based on data supplied by city employees, a consultant's draft report estimated that the city's annual cost of potential violations is more than $5 million. The present worth cost of one-time projects and recurring costs over the last three years is in excess of $21 million. The mayor and members of city council received copies of this report in July 2008. No action was taken. Response:The Citydisagrees in part with this finding. The referenced engineering consultant was retained to review cost data associated with various practices identified by Citystaff, and prepared and submitted a draft report in Mayof 2008 quantifying the cost associated with these practices. However, the analysis provided in the draft report consisted solelyof cost estimating. The draft report expressly stated that it was not intended to provide an opinion regarding compliance with Proposition 218, and for this reason the various cost estimates in the consultant's draft report were not necessarilyindicative of anyactual violations of Proposition 218. To the extent that this finding suggests otherwise, the Citydisagrees. In addition, actions were taken after the consultant's draft report was received, as noted in the response to Recommendation 1.2, below. Grand Jury Response: The grand jurydisagrees with the city’s response. There was more than adequate information available to the city manager and the city council to warrant greater action than was taken.
F2:
0Once the city manager and the assistant city manager over the Department of Utilities (DOU) learned that there were potential and substantial Proposition 218 violations, they had a duty to pursue the issue and determine the existence and extent of any actual violations. They failed their duty. Response:The Citydisagrees with this finding. As noted in the response to
F3:
0 For years DOU has supplied water to city parks at a reduced rate of only 15% of the usual rate of providing water to other metered users. The grand jury is of the opinion that this is a violation of Proposition 218, which limits fees or charges to ratepayers for property related services. Providing water at reduced rates to the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) is not a property related service to ratepayers. The April 2009 agreement between DOU and DPR provides for this violation to be corrected over a 15 year period. The grand jury finds this timeline to be too lengthy. Response: The Citydisagrees in part with this finding. Citystaff undertook this phased approach to lessen the significant general fund impact of increasing the Department of Parks and Recreation' annual water costs, and as of July 1, 2009, the annual amount paid for water by the Department of Parks and Recreation has already been significantly increased. Given these circumstances and the 38
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
1 The city council should disclose the entire consultant's report to the public. Response:The entire consultant's draft report, with minor redactions of privileged and confidential matter, has been publicly disclosed. Grand Jury Response: The grand jury is satisfied that the draft report was released, but the city did not publicize the procedure for obtaining a copy. It was later learned that a citizen must request a copy from the city attorney.
R2:
1 The city council should admonish the city manager and the responsible assistant city manager for this failure. Response:During the CityCouncil's January26, 2010, public meeting, City staff presented a written report to the CityCouncil concerning the Grand Juryreport and Proposition 218 issues, as well as verbal presentations bythe City Manager and the Director of Utilities. At this meeting, CityCouncilmembers publicly admonished staff and directed them to move forward to address these issues. Grand Jury Response: The city manager and his staff were admonished in a public city council meeting but NO action was taken against the city attorney, who in the grand jury’s opinion was equally if not more culpable for not bringing the issue to the city council. One of the city attorney’s primary responsibilities is to advise the city council when illegal acts are being taken by the city. The grand jury found no evidence the city attorney performed this duty. It is recommended the city attorney be admonished by the city council. Additionally, the grand jury recommends the city attorney provide the city council a list and summary of all legal opinions issued on a monthly basis.