Sacramento County Grand Jury
2024-2025
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 (8)
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds the Isleton City Council repeatedly failed to timely adopt final budgets denying the City the necessary tool to track and assess its financial position. (R1)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the City Council annually adopt a final budget, including a separate accounting for restricted funds, no later than June 30 for the coming fiscal year, beginning with Fiscal Year 2026-2027. (F1)
F2:
The Grand Jury finds the Isleton City Council violated state law and the City’s own municipal code by not ensuring the completion of an annual independent audit in a timely manner, which created an obstacle to securing grants and resulted in the loss of revenues for the city. (R2)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the City Council ensure an independent annual audit of City operations and accounting occurs no later than 6 months following the end of the fiscal year, and that the City work with a licensed CPA with experience in municipal accounting, to conduct missing audits by March 30, 2026. (F2)
F3:
The Grand Jury finds the lack of oversight of the City Manager resulted in delayed discovery of the violation of state laws relating to misusing and comingling restricted funds. (R3)
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends the City Council require the City Treasurer to ensure restricted funds are segregated (rather than co-mingled) and create and implement a plan with the City auditor to account for restricted funds, with progress reports every quarter, beginning no later than December 31, 2025. (F3)
F4:
The Grand Jury finds members of the City Council did not adequately monitor the City’s finances, thereby contributing to a state of serious indebtedness. (R4)
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends the City Council continue to closely monitor the City’s financial position and assess whether bankruptcy or disincorporation is in the best interest of the residents of Isleton, and report out on their conclusion in a public meeting by December 31, 2025. (F4)
F5:
The Grand Jury finds the City Council failed to provide appropriate oversight of the City’s cannabis program to ensure collection of revenues and timely review of compliance with conditional use permits, thereby resulting in a loss of revenue to the City. (R5)
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends the City Council enforce its ordinances related to cannabis enterprises, beginning no later than December 31, 2025. (F5)
F6:
The Grand Jury finds the City Council failed to provide appropriate oversight of the City Manager to ensure the City Manager carried out his duty to keep the Council continuously apprised of the financial state of the City, which resulted in the City Council making uninformed financial and operational decisions (R6)
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends the City Council require the City Manager and Finance Director to keep Council continuously apprised of the financial state of the City by providing account balances, expenditures, debts, investments, and reports that compare budget to actual results, on a monthly basis, beginning no later than December 31, 2025. (F6)
F7:
The Grand Jury finds members of the City Council lack experience and training in city governance thereby denying the residents of Isleton of effective representation. (R7)
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends each City Council member undergo comprehensive training on their duties and responsibilities as council members, and publicly provide verification of their completion of this training and understanding of their roles, by no later than December 31, 2025. (F7)
F8:
The Grand Jury finds the City Council did not follow its own Code of Conduct which created a public distrust in city officials and added stress to City staff members resulting in several leaving their positions. (R8)
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Council determine an appropriate course of action, including sanctions, for violations of the Code of Conduct and announce those actions at a public meeting, beginning no later than December 31, 2025. (F8).
F9:
The Grand Jury finds that City staff failed to maintain complete and accurate records of City finances and other City operations which hampered the City’s ability to complete audits, enforce ordinances, and make sound financial decisions. (R9)
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends the Council direct the City Manager to ensure complete and proper recordkeeping for all city operations by December 31, 2025. (F9)
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds APS internal reporting systems do not require consistent data entry, therefore APS cannot reliably quantify the number of cases referred to law enforcement, nor can it track the law enforcement agencies to which the referrals are sent or follow-up on the resolution of cases. (R1)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that APS adopt and implement a reliable procedure to collect data regarding cases of elder abuse it refers to law enforcement agencies, by December 31, 2025. (F1)
F2:
The Grand Jury finds APS lacks enough funding for additional experienced, qualified social workers to investigate the growing number of elder financial abuse cases, which may result in future cases not being adequately investigated and documented. (R2)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that APS seek funding from the Board of Supervisors or other sources to hire additional MSW level social workers to investigate elder financial abuse cases, with funding to begin no later than the 2026/2027 fiscal year. (F2)
F3:
The Grand Jury finds some local law enforcement agencies do not consistently collect data to track elder financial abuse cases received from APS, making it impossible to determine if these cases are fully investigated or referred to the DA for prosecution. (R3)
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that all local law enforcement agencies maintain a record of elder financial abuse cases referred by APS, including whether the law enforcement agency conducted additional investigation and whether it sent the case to the DA for potential prosecution, to begin by December 31, 2025. (F3)
F4:
The Grand Jury finds the DA’s Elder Abuse Unit does not prosecute financial abuse cases unless accompanied by physical abuse, allowing many abusers to avoid consequences. (R4)
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DA prosecute the crime of elder financial abuse regardless of whether it is combined with physical abuse, to begin September 30, 2025. (F4)
F5:
The Grand Jury finds the DA’s Financial Crimes & Real Estate Fraud Units prosecute only when the dollar amount is high or multiple victims are impacted, allowing many abusers to avoid consequences. (R5)
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DA begin to consider the full impact of financial abuse on the elderly victims, regardless of the dollar amount lost, in deciding whether to charge a financial abuse crime, no later than September 30, 2025. (F5)
F6:
The Grand Jury finds law enforcement agencies in Sacramento County are not placing as much priority on elder financial abuse as other types of elder abuse, allowing abusers to avoid consequences. (R6)
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that all law enforcement agencies in Sacramento County raise the priority of elder financial abuse investigations to that of physical abuse, to begin September 30, 2025. (F6)
F7:
The Grand Jury finds the DA’s elder abuse unit does not have a prosecutor and investigator who are trained and specialize in prosecuting elder financial abuse, so many financial abuse cases are not being prosecuted allowing abusers to avoid consequences. (R7)
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DA add both an attorney and investigator specializing in elder abuse to prosecute financial abuse, by September 30, 2025. (F7)
F8:
The Grand Jury finds several of the law enforcement agencies in Sacramento County lack dedicated detectives with specialized training in the investigation of elder financial abuse and as a result many abusers are not being held accountable. (R8)
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that each law enforcement agency in Sacramento County have at least one trained detective dedicated to investigating elder financial abuse crimes, by December 31, 2025. (F8)
F9:
The Grand Jury finds local uniformed law enforcement officers do not receive continuing education and training in how to recognize the signs of elder financial abuse, thereby allowing abusers to continue their victimization without consequences. (R9) F.10 The Grand Jury finds The DA’s office no longer has a dedicated victim advocate who specializes in working with elderly victims of either physical or financial abuse, thereby leaving victims without proper support. (R10)
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that the uniformed officers of each local law enforcement agency receive regular ongoing education and training to recognize signs of elder financial abuse, to begin by December 31, 2025. (F9)
F10:
The Grand Jury finds The DA’s office no longer has a dedicated victim advocate who specializes in working with elderly victims of either physical or financial abuse, thereby leaving victims without proper support. (R10) F11. The Grand Jury finds the DA lacks enough funding to create and fill elder financial abuse prosecutor, investigator and victim advocate positions, to be able to prosecute more cases of elder financial abuse. (R11) F12. The Grand Jury finds Sacramento County has no active Financial Abuse Specialist Team (FAST), therefore there is inadequate coordination between agencies to combat the growing problem of elder financial abuse and protect elderly victims. (R12) F 13. The Grand Jury finds that there is insufficient community outreach by agencies within Sacramento County to educate elder citizens and their families and caregivers about financial abuse, so the signs of abuse may not be recognized. (R13) RECOMMENDATIONS R1. The Grand Jury recommends that APS adopt and implement a reliable procedure to collect data regarding cases of elder abuse it refers to law enforcement agencies, by December 31, 2025. (F1) R2. The Grand Jury recommends that APS seek funding from the Board of Supervisors or other sources to hire additional MSW level social workers to investigate elder financial abuse cases, with funding to begin no later than the 2026/2027 fiscal year. (F2) R3. The Grand Jury recommends that all local law enforcement agencies maintain a record of elder financial abuse cases referred by APS, including whether the law enforcement agency conducted additional investigation and whether it sent the case to the DA for potential prosecution, to begin by December 31, 2025. (F3) R4. The Grand Jury recommends that the DA prosecute the crime of elder financial abuse regardless of whether it is combined with physical abuse, to begin September 30, 2025. (F4) R5. The Grand Jury recommends that the DA begin to consider the full impact of financial abuse on the elderly victims, regardless of the dollar amount lost, in deciding whether to charge a financial abuse crime, no later than September 30, 2025. (F5) R6. The Grand Jury recommends that all law enforcement agencies in Sacramento County raise the priority of elder financial abuse investigations to that of physical abuse, to begin September 30, 2025. (F6) R7. The Grand Jury recommends that the DA add both an attorney and investigator specializing in elder abuse to prosecute financial abuse, by September 30, 2025. (F7) R8. The Grand Jury recommends that each law enforcement agency in Sacramento County have at least one trained detective dedicated to investigating elder financial abuse crimes, by December 31, 2025. (F8) R9. The Grand Jury recommends that the uniformed officers of each local law enforcement agency receive regular ongoing education and training to recognize signs of elder financial abuse, to begin by December 31, 2025. (F9) R10. The Grand Jury recommends that the DA add a dedicated victim advocate to the elder abuse unit who has specialized training and experience in working with elderly victims, by September 30, 2025. (F10) R11. The Grand Jury recommends that the DA seek the funding needed to create and fill the elder financial abuse prosecutor, investigator and victim advocate positions from the Board of Supervisors or other funding sources such as grants, with funding to begin no later than the 2026/2027 fiscal year. (F11) R12. The Grand Jury recommends that the DA reactivate the FAST team, by September 30, 2025. (F12) R13. The Grand Jury recommends that law enforcement agencies, APS, the DA’s office, and the FAST team develop and implement a coordinated plan for more widespread community outreach by all parties, by December 31, 2025. (F13) REQUIRED RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933(a) and (c) and 933.05, the grand jury requests responses as follows. From the following “agency head” as specified in Penal Code section 933(c) within 60 days, for all Findings and Recommendations: ▪ Thien Ho, Sacramento County District Attorney 901 G Street Sacramento, California 95814 (F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F12, F13, R4, R5, R7, R10, R11, R12, R13) ▪ Jim Cooper, Sacramento County Sheriff 4500 Orange Grove Avenue Sacramento, California 95841 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F12, F13, R3, R6, R8, R9, R13) ▪ Shelby Boston, Director Sacramento County Department of Child Family and Adult Services 9750 Business Park Drive Sacramento, California 95827 (F1, F2, F13, R1, R2, R13) Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the grand jury requests a response from the following “governing body” as specified in Penal Code section 933(c) within 90 days, for all Findings and Recommendations: ▪ Sacramento County Board of Supervisors 700 H Street, Suite 2450 Sacramento, California 95814 (F1, F2, F11, R1, R2, R11) ▪ Sacramento City Council 915 I Street, 5th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R9, R13) ▪ Elk Grove City Council 8401 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove, CA 95758 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R9, R13) ▪ Folsom City Council 50 Natoma Street Folsom, CA 95630 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R9, R13) ▪ Citrus Heights City Council 6360 Fountain Square Drive, Citrus Heights, CA 95621 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R9, R13) INVITED RESPONSES Kathy Lester, Chief of Police Sacramento Police Department 5770 Freeport Blvd, Suite 200 Sacramento California 95822 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R8, R9, R13) Alexander Turcotte, Chief of Police Citrus Heights Police Department 6360 Fountain Square Drive Citrus Heights, California 95621 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R8, R9, R13) Rick Hillman, Chief of Police Folsom Police Department 46 Natomas Street Folsom, California 95630 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R8, R9, R13) Bobby Davis, Chief of Police Elk Grove Police Department 8400 Laguna Palms Way Elk Grove, California 95758 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R8, R9, R13) Melissa Brown, Clinical Professor of Law Elder & Health Law Clinic University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law 3200 Fifth Avenue Sacramento, California 95817 (F4-F13, R4-R13) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DA add a dedicated victim advocate to the elder abuse unit who has specialized training and experience in working with elderly victims, by September 30, 2025. (F10)
F11:
The Grand Jury finds the DA lacks enough funding to create and fill elder financial abuse prosecutor, investigator and victim advocate positions, to be able to prosecute more cases of elder financial abuse. (R11)
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DA seek the funding needed to create and fill the elder financial abuse prosecutor, investigator and victim advocate positions from the Board of Supervisors or other funding sources such as grants, with funding to begin no later than the 2026/2027 fiscal year. (F11)
F12:
The Grand Jury finds Sacramento County has no active Financial Abuse Specialist Team (FAST), therefore there is inadequate coordination between agencies to combat the growing problem of elder financial abuse and protect elderly victims. (R12) F 13. The Grand Jury finds that there is insufficient community outreach by agencies within Sacramento County to educate elder citizens and their families and caregivers about financial abuse, so the signs of abuse may not be recognized. (R13)
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DA reactivate the FAST team, by September 30, 2025. (F12)
F13:
The Grand Jury finds that there is insufficient community outreach by agencies within Sacramento County to educate elder citizens and their families and caregivers about financial abuse, so the signs of abuse may not be recognized. (R13) RECOMMENDATIONS R1. The Grand Jury recommends that APS adopt and implement a reliable procedure to collect data regarding cases of elder abuse it refers to law enforcement agencies, by December 31, 2025. (F1) R2. The Grand Jury recommends that APS seek funding from the Board of Supervisors or other sources to hire additional MSW level social workers to investigate elder financial abuse cases, with funding to begin no later than the 2026/2027 fiscal year. (F2) R3. The Grand Jury recommends that all local law enforcement agencies maintain a record of elder financial abuse cases referred by APS, including whether the law enforcement agency conducted additional investigation and whether it sent the case to the DA for potential prosecution, to begin by December 31, 2025. (F3) R4. The Grand Jury recommends that the DA prosecute the crime of elder financial abuse regardless of whether it is combined with physical abuse, to begin September 30, 2025. (F4) R5. The Grand Jury recommends that the DA begin to consider the full impact of financial abuse on the elderly victims, regardless of the dollar amount lost, in deciding whether to charge a financial abuse crime, no later than September 30, 2025. (F5) R6. The Grand Jury recommends that all law enforcement agencies in Sacramento County raise the priority of elder financial abuse investigations to that of physical abuse, to begin September 30, 2025. (F6) R7. The Grand Jury recommends that the DA add both an attorney and investigator specializing in elder abuse to prosecute financial abuse, by September 30, 2025. (F7) R8. The Grand Jury recommends that each law enforcement agency in Sacramento County have at least one trained detective dedicated to investigating elder financial abuse crimes, by December 31, 2025. (F8) R9. The Grand Jury recommends that the uniformed officers of each local law enforcement agency receive regular ongoing education and training to recognize signs of elder financial abuse, to begin by December 31, 2025. (F9) R10. The Grand Jury recommends that the DA add a dedicated victim advocate to the elder abuse unit who has specialized training and experience in working with elderly victims, by September 30, 2025. (F10) R11. The Grand Jury recommends that the DA seek the funding needed to create and fill the elder financial abuse prosecutor, investigator and victim advocate positions from the Board of Supervisors or other funding sources such as grants, with funding to begin no later than the 2026/2027 fiscal year. (F11) R12. The Grand Jury recommends that the DA reactivate the FAST team, by September 30, 2025. (F12) R13. The Grand Jury recommends that law enforcement agencies, APS, the DA’s office, and the FAST team develop and implement a coordinated plan for more widespread community outreach by all parties, by December 31, 2025. (F13) REQUIRED RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933(a) and (c) and 933.05, the grand jury requests responses as follows. From the following “agency head” as specified in Penal Code section 933(c) within 60 days, for all Findings and Recommendations: ▪ Thien Ho, Sacramento County District Attorney 901 G Street Sacramento, California 95814 (F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F12, F13, R4, R5, R7, R10, R11, R12, R13) ▪ Jim Cooper, Sacramento County Sheriff 4500 Orange Grove Avenue Sacramento, California 95841 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F12, F13, R3, R6, R8, R9, R13) ▪ Shelby Boston, Director Sacramento County Department of Child Family and Adult Services 9750 Business Park Drive Sacramento, California 95827 (F1, F2, F13, R1, R2, R13) Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the grand jury requests a response from the following “governing body” as specified in Penal Code section 933(c) within 90 days, for all Findings and Recommendations: ▪ Sacramento County Board of Supervisors 700 H Street, Suite 2450 Sacramento, California 95814 (F1, F2, F11, R1, R2, R11) ▪ Sacramento City Council 915 I Street, 5th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R9, R13) ▪ Elk Grove City Council 8401 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove, CA 95758 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R9, R13) ▪ Folsom City Council 50 Natoma Street Folsom, CA 95630 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R9, R13) ▪ Citrus Heights City Council 6360 Fountain Square Drive, Citrus Heights, CA 95621 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R9, R13) INVITED RESPONSES Kathy Lester, Chief of Police Sacramento Police Department 5770 Freeport Blvd, Suite 200 Sacramento California 95822 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R8, R9, R13) Alexander Turcotte, Chief of Police Citrus Heights Police Department 6360 Fountain Square Drive Citrus Heights, California 95621 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R8, R9, R13) Rick Hillman, Chief of Police Folsom Police Department 46 Natomas Street Folsom, California 95630 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R8, R9, R13) Bobby Davis, Chief of Police Elk Grove Police Department 8400 Laguna Palms Way Elk Grove, California 95758 (F3, F6, F8, F9, F13, R3, R6, R8, R9, R13) Melissa Brown, Clinical Professor of Law Elder & Health Law Clinic University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law 3200 Fifth Avenue Sacramento, California 95817 (F4-F13, R4-R13) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The Grand Jury recommends that law enforcement agencies, APS, the DA’s office, and the FAST team develop and implement a coordinated plan for more widespread community outreach by all parties, by December 31, 2025. (F13)
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that as of December 2024, the Probation Department has failed to keep complete and accurate records resulting in an inability to track and evaluate data in the areas of offender recidivism, attendance, and completion/failure rates. (R1)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends Probation and providers collect and record all data regarding offender’s recidivism, attendance, participation, and completion and input it in the BTP portal on a weekly basis starting January 1, 2026. (F1)
F2:
The Grand Jury finds the BTP in Sacramento County uses an antiquated, ineffective, one-size-fits-all approach, resulting in a high failure rate. (R2)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends Probation initiate a risk assessment evaluation for appropriate placement of offenders in a BTP tailored to meet individual needs by January 1, 2026. (F2)
F3:
The Grand Jury finds Probation’s failure to perform a risk assessment at the conclusion of the BTP prevents an accurate determination of the offender’s potential to reoffend. (R3)
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends Probation add a risk assessment at the conclusion of the BTP by January 1, 2026, to determine the effectiveness of the program and increase support and treatment opportunities for those likely to reoffend. (F3)
F4:
The Grand Jury finds Probation has failed to require that providers implement one type of an evidence-based program which has resulted in inconsistent counseling methods. (R4, R7)
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends Probation require all providers follow an evidence- based model that addresses individual needs by January 1, 2026. (F4)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends Probation collaborate with neighboring counties, especially those taking part in the pilot program such as Yolo County for shared knowledge and training of providers in the use of CBT by January 1, 2026. (F4)
F5:
The Grand Jury finds Probation’s inadequate oversight of the certification of providers has resulted in providers being re-approved year after year without an assessment of their competency. (R5, R6)
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that Probation implement a provider application and approval process, to include a formal Request for Qualifications (RFQ), for the certification and re-certification of providers by January 1, 2026. (F5)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends Probation solicit input from criminal justice agencies and domestic violence victim advocacy programs as required by statute for the development of the RFQ by January 1, 2026. (F5)
F6:
The Grand Jury finds reliance on the Offenders-Pay- Model creates a financial barrier, thereby inhibiting the offender’s ability to enroll and complete the program and creating a financial burden for some providers. (R8)
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends Probation request funding from the Community Corrections Act (SB 678) and the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) and any state, federal, or other grant issuing entities to help subsidize payment of BTP fees for indigent offenders by June 30, 2026. (F6)
F7:
The Grand Jury finds Probation’s refusal to allow online meetings under any circumstances serves as a barrier to BTP completion by offenders and presents financial hardships for some providers. (R9)
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends Probation initiate hybrid video conference BTP meetings for offenders by January 1, 2026. (F7)
F8:
The Grand Jury finds Probation lacks an in-house BTP that would enable indigent offenders to avoid weekly fees and receive their certification of completion in a timely manner. (R10)
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Grand Jury recommends Probation initiate an in-house BTP for offenders that meets the all of the conditions set forth in Penal Code Section 1203.099(a) by January 1, 2026. (F8)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The lack of transparency and independent validation of a school’s calculation of the amount of existing funds it spends on arts education creates an opportunity for schools to underestimate that amount, thereby reducing arts education spending from the level required by Proposition 28. (R1)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that governing boards direct appropriate budget staff to disclose the calculation of prior year spending on arts education at the same annual public hearing at which Proposition 28 spending reports are adopted, beginning no later than December 15, 2025. (F1)
F2:
Failure to supplement spending from one-time funds with Proposition 28 funds subjects schools to potential litigation, which could result in the loss of funds. (R2)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that governing boards either (1) direct appropriate budget staff to include spending from one-time revenues in the calculation of prior year arts education spending or (2) seek independent legal advice on how to account for such funds, by December 15, 2025. (F2)
F3:
Failure to post Proposition 28 annual reports on their websites puts schools at risk of losing this funding. (R3)
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that governing boards direct appropriate staff to post Proposition 28 annual spending reports on an easy-to-find page on the school or district website by December 15, 2025. (F3, F4)
F4:
By placing the spending reports in hard-to-find places on their websites, schools make it difficult for parents and the public to get information about how Proposition 28 funds are being spent, thereby falling short of the level of transparency required by the measure. (R3)
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that governing boards direct appropriate staff to post Proposition 28 annual spending reports on an easy-to-find page on the school or district website by December 15, 2025. (F3, F4)
F5:
By not taking full advantage of multiple opportunities to recruit and hire more arts teachers, schools fall short of meeting the goal of increasing arts education. (R4)
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that governing boards direct appropriate staff to explore all available programs to hire arts teachers and classified employees with Proposition 28 funds by December 15, 2025. (F5)
F6:
By not engaging in district-wide, multi-year planning, districts risk losing funds by being out of compliance with the 80/20 spending requirement and lose the opportunity to integrate expanded arts education into the regular curriculum. (R5)
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that governing boards adopt multi-year arts education plans to help ensure compliance with the law and to integrate new and expanded arts education programs into the overall curriculum by December 15, 2025. (F6)
F7:
By not involving parents in the development of Proposition 28 spending plans, districts violate state law and deny parents the opportunity to contribute. (R6)
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that governing boards direct school site administrators to include parents in developing school site Proposition 28 spending plans by December 15, 2025. (F7)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds the Isleton City Council repeatedly failed to timely adopt final budgets denying the City the necessary tool to track and assess its financial position. (R1)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the City Council annually adopt a final budget, including a separate accounting for restricted funds, no later than June 30 for the coming fiscal year, beginning with Fiscal Year 2026-2027. (F1)
F2:
The Grand Jury finds the Isleton City Council violated state law and the City’s own municipal code by not ensuring the completion of an annual independent audit in a timely manner, which created an obstacle to securing grants and resulted in the loss of revenues for the city. (R2)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the City Council ensure an independent annual audit of City operations and accounting occurs no later than 6 months following the end of the fiscal year, and that the City work with a licensed CPA with experience in municipal accounting, to conduct missing audits by March 30, 2026. (F2)
F3:
The Grand Jury finds the lack of oversight of the City Manager resulted in delayed discovery of the violation of state laws relating to misusing and comingling restricted funds. (R3) 78 | P a g e 2024-2025 Grand Jury Investigation Report On the Brink of Bankruptcy: Isleton’s Failure to Govern
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends the City Council require the City Treasurer to ensure restricted funds are segregated (rather than co-mingled) and create and implement a plan with the City auditor to account for restricted funds, with progress reports every quarter, beginning no later than December 31, 2025. (F3)
F4:
The Grand Jury finds members of the City Council did not adequately monitor the City’s finances, thereby contributing to a state of serious indebtedness. (R4)
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends the City Council continue to closely monitor the City’s financial position and assess whether bankruptcy or disincorporation is in the best 79 | P a g e 2024-2025 Grand Jury Investigation Report On the Brink of Bankruptcy: Isleton’s Failure to Govern interest of the residents of Isleton, and report out on their conclusion in a public meeting by December 31, 2025. (F4)
F5:
The Grand Jury finds the City Council failed to provide appropriate oversight of the City’s cannabis program to ensure collection of revenues and timely review of compliance with conditional use permits, thereby resulting in a loss of revenue to the City. (R5)
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends the City Council enforce its ordinances related to cannabis enterprises, beginning no later than December 31, 2025. (F5)
F6:
The Grand Jury finds the City Council failed to provide appropriate oversight of the City Manager to ensure the City Manager carried out his duty to keep the Council continuously apprised of the financial state of the City, which resulted in the City Council making uninformed financial and operational decisions (R6)
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends the City Council require the City Manager and Finance Director to keep Council continuously apprised of the financial state of the City by providing account balances, expenditures, debts, investments, and reports that compare budget to actual results, on a monthly basis, beginning no later than December 31, 2025. (F6)
F7:
The Grand Jury finds members of the City Council lack experience and training in city governance thereby denying the residents of Isleton of effective representation. (R7)
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends each City Council member undergo comprehensive training on their duties and responsibilities as council members, and publicly provide verification of their completion of this training and understanding of their roles, by no later than December 31, 2025. (F7)
F8:
The Grand Jury finds the City Council did not follow its own Code of Conduct which created a public distrust in city officials and added stress to City staff members resulting in several leaving their positions. (R8)
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Council determine an appropriate course of action, including sanctions, for violations of the Code of Conduct and announce those actions at a public meeting, beginning no later than December 31, 2025. (F8).
F9:
The Grand Jury finds that City staff failed to maintain complete and accurate records of City finances and other City operations which hampered the City’s ability to complete audits, enforce ordinances, and make sound financial decisions. (R9)
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends the Council direct the City Manager to ensure complete and proper recordkeeping for all city operations by December 31, 2025. (F9)
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports, not grand jury reports or responses.