Gran Jurado del Condado de Sacramento
2025-2026
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
The City Council and the SPD have not provided the Commission with the ability to have effective community participation, including a public-facing website, dedicated email or other digital presence that links to the Commission, thereby limiting public access to the Commission’s work and reducing transparency (R1).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The City Council and SPD should take steps to enhance community participation, including establishing a public-facing website and dedicated email address linked to the Commission, by December 31, 2026 (F1).
F2:
The City Council’s failure to provide the Commission with an effective process for considering its recommendations limits the ability of SPD, the Council, and the community to evaluate the Commission's recommendations (R2).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The City Council should develop and implement procedures for considering Commission recommendations by December 31, 2026 (F2).
F3:
The City Code does not require SPD to respond, formally or informally, to Commission recommendations, leaving a void regarding the status of the
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R3:
The City Council should require SPD to provide formal written responses to all Commission recommendations and a timeline for those responses by December 31, 2026 (F3, F5).
R4:
The City Council should acknowledge receipt of and the outcome of each Commission recommendation by December 31, 2026 (F3, F4).
F4:
The City Council has no consistent process for documenting or publicly communicating the status of Commission recommendations once they are received, which effectively prevents the Council from participating in the process promised by the Commission’s creation (R4, R5).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R4:
The City Council should acknowledge receipt of and the outcome of each Commission recommendation by December 31, 2026 (F3, F4).
R5:
The City Council should establish a formal, public tracking system for the recommendations by December 31, 2026 (F4, F6).
F5:
With few exceptions, the City Council simply places Commission recommendations on its consent calendar, which diminishes the recommendations that reflect the community’s involvement (R3).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The City Council should require SPD to provide formal written responses to all Commission recommendations and a timeline for those responses by December 31, 2026 (F3, F5).
F6:
Neither the Commission nor SPD has a procedure to track the implementation of Commission recommendations, thereby preventing knowledge of their status (R5).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The City Council should establish a formal, public tracking system for the recommendations by December 31, 2026 (F4, F6).
F7:
The City’s Code does not require Commissioners to receive training on oversight procedures, applicable law, and policing issues, undermining their ability to serve as an effective advisory body (R6). WINDOW DRESSING OR PROGRESSING?
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
The City Council should require initial and ongoing relevant training for commissioners to assist them in their duties by December 31, 2026 (F7).
F8:
The City Council failed to act on the 2021 audit recommendations from the Sacramento City Office of the City Auditor to improve the Commission's effectiveness, thereby limiting the Commission’s ability to carry out its mission (R7).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
The City Council should formally respond to all recommendations in the 2021 audit by the Sacramento City Office of the City Auditor by December 31, 2026 (F8).
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
The SSO has reduced late-night releases as a percentage of overall releases since 2023 and the cessation of night court should further reduce late-night releases.
F2:
The SSO has directed Jail staff to limit late-night releases through inter- departmental correspondence, but mandatory late-night releases continue to occur to avoid “over-detention.”
F3:
The SSO established a limited exit information resource handout that is available upon request, but should be provided automatically with exit paperwork.
F4:
BSCC comparative data reveals other comparable California counties release individuals at a lower rate during late-night hours than does the County of Sacramento.
F5:
As recently as November 25, 2025, the Sheriff Community Review Commission placed a Jail Release Procedures discussion item on its agenda to highlight its continued importance to the community.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The SSO should continue coordination with the court and Jail staff to further reduce late-night releases, making necessary and appropriate adjustments due to the cessation of night court, by December 31, 2026.
R2:
The SSO should continue to regularly monitor and enforce the efficient and timely release of individuals at all times of the day to avoid late-night releases to the extent possible and report on their progress by December 31, 2026.
R3:
The SSO should ensure that all released individuals receive the exit information resource handout automatically by December 31, 2026.
R4:
The SSO should look to Alameda County and Los Angeles County’s release protocols and procedures to identify processes and strategies for more efficient and timely release, thereby further reducing SSO late-night releases, by June 30, 2027.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
12 hallazgos
F1:
The Grand Jury finds the District operated an accounting system without standardized procedures that did not meet California’s legal requirements for public financial reporting, which as a result, allowed multiple legally required financial audits to become overdue. (R1)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board require staff to complete updated accounting procedure manuals reflecting current software systems and processes, with General Manager approval, no later than December 31, 2026. (F1)
F2:
The Grand Jury finds as of May 2026, the District has deferred the FY 2022-23, FY 2023-24 and FY 2024–25 audits, and will be deferring the FY 2025–26 audits, extending a pattern of delinquent financial reporting that began in FY 2020–21, which is a violation of state law. (R2)
F3:
The Grand Jury finds there is no evidence the District fully remediated the material weaknesses and significant deficiencies identified in the FY 2019–20 audit following its transition to the current accounting software, thereby risking the continuance of a pattern of unqualified audits. (R3)
F4:
The Grand Jury acknowledges the hiring of a qualified Director of Finance and Administration enabled the District to make great strides towards closing the books on a series of long overdue audits as well as to establish effective accounting processes.
F5:
The Grand Jury finds the District continues to suffer from the impact of high upper management staff turnover to the detriment of its effective operation. The Grand Jury further finds, however, the recent retention of HRtoGO Outsourcing and Consulting Service to assist in establishing and implementing proper human resources procedures, may improve the handling of personnel matters and potentially reduce future employment litigation as well as prevention of high staff turnover.
F6:
The Grand Jury finds the Board did not initiate the process of hiring a General Manager for ten months, and instead appointed an interim general manager who lacked the qualifications and experience to run a public utility district, impeding the District’s ability to operate effectively. (R6)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board adhere to the schedule outlined by its recruitment agency for the hiring of a new General Manager who possesses the qualifications and experience to run this special district, and ensure the position is filled no later than September 30, 2026. (F6)
F7:
The Grand Jury finds the District’s ordinance regarding conflicts of interest is not updated, resulting in confusion over who must complete the Form 700s. (R7)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends the District Board update the District’s Conflict of Interest Code by September 30, 2026 to accurately reflect those positions for which a Form 700 is required. (F7)
F8:
The Grand Jury finds a Board member did not recuse, but in fact voted on the water moratorium issue despite a possible financial interest in the outcome of the vote, thereby creating at least the perception of a financial conflict of interest which could lead to mistrust by the residents. (R8)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R8a:
The Grand Jury recommends that by September 30, 2026 the Board implement procedures to verify that all required filers of Statements of Economic Interest timely file their Form 700’s. (F8)
R8b:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board establish a process to ensure Board members and staff are adequately trained on their ethical obligations so they can determine whether recusal from participating in any discussion in which the Board member or staff may have an appearance of possible impropriety or actual conflict of interest in the agenda matter being discussed is appropriate. (F8)
F9:
The Grand Jury finds required Form 700s have not all been filed and are not readily accessible to the public, making it difficult to determine actual or potential financial conflicts of interest. (R9)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board provide easy public access to the filed Form 700’s by September 30, 2026, including through the Rancho Murieta website to facilitate public access. (F9)
F10:
The Grand Jury finds there is no apparent procedure to ensure Board members and relevant District staff receive statutorily-required ethics and fiscal training in a timely manner, which has resulted in weakness in its governance. (R10)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board establish a formal procedure to comply with statutorily-required ethics and fiscal training, such as for elected officials and personnel by December 31, 2026. (F10)
F11:
The Grand Jury finds that although the District is permitted to charge the Rancho Murieta Country Club, a private club, for the cost of delivering reclaimed water, the District has not done so for over 37 years, thereby depriving the District of a source of revenue. (R11)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board direct staff to determine the cost of delivering reclaimed water to the Country Club and report to the Board in a Discussion item by September 30, 2026 the lost revenue from not charging that cost to the private club. (F11)
F12:
The Grand Jury finds the schedule for repayment of the District’s loan to the Rancho Murieta Country Club does not fully disclose the amount of interest the Country Club is obligated to pay under the loan agreement due to changes in the interest rate during the repayment period. (R12)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R12:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board direct staff report to the Board by September 30, 2026 the total interest owed by the Country Club under the loan agreement. (F12)
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the District finalize the FY 2022-23 and FY 2023- 24 financial statements and submit them to the Board for review of the audited
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board direct staff to deliver a written remediation status report by September 30, 2026 identifying which prior audit
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
1 hallazgos
F2025:
A flyer was provided titled “Folsom State Prison Family Day Tour.” Subsequently, the following link was provided to access general information about Folsom State Prison: Link to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Folsom State Prison Website. The tour lasted approximately three hours and jurors inspected various living quarters, vocational facilities, and the exercise yard area. The “New” Folsom Prison, formally known as California State Prison, Sacramento, began operations on October 1, 1986, accepting inmates in the highest security levels. The Grand Jury toured “New” Folsom Prison on November 20, 2025. No written material was distributed during the tour, but subsequently the following link was provided to access general information about the “New” Folsom Prison: Link to the California State Prison, Sacramento Website. The tour lasted 2 to 3 hours and the Grand Jurors inspected the facilities and yard. Although located within the city limits of Folsom, the mailing address for both institutions lists Represa, California. 6 OPERATIONS “Old” Folsom is a minimum (level I) to medium (level II/III) security facility, while “New” Folsom is a maximum-security facility. “Old” Folsom offers various services and activities through the California Correctional Training and Rehabilitation Authority (previously the Prison Industry Authority). During the tour, jurors were able to interact directly with inmates participating in various vocational training and work. An incident occurred in the exercise yard area while the jurors were touring and inmates complied with correctional officer orders. “Old” Folsom is well known as the sole site of automobile license plate production in California. There are additional vocational training and activities in welding, metalworking, Computer-Aided Design, forest firefighting, and Braille translation. The California Correctional Training and Rehabilitation Authority has an employment placement program that works with many companies and employers seeking skilled workers in these and other trades, as well as with employers willing to hire people discharged from custody. “New” Folsom Prison is a distinct facility with its own leadership and staff. The inmate population at this facility needs the highest levels of security, which are Medium Security (level III), and Maximum Security (level IV). The rehabilitation opportunities and options are fewer at this facility compared to those at the “Old” Folsom Prison. When the Grand Jury toured, the “New” Folsom was under lockdown following an inmate-on-inmate incident in the exercise yard. PERSONNEL ”Old” Folsom has 550 sworn correctional officers, and 509 civilians. “New” Folsom has 912 sworn correctional officers and 584 civilians. POPULATION ”Old” Folsom has 2685 incarcerated inmates. “New” Folsom has 2158 incarcerated inmates. CONCLUSION Between “Old” and “New” Folsom Prisons, much effort is made to provide a safe environment and, to a degree, rehabilitation for a population ranging from minimum- security shorter-term inmates to those with the highest level of security needs, who may be incarcerated for many years.