San Diego County Grand Jury
2011-2012
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F01:
Many TMD activities are not in compliance with the Management District Plan. Fact: There has not been a clear division of funding and responsibility between the Chamber, CONVIS and TMD. Fact: TMD staff members are shown as part of the Chamber Team on the Chamber Web site. Fact: Neither the staff positions nor their salaries and benefits were ever approved by the TMD Board. Fact: The TMD is reimbursing the Chamber for costs of operating the Visitor Information Center from January 2008 through June 2009. Fact: Neither the reimbursement itself nor its component costs were approved by the City Council. 135
F02:
The blurring of accountability and responsibility makes it difficult to determine how staff and funding are allocated among the Chamber, TMD and CONVIS. Fact: Some TMD financial statements are prepared using cash accounting and some use accrual accounting.
F03:
The TMD’s varied reporting of its revenue is confusing to observers.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
12-37:
with Governmental Accounting Standards Board rules.
12-38:
Require the TMD to provide an itemized accounting for the $219,000
12-39:
Management District Plan.
12-40:
Adopt written personnel policies and procedures, including performance
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F01:
Further improvements to the Leucadia storm water drainage system are necessary. Fact: Leucadia storm drain design choices are hampered by the 24” diameter size limit imposed on outfall piping to Batiquitos Lagoon due to a California Coastal Commission ruling. Fact: Water flow near the north end outlet over-loads for most storm scenarios. Fact: Micro-tunneling through the Leucadia ocean bluffs for purposes of storm drain installation is acceptable to the California Coastal Commission. Fact: Constructing an overflow drain for Leucadia Roadside Park westward through the bluff at Beacons Beach was an alternative recommended by a major engineering study.
F02:
Storm drainage through the Leucadia bluffs at Beacons Beach and possibly at other locations should be considered by the City of Encinitas. Fact: No capital improvements to the Leucadia storm water system are currently funded. Fact: Special Assessment Districts (S.A.D.s) may be established by a governing agency to levy taxes for specific infrastructure improvements, such as storm water drains.
F03:
Funding Leucadia storm water drainage work through a Special Assessment District (S.A.D.) is an option for the City of Encinitas. 152
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
12-42:
Develop an immediate plan of action or Council resolution to
12-43:
Include storm water flow through the bluff at Leucadia
12-44:
Explore storm drain, capital improvement tax funding for
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F01:
A church is not a compatible use within the Liberty Station Precise Plan educational area.
F02:
The City’s issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to a church to operate in the educational area is not allowed by provisions of the Precise Plan.
F03:
Traffic congestion, parking problems, the need for a street closure, and other issues alleged in the original complaint are directly related to a church not being compatible for the Liberty Station area.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
12-41:
Suspend the current Conditional Use Permit for the Rock Academy
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F01:
The Tri-City administration was unresponsive to the records request from the complainant; however the records were provided to the Grand Jury. Fact: The Grand Jury requested an audit of Healthcare District financial records which was conducted by San Diego County‘s Office of Audits & Advisory Services.
F02:
The auditors’ report found no discrepancies. Fact: The Healthcare District’s last independent audit revealed a substantial and positive turn- around in its fiscal condition.
F03:
The current District management team appears to have turned a fiscal corner and put the District on the road to financial recovery, in spite of challenges posed by the Board of Directors.4 Fact: All parties interviewed agreed that the Board is not functioning in a productive manner. Fact: Within the past year the Board has been involved in several lawsuits among its fellow members.
F04:
Members of the Board do not appear to work together.
F05:
Board meetings are disorderly and lacking in cooperation and respect. Some Board members appear to show open contempt for each other. Fact: Many Board members have been disciplined, sanctioned, rendered ineffective because of potential conflict of interest issues or compromised by personal issues involving professional credentials and education. Report of Independent Auditors and Consolidated Financial Statements for Tri-City Healthcare District – June 30, 2011 and 2010 159 Fact: Some members have been or are currently barred from all closed meetings for inappropriate behavior. Fact: One Board member must participate from another room under uniformed guard.
F06:
There appears to be minimal structure and order in the meetings. Fact: The terms of four of the seven seats on the Board of Directors expire in November 2012.
F07:
The Grand Jury believes the coming election to be an excellent opportunity for the electorate to remake the current Tri-City Healthcare District Board of Directors into a less distracting and more professional body.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
12-45:
Adhere to Board policies and procedures.
12-46:
Conduct their meetings using Robert's Rules of Order.
12-47:
Seek professional training aimed at team-building and appropriate meeting
12-48:
Convene a representative panel consisting of representatives from the cities
12-49:
Conduct informational campaigns to underscore the necessity of encouraging
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F01:
This process allows bias, prejudice, and other personal feelings of the interview committee members to influence their recommendations. Fact: There is a lack of decorum among Board members in open sessions when members of the public are present. Fact: The lack of decorum has created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation among some Board and prospective members. Fact: Lack of decorum is in direct conflict with the Board’s own policies and procedures-bylaws. 6
F02:
The lack of decorum among Board members has contributed to a high turnover of prospective members and has affected the Board’s ability to function properly.
F03:
CRB leadership is weak, ineffectual, and unresponsive.
F04:
A faction of Board members is allowed to control Board activity.
F05:
If CRB leadership were stronger and more willing to be involved, decorum and factions among Board members could be controlled. Fact: The CRB allows IA personnel to attend all closed sessions.
F06:
IA personnel attendance in closed sessions inhibits the CRB from being independent, fair, and impartial.
F07:
Interference by IA personnel during the review process prohibits the three- member team from making independent, fair, and impartial reviews of IA reports.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
12-29:
Establish an interview committee, independent from the CRB, for the
12-30:
Set questions to be determined by the Mayor; which committee will
12-31:
Select a three-member team, independent of the CRB, who will
12-32:
Immediately instruct the Chief of Police to ensure that IA personnel
12-33:
Instruct the Chief of Police to ensure that IA personnel stop
12-34:
Reduce the number of consecutive years a Board member may serve
12-35:
Conduct an investigation and evaluation of current Deputy City
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F01:
Administrators believe that fee issues have been resolved by education, training, and oversight.
F02:
Part-time coaches and volunteer personnel seem uncertain about when and how to communicate the fact that most fees are discretionary. Training for these groups is inconsistent.
F03:
PTA and PTSA members are sometimes confused in communication with parents concerning which fees are discretionary. Fact: All districts studied have received guidelines from their school district and ACLU counsel. Fact: Administrators have a training program in place to assist school personnel at each level to understand the difference between a mandatory school fee and an elective school fee. Fact: Some principals found that PTA, PTSA, part-time staff volunteers and ad hoc groups are confused when school credit is given for elective events such as intramural sport, cheerleading, band and art.
F04:
Training for some part-time staff, volunteers, ad hoc groups and parents is not reaching everyone on a consistent basis. Fact: Teachers are trained in writing requests for materials from parents to verify that they understand that their contributions are voluntary.
F05:
Parents understand these requests, no matter how carefully worded, as mandatory fees. Fact: The administrators interviewed agreed that their schools are required to provide basic school supplies, e.g. paper, pencils, pens, crayons, P.E. clothes, band and cheerleading uniforms, sporting and musical equipment and art supplies. Fact: Many classroom teachers and active parent groups interviewed find these supplies to be inadequate. Fact: Elementary school teachers spend personal time and money to insure their students’ success. Fact: National Survey results showed that teachers spent $1.5 billion out of their own pocket in 2010. (Data for San Diego County are not available.)
F06:
The issue of inadequate supplies is addressed in a variety of ways. Contributions are received from booster groups, foundations, parents and teachers.
F07:
Every past and present classroom teacher interviewed said that they contributed money from their own pocket. The range of contribution was a low of $200 annually to a high of $6000. In the lower grades (K-8) teachers are more likely to contribute out of their own pocket to the needs of their classrooms.
F08:
In high schools, parents are more likely to be asked to contribute to tax-exempt corporations for school-wide needs. Fact: Every school district must abide by the laws regarding mandatory and discretionary fees. Fact: There is no uniform policy across districts regarding training, implementation and monitoring of school fee requirements. Fact: Every interviewee believed there should be a county wide uniform policy regarding school fees.
F9:
In the absence of uniform guidelines, each school district must develop its own policy and procedure for monitoring and collecting fees. This causes duplication of effort and quite possibly duplication of funds for personnel to administer these programs.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
12-27:
Develop and administer county-wide uniform regulations and training guidelines
12-28:
Restructure budgets for this service from school districts and shift the cost to the
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F01:
As of June 30, 2011 these JPAs had 37 school districts and community college members, and over $100 million in the county treasury. Fact: The two Self-Insurance Joint Power Authorities operate as a banking pool, as defined by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Fact: The two Self-Insurance Joint Power Authorities’ audits report each district’s equity and/or liability balances by insurance program.
F02:
The two JPA’s annual audits show equity balances of over $30 million and liability balances of over $1 million. Fact: School districts are public entities and their audits must follow Governmental Accounting Standards Board rules. Fact: The Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Statement 10 and Interpretation 4 say each district should report their JPA balance as an asset or liability. Fact: None of the district audits examined by the Grand Jury reported self-insurance JPA funds in their asset or liability balances.
F03:
District equity or liability balances were over-or under-reported in school district audits.
F04:
School district stakeholders cannot discern a district’s true financial position from its audit. 3
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
12-26:
Ensure that the Independent Auditors who do the annual school
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F01:
Foundation officials did not follow up at the beginning of their term to make sure that all requirements necessary to establish nonprofit status had been met. Fact: The San Diego Unified School District has a well-defined policy regarding nonprofit organizations. Fact: School officials interviewed were unaware of district policy on nonprofit organizations and their responsibilities. Fact: School officials interviewed stated that they believed they were not responsible for foundation activities. Fact: School officials began making corrections to comply with District Procedure 9325 soon after the Grand Jury began its inquiry.
F02:
School District officials have not uniformly verified compliance with procedures regarding fundraising.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
12-25:
Review and audit the schools in its jurisdiction at least once per school
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
16
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
24-hour medical and mental health services,
R2:
Comprehensive education programs provided by the County Office of Education,
R3:
Daily rehabilitative programs for at-risk youth: Gang intervention & personal character development, o Substance abuse counseling, o Independent living skills, o Anger management, o Literacy programs, o Personal health education, and o Victim awareness, o
R4:
Daily athletic programs, and
R5:
Full kitchen and laundry facilities. JUVENILE RANCH FACILITY (CAMPO) The Grand Jury visited the Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF) on November 18, 2011. It houses only males and is located approximately 65 miles east of downtown San Diego. It is a minimum security camp that is isolated enough that escape attempts are rare and usually unsuccessful. Part of the camp has been designated a San Diego County Historical Landmark. This status makes it difficult to maintain the older buildings due to the strict rules governing how historical landmarks may be changed. In spite of this, the camp is well maintained and in good condition. Detainees are assigned to JRF after assessment by the Probation Department. Detainees range in age from 12 to 19 and can be held for up to one year. They are usually assigned 12 to JRF based on their eligibility for the programs offered and the detainees’ acclimation to the rural setting. The camp is divided into three sections with programs focused on:
R6:
Substance abuse rehabilitation
R7:
Self responsibility, and
R8:
Setting life goals There is an on-site State-certified public high school managed by the San Diego County Department of Education, Juvenile Court and Community Schools. Staff members carry no weapons; weapons brought in by other law enforcement personnel are secured properly before entering the facility. Medical needs are handled by registered nurses. Any prescribed medications are strictly monitored. Upon a detainee’s release, parents or guardians are advised of any medications currently being administered. They are encouraged to follow-up with their own medical provider for any future treatment. More than adequate space is provided for exercise including basketball, soccer, football and baseball. Telephones are available in the dorm rooms. All mail is scanned except for correspondence with legal counsel. Visitation is encouraged, but this right may be curtailed for rules violations. CAMP BARRETT The Grand Jury visited Camp Barrett (CB) on November 4, 2011. It is an all male facility located in a remote area approximately 32 miles from downtown San Diego. The Director gave an overview of the facility. The Principal of the Camp Barrett High School, managed by San Diego County Department of Education, Juvenile Court and Community Schools, explained the educational programs and provided a tour of the classrooms. At the time of our visit there were 135 detainees, which is the current maximum. Detainees at CB range in age from 16 to 21 years. Since the last Grand Jury visit there has been one escape attempt and no suicides. Approximately 15 percent to 20 percent of the detainees are on prescribed, strictly-monitored psychotropic medications. Juvenile detainees are assigned to CB after an assessment by the court. In addition to classes provided by their high school, each detainee must complete Camp Barrett’s own program, which is designed to increase the likelihood of successful re-entry. The program includes the following: 13
R9:
Aggression replacement training
R10:
Thinking for a Change, and
R11:
Criminal conduct and substance abuse treatment These programs have proven successful enough that courts order placement in CB. Due to capacity limits there is a waiting list. Individual tutoring is available. The number of detainees who earn a high school diploma or complete requirements for a GED is quite high. Regular Alcohol Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings and clergy visits are available. If a detainee is removed from Camp Barrett for disciplinary reasons, he is sent to either Kearny Mesa or East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility while an investigation is conducted. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WORK FURLOUGH PROGRAM The San Diego County Work Furlough Program (WFP) is a responsibility of the County Probation Department. The County contracts with a private firm known as Correctional Alternatives, Inc, (CAI) to administer the WFP. Along with county inmates, CAI accepts both federal and state offenders. CAI has provided Probation’s Work Furlough program for offenders who are employed since 1995, and administers a separate re-entry program for federal inmates. In March 2012, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved use of WFP as an alternative custody option and to provide community-based intervention services for suitable offenders. This is the only arrangement of its kind in California. WFP is designed to play an important role in management of low-risk inmates who, if incarcerated, would qualify as minimum security inmates. The WFP offers those inmates an opportunity to re-enter society as productive citizens with jobs and the ability to pay their own way. WFP inmates are housed in a county-owned facility in central San Diego. CAI leases the facility which resulted in revenue to the county in the amount of $260,000 in 2011. CAI is responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of the facility. Three years ago CAI invested over $3 million for rehabilitation of the property and other improvements. The facility has 480 beds, 190 of which are designated for the WFP. Currently, only 90 of those beds are in use by WFP inmates. The estimated cost to house an inmate in any of the county jail facilities is $149.64 per day. If an inmate qualifies for the WFP and is transferred to CAI, the cost to CAI is reduced to $42 per day. This amount is paid by the inmate. Qualifications for the WFP for both male and female inmates are:
R12:
Must already be employed
R13:
Must be able to work at least 36 hours per week
R14:
Must verify employment and be monitored weekly
R15:
Must have no convictions for credit card fraud or theft of money, and
R16:
Must submit to periodic screening by the Probation Department CAI’s Re-entry Program consists of substance abuse monitoring and helping inmates develop job-seeking skills. CAI has a list of “felon friendly” employers to assist in the job search. RECOMMENDATION The 2011-2012 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the San Diego County Chief Probation Officer: 12-24: Consider adding Saturday to the visiting day schedule at the Girls Rehabilitation Facility. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F01:
Effective abatement efforts overseen by DEH have been underway for many years. Fact: Petroleum contamination removal at PHHS continues to this day. Fact: Documented evidence shows progressive reduction of contamination levels.
F02:
Completion of decontamination efforts including a final health risk assessment would benefit the PHHS community.
F03:
PHHS as well as other interested parties would welcome a projected end- date for decontamination activities and return to full use of the school’s athletic field.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
12-21:
Continue its ongoing oversight of petroleum de-contamination at the
12-22:
Finalize the overall health risk assessment for the PHHS site that was
12-23:
Develop a best estimate completion-date of abatement work after
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F01:
Of the 555 newsracks on City property surveyed by the Grand Jury in 2011, only 326 (59 percent) were covered by a permit.
F02:
The 555 newsracks surveyed contained 62 publications, 22 of which had no City permit.
F03:
If that compliance rate held city-wide, there are potentially around 1,600 newsracks without a City permit. Fact: The City permit fee is $15 per newsrack.
F04:
The City is failing to collect thousands of dollars in permit fees. Fact: Neighborhood Code Compliance has a standard permit application that requests specific location information about each newsrack. Fact: Not all permittees provide the required information. Fact: The information provided by some permittees is incorrect.
F05:
The quantity and quality of information provided on permit applications vary widely.
F06:
The inconsistency in format and level of detail makes the permit files difficult to work with. Fact: Neighborhood Code Compliance does not have a searchable, sortable database of all newsrack permit information. Fact: Permittees are not required to post current permit information on their newsracks.
F07:
It is difficult to check the permit status of a newsrack. Fact: Neighborhood Code Compliance takes enforcement action only in response to a complaint. Fact: Many newsracks on City property have condition problems, including graffiti, stickers, and broken windows.
F08:
The condition problems are unattractive and detract from San Diego’s image as “America’s Finest City.” Fact: The Port of San Diego and the Metropolitan Transit System are considering newsrack ordinances. Fact: There are many newsracks on Port and MTS property. Fact: Those racks have graffiti and other condition issues.
F09:
Enforcement of Port and MTS permit and condition requirements should bring in additional revenue and improve the appearance of their properties.
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
12-01:
Issue a sticker for each permitted newsrack showing the current permit
12-02:
Develop a searchable, sortable database of information about each newsrack
12-03:
As funds allow, acquire hand-held devices that will link to that database
12-04:
Develop a systematic field enforcement program that regularly reviews
12-05:
Be more aggressive in following up on complaints and Notices of Violation, so
12-06:
Periodically review distributors' maintenance logs, especially in light of a
12-07:
Adopt an ordinance regulating the location, number and condition of
12-08:
Issue a sticker for each permitted newsrack showing the current permit
12-09:
Develop a searchable, sortable database of information about each newsrack
12-10:
Develop a systematic field enforcement program that reviews the permit
12-11:
Adopt an ordinance regulating the location, number and condition of
12-12:
Issue a sticker for each permitted newsrack showing the current permit
12-13:
Develop a searchable, sortable database of information about each newsrack
12-14:
Develop a systematic field enforcement program that reviews the permit
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Added, Clarified, and Modified Definitions of Trenching & Excavation
R2:
A structured Coordination Plan
R3:
Stricter rules for Excavation Permits
R4:
Lengthening the Moratorium Period
R5:
Redefine and enforce the Penalties for infractions 12-16: Agree and commit to a deferred capital option that is affordable and practical; with a budget plan that will insure funds are properly allocated:
R6:
To assure streets do not continue to deteriorate
R7:
With a goal to meet the industry benchmark OCI level of 75%. 12-17: Continue to streamline the Capital Improvements Process and Public Works Contracting as presented to the Budget and Finance Committee on January 25, 2012:
R8:
Allow Council to approve a Capital Improvements Process Budget to replace individual council approvals
R9:
Increase current approval thresholds
R10:
Modify the Municipal Code to allow for design-build Multiple Award Construction Contracts (MACC) as part of a fair and open Request for Proposal (RFP) process. 12-18: Perform a complete – 100% -- street assessment every four years using laser Road Surface Testing technology. 12-19: Design and place on the Street Division link a five year plan for maintenance and capital improvements that is updated weekly. The 2011/2012 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends the Mayor of the City of San Diego: 12-20: Should cause a formal resolution to be drafted and signed stating that, he and the City Council are committed to upgrading of the operations, maintenance and capital improvements for all the streets of “America’s Finest City.” REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Recommendations Date San Diego City Council 12-15 through 12-19 7/25/12 Mayor, City of San Diego 12-15 through 12-20 7/25/12 7