San Diego County Grand Jury
2017-2018
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F01:
This small group of frequent 9-1-1 callers creates a serious logistical and financial strain on emergency medical services.
F02:
RAP, a program designed to identify over users and reduce their 9-1-1 calls and ER visits, resulted in substantial financial savings and reduced strain on other emergency responders during the time it was in operation. Fact: State law requires that, if further treatment is required, paramedic response teams can transport patients to an emergency room only. Fact: Emergency medicine departments are not the proper treatment option for many 9-1-1 over users.
F03:
Paramedics in a program such as RAP require an exemption from current law, allowing them flexibility in deciding appropriate treatment options for clients in the program. 5
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
18-41:
Exploring ways to replicate the success and benefits of the now-defunct
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
There is no easily available information to guide the public on reporting graffiti.
F2:
Residents trying to report graffiti find it difficult to locate information explaining reporting procedures.
F3:
There is little effective effort by county, city and mass transit agencies to increase public awareness on how to report graffiti. Fact: In an area of high-volume graffiti that encompasses multiple jurisdictions or private property, one site may be mitigated while others around it are ignored. Fact: While riding any of the mass transit systems a passenger often quickly and unknowingly enters a new jurisdiction. 6
F4:
It is extremely difficult to determine which agency has jurisdiction over a graffitied area in order to report it properly since often there is a very fine line between what is in the mass transit right-of-way and what is in state, county or city jurisdictions.
F5:
Graffiti in high-volume areas sometimes may be overlooked because of jurisdictional issues.
F6:
There is very little coordination among agencies in San Diego County to pass on graffiti reports.
F7:
County residents wishing to report graffiti may become discouraged because there are multiple reporting systems requiring different means for reporting.
F8:
A single, centralized, user-friendly San Diego County graffiti reporting system would improve graffiti reporting and mitigation.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
18-37:
Improve reporting of graffiti to ensure that the proper jurisdiction receives
18-38:
Find ways to better publicize the use of graffiti-reporting systems throughout
18-39:
Improve reporting of graffiti to ensure that the proper jurisdiction receives
18-40:
Find ways to better publicize the use of graffiti-reporting systems, via methods
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F01:
Policy 000-40 does not list all types of sponsorship agreements. Fact: The different types of partnerships CPD entered into include marketing partnerships, corporate partnerships, and promotional and licensing agreements. Fact: CPD did not document and maintain a list of all agreements.
F02:
The audit was unable to determine whether all agreements under the Program had been identified. Fact: The MPP requires CPD to track and report quarterly on all marketing partnerships developed by City departments. Fact: CPD has not prepared quarterly reports for at least five years.
F03:
CPD does not comply with the MMP requirement to track and report on all marketing partnerships developed by City departments on a quarterly basis. Fact: Policy 000-40 does not require sponsors to disclose potential conflicts of interest.
F04:
The lack of a requirement for disclosure increases the risk that an agreement could create a conflict of interest, or the appearance of one. Records Management: Fact: City Council Policy 000-25, Records Management Program, requires each department head to establish systems for protecting vital records. Fact: CPD’s Records Disposition Schedule classifies CPD project records, including agreements, as routine administrative working files that should be retained no more than five years. Fact: Some CPD agreements are for terms longer than five years.
F05:
The disposition schedule does not require CPD to maintain project records for at least the life of the agreement.
F06:
CPD files on some agreements are incomplete. Accounting for Revenue: Fact: CPD reports claim that the Program has generated over $27 million for the City. Fact: CPD cannot provide data to verify the amount of revenue generated by the Program. Fact: CPD estimates the revenue generated by some agreements.
F07:
CPD lacks a process for determining the net benefits of agreements. Terms of CPD Agreements: Fact: Policy 000-40 specifies topics that must be addressed in Requests for Sponsorship. Fact: One of eight RFSs reviewed did not describe the benefits of participation. Fact: Seven of eight RFSs did not describe the open and competitive process.
F09:
Failure to adequately describe the sponsorship opportunity could reduce the number of potential respondents. Fact: Policy 000-40 does not require CPD to identify the City department responsible for administering the agreement. Fact: Five of 15 agreements examined did not accurately identify the responsible department.
F10:
Failure to identify the responsible administrative department can result in lack of accountability in managing an agreement, including lost revenue.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
18-34:
<b>Update City Council Policy 000-40 to:</b>
18-35:
<b>Update the CPD Records Disposition Schedule to require CPD to retain all</b>
18-36:
Ensure that all City employees administering CPD agreements receive
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F01:
It is CLERB’s mission and responsibility to investigate, review and recommend policy changes to the Sheriff’s or Probation departments respectively. Fact: CLERB has a history, dating back to 2010, of summarily dismissing cases. Fact: The Board consists of 11 volunteers from the five Supervisorial Districts. Fact: The CLERB Investigative Unit currently consists of five county employees, an Executive Officer, three Special Investigators, and an administrative assistant. Fact: There is no training manual for the Investigative Unit. Fact: The Rules and Regulations manual is in need of updating. Fact: The Board is responsible for hiring and reviewing the performance of the Executive Officer. Fact: The CLERB Investigative Unit has experienced periodic personnel shortages since November 2016 due to personal leave and staff vacancies. Fact: The Executive Officer is responsible for hiring and reviewing the performance of the investigators and administrative assistant. 6
F02:
The position of Executive Officer remained vacant at times, impeding the ability of remaining staff to handle investigative workloads.
F03:
Board and Investigative Unit shortages contributed to death cases not being investigated within POBOR time limitations. A responsibility CLERB did not meet resulting in 22 death cases being dismissed. Fact: POBOR has a time limit for completing investigation of cases. Fact: The CLERB Investigative Unit was not aware that the one-year limitation on investigations as specified in POBOR applied to death cases nor did they seek a legal opinion on that issue prior to June 2017. Fact: The CLERB Board supervises the Executive Officer. Fact: The Executive Officer supervises the special investigators and the administrative assistant.
F04:
Lack of Board oversight of the Investigative Unit contributed to death cases remaining uninvestigated well beyond POBOR time limitations. Fact: The Executive Officer has compiled applications for Board positions in the past.
F05:
There exists a potential for bias toward the selection of Board membership when the Executive officer is involved in the selection process. Fact: CLERB falls under the Public Safety Group of the County of San Diego. Fact: The Public Safety Group includes the Sheriff, Probation Department.
F06:
Removing CLERB from the Public Safety Group will provide additional independence from those departments that CLERB reviews. Fact: County Counsel has a duty to advise and defend the County on legal matters.
F07:
County Counsel may have a conflict of interest when CLERB investigates issues that may raise liability to the County.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
18-26:
Funding another Special Investigator position thus allowing the Executive
18-27:
Removing the CLERB Executive Officer from any involvement with
18-28:
Updating regulations for the selection of Board Members in the CLERB
18-29:
Directing the Executive Officer to develop and monitor a checklist, including
18-30:
Ensuring that the CLERB Board evaluate the performance of the Executive
18-31:
Filling open positions in the Investigative Unit as soon as they
18-32:
Developing a Training Manual for the Investigative Unit.
18-33:
Moving CLERB from the Public Safety Group to another Group in the
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F01:
Several County jails are out of compliance with State standards. Fact: Only East Mesa Reentry, Las Colinas, and George Bailey have outdoor recreation yards. Fact: Most detention facility recreation areas have no exercise equipment.
F02:
Most detention facility inmates lack access to sunlight and appropriate exercise equipment. Fact: Detention facility reentry programs are designed to reduce recidivism. Fact: The Sheriff’s Department has not provided clear, understandable data and analyses to assess recidivism.
F03:
Without clear definitions and measures of recidivism, the Grand Jury cannot judge the success of reentry programs. Juvenile Detention Facilities As noted previously, the Grand Jury toured the four juvenile detention facilities operated by the San Diego County Probation Department. The Probation Department reports to the County Administrative Officer. At each location the commanders and staff gave a briefing, including data on inmates and incidents. Staff all appeared committed and dedicated to helping the juveniles in their charge become responsible, productive adults. At each juvenile facility the Grand Jury inspected: Physical plant (lighting, temperature, sleeping accommodations, drinking water) Emergency/fire and safety equipment and procedures Officers’ gun lockers (no guns are permitted inside) General appearance (cleanliness of inmates, rooms, bedding) Procedures (rules, discipline, schedules, grievance process) Kitchen and food service (cleanliness, inmate worker regulations and supervision, proper food handling, nutrition) Certificated school, administered by the San Diego County Office of Education Medical clinics, staffed by RNs, LVNs, physicians, dentists, and mental health professionals Availability of religious services Visitation schedules (posted, with telephone use explained) Medical facilities are staffed with RNs and LVNs, with doctors and dentists rotating among the four units. All Probation Officers are CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) and AED (Automatic External Defibrillator) certified. Probation staff in the Trauma Responsive Unit (TRU) are trained specifically in an educational and therapeutic intervention model designed to prevent and treat conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, severe anxiety disorders, depression, dissociative disorders, and numerous other stress-related disorders. A new core curriculum for Probation staff adopted in the last year builds on current training and includes: Restorative Practices, Adolescent Brain Development, Bridges Out of Poverty, Trauma Informed Care, and Positive Youth Development. Probation staff participate in this extensive and comprehensive training which builds rapport with youth and may defuse tense situations before they become critical. All youth are required to attend school Monday through Friday at the SOAR (Success, Opportunities, Achievement, and Results) Academy, which is administered by the San Diego County Office of Education. Youth can earn credits (transferable to all County school districts) toward their high school diploma or earn a certificate of graduation by passing the High School 8 Equivalency Test (HiSET). Those who already have their diploma or have passed HiSET may also have the opportunity to participate in online college-level courses and earn college credit. To improve the quality of education, the SOAR Academy individualizes the curriculum around the achievement and/or grade level of the youth. Ongoing evaluations are conducted to assess reading and math skills. Some are not academically prepared to complete work at a ninth-grade level. Some are eligible for online courses for college credit at Southwestern, Palomar, Mira Costa, and Cuyamaca Community Colleges as well as with Grand Canyon University. East Mesa Juvenile also has a vocational unit that teaches woodworking and furniture construction. All youth in detention have access to other programs including anger management, Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous, social awareness training, and, if they have children themselves, parenting classes. In addition, many juvenile inmates are initially assigned to Breaking Cycles, a family-centered delinquency and intervention program with commitments of 90, 150, 240 or 365 days. Each commitment level has different programs and services, making it critical for the Probation Department to properly assess each youth’s needs prior to court hearings. On occasion youth are committed from Drug Court to complete these programs. Minors with 90-day commitments automatically enter the Short Term Offender Program (STOP), which focuses on youth in the early stages of delinquent behavior. STOP provides physical training, school attendance, drug/alcohol education, and work programs. After as few as 20 days in juvenile hall, and depending on achievement of program goals and parental participation, youth will generally return home. Minors with a 90-day commitment released from STOP typically do not receive the same post-release services as youth with longer Breaking Cycles commitments. The Grand Jury was particularly interested in the five-year plan for the new San Diego Juvenile Justice Campus, which will accommodate the current populations of the Kearny Mesa Juvenile Facility, the Girls Rehabilitation Facility, and Camp Barrett. Phase I of this project is construction of an urban camp for female and male youth with academic, career, technical education, and health services, with space for mental health staff in the living units. Phase II will rebuild the existing juvenile hall with classrooms, food services, an intake area, and expanded indoor and outdoor recreation areas. Phase III, when funding is identified, would provide for the Probation Department’s headquarters. The Juvenile Justice Campus plan is currently undergoing environmental review. Kearny Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility Kearny Mesa is the intake facility for all juveniles in San Diego County. It was built in 1952, and renovated in 1994 and 2002, but appears outdated. Presently Kearny Mesa houses youth 12 to 18 years old, with some up to age 21. Generally, these are youth who are on probation or have new charges filed against them, and are awaiting a hearing in juvenile court. Data collected when juveniles are booked and screened indicates that 40% of the youth are taking prescription psychotropic drugs. The facility’s bed capacity is 359 with an average of 148 in custody. The administrative staff tries to keep the population at 20 to 24 per unit which allows more effective management and engagement with the youth and their families. All youth have their own rooms 9 that they are required to keep clean. During Grand Jury interviews with the youth some of them stated that they would rather stay in juvenile hall than be released. Youth participate in physical exercise at least two hours per day including one hour of physical education. Recreation space is provided in the dayrooms and outdoor areas. Basketball hoops, but no other equipment, were observed in recreation areas. All eligible youth in the facility are permitted to work or perform chores on a voluntary basis. Work assignments include working in the kitchen and/or clean-up crew. Special programs or activities offered include Art, Words Alive, Playwright Project, and Book Club. The staff to youth ratio is 1 to 8 during the day and 1 to 24 at night. The facility is budgeted for 350 staff positions and Probation officers expressed the need for more. Staff members in all juvenile facilities participate in extensive training to provide them with the skills to communicate and interact with youth in an educated and appropriate manner. Several probation officers are fluent in Spanish. Contract interpreters are available for speakers of Spanish, Arabic, Farsi, a Mayan dialect, and other languages. Girls Rehabilitation Facility The Girls’ Rehabilitation Facility (Girls Rehab) is an intensive, highly-structured program serving up to 50 young women between the ages of 13 and 17 and a half. They offer programs to meet the personal, emotional, and educational needs for the girls committed by the Juvenile Court. Family counseling group sessions offer parents additional tools and parenting tips to assist in the transition of their youth back home. There are five phases of a rigorous program that each youth must pass in order to be eligible for release from the Girls Rehab: Boarding, Departure, Journey, Arrival, and Destination. Each phase has expectations, as well as earned privileges. Each girl is assigned to a Probation officer who is responsible for ensuring that she participates in the various programs that address her treatment needs. Graduation is a special occasion. Girls Rehab recently hosted a high school graduation ceremony for four youth and over 100 guests, with the girls wearing traditional caps and gowns. Juvenile Court orders girls who have committed serious felonies such as carjacking or shooting at police to complete the Youthful Offender Unit (YOU). At the time of the Grand Jury visit there were 3 girls in the YOU program. Girls Rehab offers a 5K running program as well as a horticultural training program. Through the running program some of the girls have participated in 5K races in the city of San Diego. The horticultural program is taught by master gardeners who specialize in edibles and cuisine. The girls maintain an onsite garden and, under supervision of Probation staff, prepare and serve the fruit and vegetables grown there. East Mesa Juvenile Facility East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility (East Mesa Juvenile) opened in 2004, and looks very much like a traditional jail. The building layout is clean but has a very sterile appearance. Due to its remote location, the number of visitations is low, and the facility offers Skype. Each youth 10 is permitted a staff-assisted, free phone call weekly. Visits are allowed six days per week. Some of the youth at the facility are fathers so they are provided opportunities to visit with their children. East Mesa Juvenile has a rated capacity of 290 and is currently staffed for 150 inmates. At the time of the Grand Jury’s visit, there were 140 youth in custody. The facility primarily houses minors who have been committed by juvenile court. However, they also accept behavioral or special needs youth from Camp Barrett and Kearny Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility. Languages spoken by Probation staff include English, Spanish, Tagalog, Farsi, and American Sign Language. The majority of youth at this facility are bilingual as well. If required, interpreters are available. Each youth has his own room. If special accommodations are needed due to pre-existing illness or injuries, appropriate supervision is provided. The daytime ratio of Probation staff to youth is one to ten. Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) the mandated ratio is one to eight. The ratio is 1 to 24 at night which provides adequate safety for both youth and staff. The typical age range at East Mesa Juvenile is 13 to 21 years. The older youth were diverted from the Department of Justice California Youth Authority and are serving 6 to 18 month sentences. These older youth enter the Second Chance program, in which Probation officers act as case managers to oversee reentry programming and services. The Second Chance program provides resources meant to help these youth find their way to a positive, successful future. For those youth involved in Second Chance and other reentry programs officers hold release meetings with the youth, parents, Probation, and other support staff to set up a transition plan. East Mesa Juvenile had 93 violent incidents that involved injuries and two assaults on staff in 2017. Officers also discovered contraband such as weapons or controlled substances (e.g., alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs for which the youth did not have a prescription). Reports indicate a high number of incidents when youth try to hide their prescribed and staff-administrated medications by holding them inside their mouths. The staff is trained to mediate and refer the youth to counselors in lieu of punishment for this behavior. A majority of youth at East Mesa Juvenile have some sort of gang affiliation which triggers most of the violence on site. The staff tries to alleviate this problem with a program called Project Aware which helps youth rethink the gang mindset. In general, the facility is required to devote a lot of attention to gang issues. The Probation staff is vigilant in their observations; they anticipate and mediate as needed. Camp Barrett Located in the rural community of Alpine, Camp Barrett, with a capacity of 135 beds, houses high-risk male inmates between the ages of 13 and 18. The staffing numbers fluctuate based on the daily juvenile population. At the time of the 2017/2018 Grand Jury visit the population was 77 and the facility was understaffed. The State requires a ratio of one sworn staff to every 15 youths during waking hours. Medical staff is always present. Religious services are provided and visitation is allowed every Sunday from 1:00 to 3:00 PM. At times, gang-related issues create volatile situations and some violence. Staff makes every effort to redirect energies with recreation and educational opportunities. The goal of this facility is to provide youthful inmates with the training and skills necessary for successful transition and integration back into society. To accomplish this goal, each youth is required to attend school, complete assigned work tasks, and finish demanding, structured programs. Youth with disabilities who meet the criteria for commitment to Camp Barrett can be accommodated. Behavior modification programs are used to increase the likelihood of successful reintegration into society. These programs include Steps to Success, Aggression Replacement Therapy, Social Tolerance/Gang Awareness, and Teen Relationship Violence. Camp Barrett is currently participating in a one-of-a-kind literacy program called Lindamood-Bell which has pioneered programs to develop the sensory-cognitive processes that underlie reading, spelling, math, visual-motor skills, language comprehension, and critical thinking. Customized learning plans are developed to address each student’s unique needs, and classes of three to five students receive daily blocks of instruction ranging from three to four hours per day. At Camp Barrett youth can also earn certificates of accomplishment in culinary arts, fire science, graphic design, horticulture, team leadership training, and work readiness. Substance abuse education and treatment are provided by contracted support staff. Youth with learning disabilities are assessed for an individualized educational program. Camp Barrett also offers weekly parenting classes for juveniles with children or those who are expectant fathers. Facts and Findings Fact: There were almost 100 violent incidents in the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility in 2017. Fact: Gang affiliation triggers most of the violent activity in the East mesa facility.
F04:
The East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility needs to develop programs aimed at reducing violence in the facility. Fact: At Kearny Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility each youth participates in a physical exercise program for at least two hours daily. Fact: Recreation space is provided at Kearny Mesa Juvenile. Fact: Limited recreational equipment was observed by the Grand Jury at Kearny Mesa Juvenile.
F05:
Kearny Mesa Juvenile may need additional equipment to facilitate a better and more productive physical exercise program.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
18-21:
Develop and implement a plan to bring the County detention facilities into
18-22:
Consider development of incentivized physical education programs tied to
18-23:
Improve the assessment of recidivism to permit evaluation of the success of
18-24:
Improve programs aimed at reducing violence in the East Mesa Juvenile
18-25:
Consider increasing the amount of exercise equipment available at Kearny
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F01:
The democratic process will work well when the voters receive reliable, verifiable, and objective information.
F02:
The California Election Code §9212 and the Ballot Initiative Transparency Act of 2014 provide an example for municipalities in evaluating the potential impacts of ballot initiatives.
F03:
The new California Election Code provides a model of how an extended period of review and analysis can provide unbiased and educational information to the voting public. Fact: Government Code §54964 does not prohibit a local government from providing unbiased information in order to educate the voters on a ballot measure.
F04:
The City of San Diego may use public funds to educate the voters in an unbiased and informative way on issues raised by initiatives.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
18-20:
Consider a standard practice of commissioning a report through city
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The work of some Community Planning Groups can be delayed by a lack of diverse membership and citizen interest.
F2:
The degree to which members of CPGs are representative of the geographic sections of the community and diverse community interests cannot be determined.
F3:
Selective consolidation of some CPGs in adjacent areas could, in some cases, increase diversity and facilitate the review and processing of development proposals and community plans Fact: CPGs review discretionary projects and make recommendations to the City government on land use matters. Fact: In their advisory capacity Community Planning Groups sometimes request from developers additions or modifications to a project that are unrelated or only marginally related to the proposed development.
F4:
San Diego City Council Policy 600-24 Guidelines provide sufficient guidance on inappropriate additions or modifications.
F5:
If a request with a marginal relation to a project occurs, it can either be resolved by the city staff without significant delay in the process or form the basis for satisfactory compromises between the developer and the CPG. Fact: San Diego City Council Policy 600-24 and the guidelines relative to that policy provide guidance for the diverse composition of the CPGs. Fact: Diverse membership is necessary to represent the varied residential and business interests of the community. San Diego City Council Policy 600-24, Article 3, Section 3 7
F6:
Membership of some CPGs is not sufficiently diverse to represent their communities.
F7:
In some cases, there are insufficient volunteers to allow CPGs to maintain a diverse membership.
F8:
Neither the CPGs nor the City have recruitment procedures that meet the stated goal of increased diversity. Fact: Members of the City of San Diego’s Planning Department do not attend every CPG meeting.
F9:
Policy, procedure, or development issues sometimes arise during CPG meetings and if left unanswered or incorrectly answered, can result in unnecessary confusion or delays.
F10:
If members of the City Planning Department attended all CPG meetings, issues could be resolved in a timely manner. Fact: The City of San Diego conducts an annual in-person Community Orientation Workshop (COW) and has an electronic version (eCOW) of that training available on-line. Fact: City of San Diego new CPG members receive training when they initially assume their duties. Fact: Continuing CPG members are not required to review the orientation materials once they have begun serving on the board.
F11:
The training provided by the City of San Diego - the Community Orientation Workshop (COW) or the electronic version (eCOW) - provides adequate preparation for new CPG members.
F12:
Periodic review of training materials would help continuing board members stay current on the Brown Act and changes in City policies.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
18-01:
consolidation of some CPGs should take place.
18-02:
Determine if the Planning Department should develop methods and provide
18-03:
Determine if members of the Planning Department staff should attend all
18-04:
Consider directing the San Diego City Neighborhood Services Department
18-05:
Determine if all CPG members should be required to complete the eCOW
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F01:
An earlier declaration of a local public health emergency would have provided the authority to direct the implementation of more effective measures to deal with the epidemic. Fact: The Emergency Operations Plan for local public health emergencies does not define the separate and combined responsibilities of County and City agencies during an emergency. Fact: The Emergency Operations Plan lists multiple authorities, within different jurisdictions, that could potentially direct activities during a health emergency, rather than defining a single authority.
F02:
The Emergency Operations Plan failed to establish an incident command structure in a health emergency which led to confusion and jurisdictional conflict. Fact: Prior to the declaration of a local public health emergency, County and City departments did not effectively cooperate and coordinate their activities. Fact: Prior to the declaration of a local public health emergency, handwashing stations, an effective tool in combatting disease transmission, had not been allowed on City property because permits had not been granted. Fact: Information provided by the County to the City regarding availability of handwashing stations was seen as inconsistent by City staff. Fact: Over 40 handwashing stations were installed in the City within a week after declaration of a local public health emergency.
F03:
The lack of early cooperation between County and City resulted in unnecessary delays in installation of handwashing stations and other public health measures. Fact: The County Public Health Service is responsible for monitoring and managing public health activities within the county, including directing those activities within municipalities. Fact: Health and Safety Code §§101375-101380 defines a procedure by which a city may consent on an annual basis to the authority of the county health officer to enforce orders and statutes relating to public health.
F04:
The City has not followed the procedures defined in Health and Safety Code §§101375-101380 to allow the county health officer to enforce orders relating to public health.
F05:
City administrators and County health officers had different concerns in responding to the crisis and failed to appreciate each other’s perspectives.
F06:
The City of San Diego does not have a staff member with medical expertise to evaluate and fully appreciate the significance of public health directives.
F07:
The County has not designated a project manager with sufficient expertise to understand the administrative concerns of City staff in responding to public health directives. COMMENDATION The 2017/2018 San Diego County Grand Jury commends the San Diego County Department of Public Health Services and the nurses, law enforcement personnel, paramedics, and homeless service providers who created the special foot teams to provide vaccinations for unsheltered individuals living in difficult-to-reach areas. This method for ensuring the widest possible distribution of vaccinations to an at-risk population represented an innovative and effective procedure to help deal with an unprecedented health emergency. The tireless efforts of the foot team personnel, who hiked in to homeless encampments and persuaded residents to agree to vaccination, reflect their dedication to the task of providing health care to our citizens. This procedure will undoubtedly be considered as a best practice for other agencies if they face a similar public health threat.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
18-06:
Declare a local public health emergency much sooner when confronted with
18-07:
Direct that the County Emergency Operations Plan be revised to establish a
18-08:
Clearly establish lines of authority to prevent misunderstandings regarding
18-09:
Designate a project manager who can communicate effectively with City
18-10:
That the City of San Diego adopt the procedures described in Health and
18-11:
That the City of San Diego designate a medical professional to report directly
18-12:
That the City of San Diego construct and maintain additional secure
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F01:
The Chargers’ departure gave the City an opportunity to recoup revenue on Stadium advertising and suite sales. Fact: In May 2017, READ began a sole-source negotiation with Fox Sports for the sale of Stadium advertising. Fact: In May 2017, READ began a sole-source negotiation with the Bowl Association to sell the Stadium suites for future events. Fact: Stadium staff is knowledgeable about the Stadium advertising opportunities and their costs. Fact: Stadium staff is knowledgeable about the Stadium suites and their costs. Fact: Stadium staff is well versed in national standards of stadium management.
F02:
Stadium staff could have sold the Stadium advertising.
F03:
Stadium staff could have sold the suites.
F04:
The City gave away revenue it could have retained. Fact: The City’s contract with Fox Sports to issue an RFP for the Stadium naming rights was effective September 15, 2017. Fact: Fox Sports issued an RFP for the Stadium naming rights on August 1, 2017. Fact: The RFP responses were due to Fox Sports on September 1, 2017.
F05:
The City allowed work on the contract before its effective date. Fact: The City’s contract with the Bowl Association to sell the Stadium suites was effective on September 14, 2017. Fact: The Bowl Association began selling Stadium suites in July 2017.
F06:
The City allowed Stadium suites to be sold before it authorized the sales. Fact: Qualcomm Inc. bought the Stadium naming rights in 1997. Fact: Qualcomm Inc.’s naming rights expired in May 2017. Fact: Qualcomm Inc. did not wish to extend its naming-rights contract. Fact: The City contracted with Fox Sports for Fox to issue an RFP for the Stadium naming rights. Fact: The City Procurement Manual specifies RFPs are prepared collaboratively by the client department, the Purchasing & Contracting Department, and the city attorney Fact: Neither City contracting policies nor the Municipal Code discuss contracts to issue RFPs.
F08:
The City needs rules on contracts that allow private parties to issue RFPs on the City’s behalf. Fact: The City’s benchmark for issuing RFPs is 60 to 100 days. Fact: Stadium Staff is familiar with the RFP process through the contracts for parking and concessions.
F09:
The City had the time and expertise to issue its own renaming RFP in time for the Stadium events of September 2017. Fact: The City’s contract with Fox Sports provided that Fox would issue an RFP for the Stadium naming rights. Fact: A Fox Sports representative was on the panel that reviewed the RFP responses and selected the winner. Fact: The City’s contract with Fox Sports gave Fox 25% of the naming-rights revenue. Fact: The City does not have policies and procedures governing the judging of RFPs by third- parties who have a financial stake in the outcome.
F10:
The City needs rules on third parties judging responses to RFPs. Fact: The contracts with Fox Sports and the Bowl Association are “contracts for services” under MC §22.3003 that require a competitive solicitation under MC §22.3206. Fact: MC §22.3208 defines a “sole source” contract as one that is not required to be competitively awarded. Fact: MC §22.3016(a) justifies a sole-source contract when “…strict compliance with a competitive process would be unavailing or would not produce an advantage, and…soliciting bids or proposals would therefore be undesirable, impractical, or impossible.” Fact: The sole-source certifications for the Fox Sports and Bowl Association contracts are based on the short period of time available to issue RFPs and the prior relationships with Fox Sports and the Bowl Association. Fact: The City had the opportunity to issue an RFP for advertising and suite sales as early as February 2017. Fact: The City Procurement Manual provides the official statements of what circumstances justify and what circumstances do not justify sole source contracts.
F11:
The Fox Sports and Bowl Association contracts did not conform to the requirements for sole source status. Fact: The Fox Sports and Bowl Association contracts are revenue-generating. Fact: The City has no rules on valuing revenue-generating contracts for the purposes of determining the appropriate solicitation process.
F12:
The City needs rules on valuing revenue-generating contracts.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
18-16:
which the private party will issue a Request for Proposal on the City's behalf
18-17:
Establish policies and procedures for selling the naming rights for City assets
18-18:
Establish policies and procedures for valuing revenue-generating contracts.
18-19:
Require the Bowl Association to follow standard government accounting
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F01:
The CRB requires frequent replacement of members who leave in order to maintain a membership level necessary to accomplish its assigned tasks.
F02:
The operation of the CRB has been negatively impacted by the failure of the San Diego City Government to implement Measure G.
F03:
The Mayor’s office and the City Council can resume filling CRB member and prospective member vacancies immediately. Fact: The CRB does not participate in the categorization of complaints Fact: The CRB does not have access to all complaints, does not track all complaints, and does not review the SDPD IA investigation of all complaints. 6
F04:
The CRB is hindered in carrying out its mission because it does not receive, categorize, and track all complaints that are submitted to the Police Department and to the CRB. Fact: The CRB has a duty to consult and advise the Mayor and City Council. Fact: The CRB provides semiannual overview reports to the Mayor and the City Council. Fact: Other than the semi-annual report, the CRB advises the Mayor and City Council only when it disagrees with SDPD IA.
F05:
The CRB does not adequately fulfill its responsibility to advise the Mayor and the City Council under the current reporting practices. Fact: Members of the SDPD routinely attend closed CRB meetings. Fact: There is no stated rule asserting that the CRB has the authority to exclude SDPD officers from closed meetings.
F06:
SDPD presence in closed meetings may inhibit free and open discussion by CRB members.
F07:
The CRB should have the authority to control attendance at closed sessions. Fact: The CRB does not have independent investigators or subpoena power and is authorized only to review some citizen complaints.
F08:
Many members of the community do not consider the CRB to be independent from the SDPD.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
18-13:
Take steps to bring forward the rules and regulations necessary to
18-14:
Consider proposing an amendment to the City Charter to give the CRB
18-15:
Take action to begin filling CRB Appointed Member and Prospective
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.