Gran Jurado del Condado de San Diego

2023-2024

8 informes

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 7 hallazgos
F1: The San Diego County Office of Education provides high-quality cybersecurity readiness tools and services to county school districts at no or very low cost.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: School districts provide cybersecurity training to all staff members, at least annually, by the beginning of the 2026-2027 school year.
F2: The best practice for cybersecurity training in school districts is annual training for all staff and students.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: School districts provide cybersecurity training to all students, at least annually, by the beginning of the 2026-2027 school year. School districts implement a phishing awareness training solution for all staff members
F3: Preventable human behavior is the main cause of successful cyberattacks.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: by the beginning of the 2026-2027 school year.
F4: Multi-factor authentication is the most effective cybersecurity technical measure to reduce successful cyberattacks.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: School districts implement multi-factor authentication for all staff members by the beginning of the 2026-2027 school year.
F5: Successful organizations often have a role or position that is identified as responsible and accountable for the planning, resourcing, and execution of cybersecurity activities.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: School districts designate a single individual as Cybersecurity Lead responsible for cybersecurity readiness in the district by the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year.
F6: A school district leadership's knowledge of cybersecurity issues can positively influence a district's cybersecurity readiness.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: School districts require the Cybersecurity Lead to provide an annual report to the school board and the SDCOE on the state of cybersecurity readiness by the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year.
F7: Obtaining cyber insurance helps a school district to both prepare defenses against and recover from cyber-attacks.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: School districts acquire and maintain cyber insurance coverage by the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year. SDCOE creates a methodology, training, and report template to support a school district's
Recomendaciones adicionales 2

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R8: Cybersecurity Lead, updated annually to reflect the changing threat landscape by the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year.
R9: SDCOE receives and reviews school district annual reports on the state of cybersecurity. Dudley, Renee, and Daniel Golden. "The Ransomware Hunting Team: A Band of Misfits' Improbable Crusade to Save the World from Cybercrime." Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2022. Office of Educational Technology, "K-12 Digital Infrastructure Brief: Defensible & Resilient" (February 8, 2023). https://tech.ed.gov/files/2023/08/DOEd-Report 20230804 -508c.pdf p6. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. "Americans Recognize Cyber Threats, but Are Divided on Best Response" (June 7, 2022) https://globalaffairs.org/commentary-and-analysis/blogs/americans-recognize-cyber- threats-are-divided-best-response 4 Pew Research Center. "What the Public Knows About Cybersecurity" (March 22, 2017). https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/03/22/what-the-public-knows-about-cybersecurity/ 5 Fast Company. "The growing threat of AI in social engineering: How business can mitigate risks" (April 8, 2024) https://www.fastcompany.com/91088574/the-growing-threat-of-ai-in-social-engineering-how-business-can- mitigate-risks 6 Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency. "Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals". https://www.cisa.gov/cross-sector-cybersecurity-performance-goals 7 Center for Internet Security. "CIS Critical Security Controls" https://www.cisecurity.org/controls 8 SchoolSafety.gov, "Cybersecurity Action Steps for the K-12 Community" (October 2022). https://www.schoolsafety.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/Cybersecurity Action Steps for the K-12 Community SchoolSafety.gov Infographic October 2022.pdf 9 See notes 6, 7, and 8. Wikipedia. "Chief Information Security Officer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Chief information security officer 11 San Diego County Office of Education, Technology Services. https://www.sdcoe.net/administrative- services/technology 12 San Diego County Office of Education. https://www.sdcoe.net/administrative-services/technology/cybersecurity 13 San Diego County Office of Education, Cybersecurity. "Multi-Factor Authentication Workbook" (October 2022). https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1666803502/sdcoenet/vhozlhoh3k1bzhksf0aa/MFAWorkbookOct2022.pdf 14 17 CFR §229.106 Cybersecurity (2023). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-229/subpart- 229.100/section-229.106#p-229.106(b) 15 California State Education Code § 49076.7 (1976). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/ codes displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=49076.7&lawCode=EDC 16 Schroeder, Lauryn. "San Diego Unified students' medical data compromised in October cybersecurity breach, school district says." San Diego Union-Tribune. (May 19, 2023). https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/story/2023-05-19/student-medical-data-compromised-san- diego-unified-cybersecurity-breach 17 Sweetwater Union High School District, Data Security Notice. Accessed April 16, 2024. https://www.sweetwaterschools.org/data-security/ 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: Required Responding Agency
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: Community schools with wraparound services are important in providing extra support for homeless students and their families.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The Grand Jury commends San Diego County Office of Education, San Diego Unified School District, and the Chula Vista Elementary School District for their efforts in establishing and supporting community schools.
F2: The education community of San Diego County is supportive of community schools.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Grand Jury encourages SDCOE to continue its efforts in establishing and supporting community schools. California Community Partnership Act https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/ codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&division=1.&title=1.&part=6.&chapter=6.&article= 2 Maier, A, Daniel, J., Oakes, J. & Lam, L. (2017). Community schools as an effective school improvement strategy: A review of the evidence. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/community-schools-effective-school-improvement-report 3 Ibid. The McKinney-Vento Definition of Homeless. https://nche.ed.gov/mckinney-vento-definition/ 5 Note that the Point in Time Homeless Count uses a more restricted definition of homelessness than McKinney- Vento. Resolution it adopted in 2020 https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/sandi/Board.nsf/files/BYTRCK6D4E36/ $file/Mar.%209%20BOE%20Community%20Schools.pdf 3 4
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: Not all animal control agencies with jurisdiction for animal control in the cities of San Diego County consistently report their dog bite information to San Diego County Animal Control for annual reporting to the California Department of Public Health.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Interviewed cities should submit to the County of San Diego reports about all dog bites within their jurisdictions annually.
F2: Public information concerning fines for violations of dog control ordinances is not available for all interviewed jurisdictions.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Interviewed cities and the County of San Diego should publicly post the fines associated with violations of ordinances concerning dogs.
F3: Providing the authorization to animal control officers to issue citations and fines would provide a method, short of a Dangerous Dog hearing, to incentivize owners to better control their dog’s behavior.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Interviewed cities and the County of San Diego should develop regulations for a citation and fine process for the violations of animal control ordinances including when a dog bite is reported.
F4: Public information about the presence of Dangerous Dogs in a neighborhood, particularly near public schools, is not readily available in San Diego County.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The San Diego County Board of Supervisors direct the County Animal Control Division to develop a plan for collecting information about the location of a declared Dangerous Dog within the County and posting this information, so it is readily available to the public. NBC7 San Diego. “Why is San Diego so obsessed with dogs?” (2020) https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/why-is-san-diego-county-so-obsessed-with-dogs/2377568/ 2 Loder, Randall T. “The demographics of dog bites in the United States.” Heliyon, 31. (March 20, 2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01360. Califiornia Department of Health Care Access and Information Datasets. Hospital Emergency Department Diagnostic Procedure & External Cause Codes. https://data.chhs.ca.gov/dataset/hospital-emergency-department- diagnosis-procedure-and-external-cause-codes. US Postal Service. “US Postal Service Releases Dog Bite National Rankings.” (June 1, 2023) https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2023/0601-usps-releases-dog-bite-national-rankings.htm 5 San Diego County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 4, Section 6, 62.661 and 62.662. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/ codes/san_diego/latest/sandiego_regs/0-0-0-102999 6 Aragon, Tomas J. Declaration of Rabies Areas. California Department of Public Health. (January 1, 2024) https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/DeclarationofRabiesAreas.pdf 7 California Health and Safety Code, title 17, §2606. San Diego County Codes §62.695 and 69.674 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_diego/ latest/sandiego_regs/0-0-0-102784 9 San Diego Humane Society. “Impact Reports”. https://resources.sdhumane.org/Programs_and_Services/ About_San_Diego_Humane_Society/Municipal_Quarterly_Impact_Reports 10 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/ codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=FAC&division=14.&title=&part=&chapter=9.&article=3 11 Virginia Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services. “Dangerous Dog Registry Search” https://dd.vdacs.virginia.gov/Public/Index 12 Volusia County, Florida. “Dangerous Dog Registry.” https://arc-gis-hub-home-arcgishub.hub.arcgis.com /maps/VolusiaCountyFL::dangerous-dog-registry/about 13 Minneapolis Resident Services. “Dangerous Dog Maps”. https://www.minneapolismn.gov/resident- services/animals-pets/dangerous-animals/dangerous-dogs-map/ 14 Metro Animal Services. “Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs.” https://metroanimalservices.org/about- metro/dangerous-dogs-and-potentially-dangerous-dogs/ 5 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: 6 Required Responding Agency Findings Recommendations City of Coronado F1, F2 R1, R2 City of Chula Vista F1, F2 R1, R2 City of San Diego F2, F3 R2, R3 San Diego County Board of Supervisors F2, F3, F4 R2, R3, R4 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code 933.05 are invited from the: Invited Responding Agency Findings Recommendations City of Cardiff F2, F3 R2, R3 City of Carlsbad F2, F3 R2, R3 City of Del Mar F3 R3 City of El Cajon F2, F3 R2, R3 City of Encinitas F2, F3 R2, R3 City of Escondido F2, F3 R2, R3 City of Imperial Beach F1, F2, F3 R1, R2, R3 City of La Mesa F2, F3 R2, R3 City of Lemon Grove F1, F2, F3 R1, R2, R3 National City F1, F2 R1, R2 City of Oceanside F2, F3 R2, R3 City of Poway F2, F3 R2, R3 City of San Marcos F2, F3 R2, R3 City of Solana Beach F2, F3 R2, R3 City of Vista F2, F3 R2, R3 7
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: City cannabis tax revenues are negatively impacted by unlicensed cannabis delivery services and smoke shops selling “enhanced CBD,” operating throughout the City.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Collaborate to develop and implement strategies to target unlicensed delivery services and smoke shops selling enhanced CBD products. The 2023/2024 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the San Diego Mayor:
F2: Current Law Enforcement efforts against unlicensed delivery services and “enhanced CBD” are not effective.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Direct the city staff to develop and publish reports that document the fiscal and law enforcement impacts of cannabis legalization.
F3: The City does not report all revenue, expenses and impacts associated with cannabis legalization, leaving citizens unaware of the full fiscal impact of Measure N.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Direct the city staff to create a public education campaign that details the impacts of cannabis use on children and seniors. The 2023/2024 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the San Diego County Board of Supervisors: 5
F4: The County does not report the non-financial costs (e.g., health and law enforcement impacts) of legalized cannabis, leaving citizens unaware of the full non-fiscal impacts of cannabis legalization.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Direct the county staff to develop reports that document the health and law enforcement impacts of cannabis legalization. Legislative Analyst’s Office. “Proposition 64: Marijuana Legalization Initiative Statute”. (November 8, 2016). https://www.lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=64&year=2016 2 Ballotpedia. “San Diego, California Non-medical Marijuana Tax, Measure N.” (November, 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/San_Diego,_California,_Non-medical_Marijuana_Tax,_Measure_N_(November_2016) 3 Ibid. Ibid. ArcView and BDS Analytics. California: Lessons from the World’s Greatest Cannabis Market: Executive Summary. (August 2019) https://bdsa.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/2019_BDS_California_CIB_Exec_Summ_Final_With_A.pdf 6 City of San Diego. Fiscal Year 2024 Adopted Budget. Volume 1: General Fund Revenues. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/fy24ab_v1generalfundrevenues.pdf 6 City of San Diego Memorandum. “Marijuana/Cannabis Permitting Update”. (October 1, 2019). https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/dsd_council_memo.pdf 8 Arc View and BDS Analytics (August 2019). Becerra, Xavier [Attorney General of California]. Crime in California 2017. https://data- openjustice.doj.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/cd17.pdf 10 City of San Diego Development Services Department. “Sale of Intoxicating Hemp: (December 1, 2023) https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/intoxicating_hemp_business_warning_letter_12_1_23_0.pdf 11 Han BH, et al. “Trends in emergency department visits associated with cannabis use among older adults in California, 2005–2019.” J Am Geriatr Soc 71[4] (2023): 1267-1274. doi:10.1111/jgs.18180 12 Bennett, Colleen, et al. “Recent trends in marijuana-related hospital encounters in young children” Academic Pediatrics 22[4] (2022):592-97. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: Current state of evidence and recommendations for research. (Washington, DC, 2017). Volkow ND, et al. “Effects of Cannabis Use on Human Behavior, Including Cognition, Motivation, and Psychosis: A Review.” JAMA Psychiatry73[3] (2016):292-7. Ibid. 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: 7 Responding Agency Findings Recommendations San Diego Police Department F1, F2 R1 San Diego County Sheriff’s Department F1, F2 R1 San Diego City Mayor F3 R2, R3 San Diego County Board of Supervisors F4, F5 R4 8
F5: Legalized cannabis has had significant health impacts on school-aged children and senior citizens.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: RSVP programs are an asset to local law enforcement agencies.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Collaborate to create a centralized two-week academy for new RSVP recruits across all law enforcement agencies.
F2: RSVP personnel perform routine administrative tasks allowing sworn personnel to perform other more vital public safety actions.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Collaborate to develop and share recruiting best practices.
F3: RSVP programs benefit significantly from having reliable equipment to provide quality services.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Pursue outside funding sources for RSVP operations and acquisition of dedicated equipment. 1 https://www.theiacp.org/resources/document/volunteers-in-police-service-add-value-while-budgets-decrease 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, 4 2023/2024 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 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: Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code 933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Recommendations San Diego Sheriff’s Department R1 through R3 San Diego Police Department R1 through R3 Coronado Police Department R1 through R3 Oceanside Police Department R1 through R3 Carlsbad Police Department R1 through R3 La Mesa Police Department R1 through R3 Chula Vista Police Department R1 through R3 Escondido Police Department R1 through R3 El Cajon Police Department R1 through R3 Harbor Police Department R1 through R3 National City Police Department R1 through R3 5
F4: Current RSVP recruitment does not always meet membership goals.
F5: Training requirements are currently determined and, in many cases, conducted by individual jurisdictions, leading to potentially inconsistent policies and procedures throughout the County.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 7 hallazgos
F1: The City of San Diego does not have an accurate and complete view of the inventory of damaged sidewalk locations, which impairs the City’s ability to plan for and prioritize needed repairs.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Direct the Transportation Department to perform a periodic assessment of the city sidewalk network, in conjunction with a remediation effort, to support informed budgeting and remediation decision making. This assessment should identify the party responsible for repair.
F2: The current shortfall in sidewalk repair funding will lead to growth in the number of damaged sidewalks and injury claims.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Direct the Transportation Department to make the location of damaged sidewalks available on the City’s sidewalk GIS tool.
F3: The City is not taking adequate steps to reduce the incidents of costly trip-and-fall injuries due to damaged sidewalks.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Direct the Transportation Department to increase the number of ramping crews and/or slicing capacity to proactively remediate defects found by a periodic assessment process.
F4: Sidewalk ramping and slicing are effective tools to mitigate damaged sidewalks and to reduce the chance of injury and claims. 13
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Direct the Transportation Department to publish an annual assessment on the future impact of funding sidewalk repairs below required levels.
F5: The City does not adequately inform residents of the impact of underfunding sidewalk repairs.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Direct the Transportation Department to update department KPIs to separately track progress on repairing sidewalks based on the party responsible for the repair (City or property owner.)
F6: Notwithstanding the recently enacted permit fee holiday, there are still significant cost and procedural burdens for property owners to repair their damaged sidewalks.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: Direct the Transportation Department to develop and publish a comprehensive plan to institute a series of steps to increase property owner compliance with Notices of Responsibility. City of San Diego. Annual Transportation Department Update. Active Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. [Online] Mar 7, 2024. https://sandiego.hylandcloud.com/211agendaonlinecomm/Meetings /ViewMeeting?id=5959&doctype=1&site=comm. City of San Diego. Five-Year Capital Infrastructure Planning Reports. Capital Improvements Program. [Online] 2024. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/fy-25-29-five-year-capital-infrastructure-planning- outlook.pdf. 3San Diego County Grand Jury. 2022/2023 Grand Jury Reports/Responses.. [Online] Jun 8, 2023. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/grandjury/reports/2022-2023/W hen%20Will%20My%20Street%20Be%20Paved%20-%20San%20Diego%20Street%20Paving%20Challenges.pdf. California State Highway Code. §5610 (1941) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_ displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=5610.&lawCode=SHC. Hicks, Gerald C. “But It’s Your Sidewalk! Sidewalk Repair and Liability”. League of California Cities. (May 8, 201) https://www.cacities.org/resources-documents/member-engagement/professional-departments/city- attorneys/library/2014/spring-conf/5-2014-spring-gerald-hicks-but-its-your-sidewalk_s.aspx. 14 6City of San Diego Council Policy. Policy No. 200-12: Sidewalk Maintenance Policy. (February 6, 1975) https://docs.sandiego.gov/councilpolicies/cpd_200-12.pdf . City of San Diego. Office of City Attorney. “Assessing the Conditions of Sidewalks.” Memoranda of Law. (August 29, 2013). https://docs.sandiego.gov/memooflaw/ML-2013-16.pdf. City of San Diego Active Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “Item 02-Sidewalk Maintenance & Replacement Update” (June 2, 2023) https://sandiego.hylandcloud.com/211agendaonlinecomm/Meeting s/ViewMeeting?id=5598&doctype=1&site=comm. City of San Diego City Council Meeting. “Safe Sidewalks Program and Sidewalk Repair Permit Fee Holiday.” (November 13, 2023) https://sandiego.hylandcloud.com/211agendaonlinecouncil/Meetings/ ViewMeeting?id=5816&doctype=1&site=council. Communities of Concern is defined by San Diego as the census tracts in the top 30th percentile of the CalEnvironScreen 3.0 tool. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/background_review_ presentation_of_findings_final_compressed_2intro.pdf. City of San Diego Office of the Independent Budget Analyst. IBA Report Number 15-13: Municipal Approaches to Sidewalk Liability and Repairs. (April 15, 2015) https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/15_13_150415.pdf 12 City of San Diego Pavement Management Plan (January 2024) https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 01/pavement-management-plan-report.pdf 13 City of San Diego Transportation Departments, Streets division. “Sidewalks” [online] https://www.sandiego.gov/ street-div/services/roadways/sidewalk. City of San Diego City Council Meeting. “Safe Sidewalks.” (November 13, 2023) 15 City of San Diego. “Volume II: Department Detail. Fiscal Year 2024 Adopted Budget. (2024) https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/fy24ab_v2transportation.pdf. 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. 15 (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 Findings Recommendations Mayor of San Diego F1 through F7 R1 through R6 San Diego City Council F1 through F7 R1 through R6 16
F7: The City is not taking sufficient measures to increase the rate of property owner compliance with the Notice of Responsibility to repair damaged sidewalks.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
F1: The OIPA is understaffed, which negatively impacts audit effectiveness, thoroughness, and value.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Review OIPA staffing recommendations and collaborate with the Audit Committee to provide additional qualified staff.
F2: The SANDAG General Counsel reports directly to the SANDAG Executive Officer, creating the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Revaluate SANDAG's reporting structure and consider having the General Counsel report directly to the Board of Directors. Continue pursuing - and make a priority - access to independent outside counsel for the
F3: The OIPA lacks outside independent counsel and must use the SANDAG General Counsel for legal advice, creating the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: OIPA and the Audit Committee.
F4: The Corrective Action Report is difficult to locate and is updated sporadically, making it difficult for the public to track progress against audit findings and recommendations.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Make the Corrective Action Report easier to access on the SANDAG website.
F5: The Corrective Action Report has numerous Findings and Recommendations with corresponding corrective actions that are overdue or are missing implementation dates.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Provide implementation target dates or metrics that track implementation progress on a scheduled basis (e.g., monthly or quarterly).
F6: The Corrective Action Report is not actively updated by SANDAG staff or reviewed by the Audit Committee.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: Create a system that periodically reviews the Corrective Action Report recommendation implementation status. <sup>1</sup> CALCOG is the California Association of Councils of Governments. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG): California Association of Councils of Governments (calcog.org) <sup>2</sup> SANDAG. Program Budget. Accessed April 1, 2024. https://www.sandag.org/funding/budget <sup>3</sup> CA Pub Util Code 132005 California Public Utilities Code Section 132005 <sup>4</sup> Legislative Analyst's Office. SANDAG: An Assessment of Its Role in the San Diego Region (March 2006). https://lao.ca.gov/2006/sandag/sandag 033006.htm#:~:text=While%20the%20reasons%20are%20varied.perceive d%20as%20having%20highly%20competent <sup>5</sup> SANDAG. "TransNet Fact Sheet." (September 2008). https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ cache/files/d/2/d2354df2-634e-4341-ac25- 08ed4d9b1646/01AFD79733D77F24A71FEF9DAFCCB056.gallegosattachment2.pdf <sup>6</sup> County of San Diego. "A Resolution Adopting The County of San Diego's 2025 TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2024-25 Through 2028-29 And Related CEQA Exemption." (April 10, 2024). https://bosagenda.sandiegocounty.gov/cobservice/cosd/cob/content?id=0901127e810a0399#:~:text=In%201987% 2C%20San%20Diego%20region.safety%2C%20and%20improve%20air%20quality <sup>7</sup> SANDAG. TransNet Extension & Ordinance. (April 15, 2004). https://www.sandag.org/- /media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/funding/transnet/transnet-extension-ordinance-and-expenditure-plan.pdf <sup>8</sup> Ballotpedia. San Diego County, California, Transportation and Environment Sales Tax, Measure A. (November 2016). https://ballotpedia.org/San Diego County, California, Transportation and Environment Sales Tax, Measure A (November 2016)#cite ref-analysis 3-0 <sup>9</sup> Keats, Andrew. 'With Measure A, SANDAG Is Counting on San Diegans to Spend Like They've Never Spent Before." Voice of San Diego. (October 24, 2016). https://voiceofsandiego.org/2016/10/24/with-measure-a- sandag-is-counting-on-san-diegans-to-spend-like-theyve-never-spent-before/ <sup>10</sup> "Findings reveal SANDAG misled voters over Measure A." CBS8.com. (August 4, 2017). https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/findings-reveal-sandag-misled-voters-over-measure-a/509-3677c1f8-9c08- 4062-b9d1-b48c9beb718d <sup>11</sup> Keatts, Andrew. "SANDAG's Investigation Might Not Investigate Several Major Issues." Voice of San Diego. (April 19, 2017). https://voiceofsandiego.org/2017/04/19/three-big-questions-sandags-investigation-might-not-investigate/. <sup>12</sup> Tetlow, Barrett. "Measure A lost. Here's what SANDAG opponents want us to do now." San Diego Union- Tribune. (November 18, 2016). https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-utbg-measurea- defeat-tetlow-20161118-story.html <sup>13</sup> California State Legislature. Assembly Bill 805. (August 17, 2012). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB805 <sup>14</sup> SANDAG Office of the Independent Performance Auditor. Reports and Press Releases. Accessed April 1, 2024. https://www.sandag.org/about/office-of-the-independent-performance-auditor/reports-and-press-releases <sup>15</sup> Bowman, Jennifer. "SANDAG improperly used purchase cards, internal auditors find." Inewsource.org. (March 11, 2022). https://inewsource.org/2022/03/11/sandag-purchase-cards/ <sup>16</sup> Bowman, Jennifer. "Internal auditor says SANDAG leaders 'hindered' latest contracts review." Inewsource.org. (May 8, 2023). https://inewsource.org/2023/05/08/sandag-contracts-audit-management-hindered-investigation/ <sup>17</sup> Libby, Sara. A Reader's Guide to the SANDAG Scandal. Voice of San Diego. (February 20, 2017). https://voiceofsandiego.org/2017/02/20/a-readers-guide-to-the-sandag-scandal/ <sup>18</sup> McDonald, Jeff. "'Credibility is on the line': SANDAG struggles to digest and respond to failed toll system and wrongful termination suit." San Diego Union-Tribune. (Dec. 8, 2023). https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/story/2023-12-08/credibility-is-on-the-line-sandag- struggles-to-digest-respond-to-failed-tolling-system-wrongful-termination-lawsuit <sup>19</sup> Khoshmashrab, Mary. SANDAG Office of the Independent Performance Auditor. Annual Audit Plan For the period of July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, (June 2023), https://www.sandag.org/- /media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/about/office-of-the-independent-performance-auditor/reports-and- documents/FY23-24-annual-audit-plan.pdf <sup>20</sup> SANDAG Board of Directors Meeting, March 27, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aytCn2psXo 21 Ibid. <sup>27</sup> SANDAG Audit Committee meeting 2 February 2024. 4ac66fc0-826f-11ee-852f-0050569183fa-b81545ca-14e1- 41f7-b76a-c6f46d6dca21-1706730399.pdf (d3n9v02raazwpg.cloudfront.net) <sup>23</sup> Mason Transit Authority Organizational Chart. (2014). Microsoft Word - 2014-2020 Narratives (masontransit.org) <sup>24</sup> US Government Accountability Office. GAO Yellowbook. "Conducting The Engagement." Accessed April 1, 2024. https://gaoinnovations.gov/yellowbook/2024/conducting-the-engagement.html <sup>25</sup> SANDAG Audit Committee Meeting, June 9, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GBLXdxFTv0 <sup>26</sup> SANDAG Audit Committee Meeting, December 8, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGlLDzp1EnY <sup>27</sup> SANDAG Office of the Independent Performance Auditor. Internal Audit Reports Issued Ending FY 2020. (June 30, 2020). https://www.sandag.org/-/media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/about/office-of-the-independent- performance-auditor/reports-and-documents/FY20-annual-report-audits-recommendation-corrective-action- implementations.pdf <sup>28</sup> SANDAG Office of the Independent Performance Auditor. Reports and Press Releases. Accessed April 1, 2024. https://www.sandag.org/about/office-of-the-independent-performance-auditor/reports-and-press-releases <sup>29</sup> Copy of 1st Quarter FY 2020-21 External Audit Report - Audit Committee (V6).xlsx (sandag.org) 30 SANDAG Year-End Audit External/Internal Reports. Fiscal Year Ending 2021-Five Prior Year Audit Recommendations and Corrective Action Plans-External/Internal Reports. (June 30, 2021). https://www.sandag.org/-/media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/about/office-of-the-independent-performance- auditor/reports-and-documents/FY21-summary-status-audits-corrective-action-plan.pdf 31 SANDAG Year-End Audit External/Internal Reports, SANDAG Fiscal Year Ending 2023-Five Prior Year Audit Recommendations and Corrective Action Plans-External/Internal Reports. (June 30, 2023). https://www.sandag.org/-/media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/about/office-of-the-independent-performance- auditor/reports-and-documents/FY23-OIPA-corrective-action-report-june-30-2023.pdf 32 SANDAG Board Policy No. 039. Audit Policy Advisory Committee and Audit Activities. (Adopted December 2017; Amended January 2019, September 2019). https://www.sandag.org/about/- /media/E4A9F99797E2427AB4EF64A850188695.ashx <sup>33</sup> SANDAG Audit Committee Meeting, (July 14, 2023). https://www.sandag.org/calendar/audit-committee-2023- 07-14 <sup>34</sup> City of San Diego, Office of the Independent Auditor. Recommendation Follow-Up Dashboard | City of San Diego Official Website 35 Merriam Webster's Collegiate Online, s.v. "Culture," accessed January 17, 2024 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture <sup>36</sup> SANDAG Office of the Independent Performance Auditor. Contracts and Procurement Operational and System Control Audit, Part 1. Audit No. 2202-05. (October 2022). https://www.sandag.org/- /media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/about/office-of-the-independent-performance-auditor/reports-and- documents/audit-report-contracts-and-procurement-part-one.pdf <sup>37</sup> SANDAG Board of Directors Meeting Agenda. (April 14, 2023). https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/sandag/be5412b0-a0f6-11ed-8145-0050569183fa-7f44a2c2-2334-459d- 8147-30947a15d18b-1681444072.pdf 38 SANDAG. "Chief Executive Officer." (Accessed April 1, 2024). https://online.flipbuilder.com/kper/lwpu/ 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 4 (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
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: The Public Utilities Department does not meet the City of San Diego’s goal of providing high quality public service with a customer-focused culture.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Direct the Public Utilities Department to establish and maintain a public dashboard on the PUD website tracking call center key performance indicators.
F2: Customer dissatisfaction arises from long call wait times and a lack of response when concerns are sent by email.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Direct the Public Utilities Department to generate an automatic acknowledgement of the receipt of an email and the expected response time.
F3: Customers are not incentivized to use the web portal due to the lack of response to their web portal requests.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Direct the Public Utilities Department to create an appeal process for customers who want to dispute their water bill and identify this process on the PUD website.
F4: There is a lack of transparency regarding progress toward meeting Call Center key performance indicators and regarding the water bill appeal process.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Direct the Public Utilities Department to create a more detailed customer communication system to use when a water bill verification requires more than 4-6 months. Office of the City Auditor. City of San Diego. Performance Audit of the Public Utilities Department’s Water Billing Operations. (July 2018). 6 2 Office of the City Auditor. City of San Diego. Performance Audit of the Public Utilities Department’s Customer Support Division Customer Service Office (Call Center). (June 2019). See Notes 1& 2. 4Sergio, Flores. “Has Your Water Bill Been Delayed, San Diego? Here's Why and What to Do About It” NCB 7 News, (April 15, 2023) 5 Mecija, Melissa. “San Diegans Receiving Multiple Late Water Bills, Sometimes Totaling 1,000+”. ABC10 – KGTV, (April 12, 2023) 6 Handy, Shannon and Hargrove, Darian. “San Diego Water Woes | City Auditor Urged Water Department to Notify Customers About Withheld Bills Back in 2018.” CBS 8 (August 22, 2023). Handy, Shannon and Hargrove, Darian. “Backlogged Water Bills: Tens of Thousands of San Diego Customers Still Waiting for Water Bills. CBS 8 (February 12, 2024). https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/working-for- you/san-diego-customers-waiting-water-bills/509-d6bc6244-0c87-493e-8c31-ad22124bc37f 8 Gotfredson, David. “More Water Bill Woes for San Diego Customers”. CBS 8. (March 20, 2024) 9 Seattle Public Utilities. “Disputing a Bill.” https://www.seattle.gov/utilities/your-services/accounts-and- payments/bills-and-payments/my-bill-seems-too-high/disputing-a-bill 10 Desert Water. “Dispute My Bill.” https://dwa.org/customer-service/rates-billing/dispute-my-bill/ 11 City of San Diego Public Utilities Department. Utility Billing, Account Management and Collection Policy Manual, . (December 10, 2014) 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 way 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. 7 (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 Findings Recommendations San Diego Mayor F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 R1, R2, R3, R4 8
F5: The lack of communication about withheld water bills increases customer dissatisfaction.

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.