San Joaquin County Grand Jury
2008-2009
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
Develop a system of assigning parking spaces on a first-come first-served basis free from political pressure or favoritism influencing the assignments. City of Stockton Response: The recommendation will be implemented in 90 days. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has implemented this recommendation. A procedure is in place to date stamp applications or send confirmation by one of several methods, accurately confirm the applicant’s place on the waiting list and notify applicants when a parking space becomes available. Additionally, CPD staff has the ability to estimate the length of time an applicant may have to wait for parking in a facility and suggest alternatives.
F2:
Develop a policies and procedures manual for all CPD office employees and the parking attendants. City of Stockton Response: The recommendation will be implemented in 90 days. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has implemented this recommendation. CPD developed a thorough, concise and well organized Policies and Procedures Manual.
F3:
Develop and publish an internal training procedure to detail how parking spaces are assigned. City of Stockton Response: The recommendation will be implemented in 90 days. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has implemented this recommendation. Currently, two CPD office staff members can assign parking spaces. Both are trained 21 and are following policy as described in the Policies and Procedures Manual. Intentional deviation from procedure requires disciplinary action.
F4:
Develop a procedure and documentation policy to ensure that all reasonable attempts are made to contact applicants on the waiting list. City of Stockton Response: The recommendation will be implemented in 90 days. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has implemented this recommendation. CPD office staff make repeated attempts to notify an applicant, by several methods, over a two-week period, before passing them over for the next person on the list. Attempts to contact applicants are recorded on a spreadsheet. Applicants are informed of their responsibility to update contact information as necessary.
F5:
Develop and publish a procedure for processing citizen complaints. City of Stockton Response: The recommendation will be implemented in 90 days. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has implemented this recommendation. The complaint procedure is detailed in the Policies and Procedures Manual available at the CPD office. Complaints can be submitted at the CPD office, a staffed parking facility, online at “Ask Stockton” (http://user.govoutreach.com/stockton/faq/php) or by mail.
F6:
Provide cross training to insure continuous operation of CPD. City of Stockton Response: The recommendation will be implemented in 90 days. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has implemented this recommendation. CPD rotates parking staff between facilities and shifts. The Policies and Procedures Manual adequately describes the process for cross training to ensure continued operation of parking facilities in case of an unplanned event.
F7:
Develop a “checks and balances” system for the reconciling of cash receipts collected from the parking garages to include two persons and also provide for daily processing of those receipts, in the absence of the supervisor or the other person, in accordance with accepted accounting practices. City of Stockton Response: The recommendation will be implemented in 90 days. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has implemented this recommendation. CPD has sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure accountability.
F8:
Develop a two-part receipt for applicants to validate the date and time of application. City of Stockton Response: The recommendation will be implemented in 90 days. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has implemented this recommendation. Applications hand delivered to the CPD office are date stamped and a copy given to the applicant. Applications submitted online, by fax and by mail receive a confirmation by the method in which they were submitted. 22
F9:
Post a large map in the CPD office lobby to identify the location of available parking areas. City of Stockton Response: This map is currently being reproduced and will be installed in the lobby and in City structured parking lots within 30 days. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has implemented this recommendation. A large map is posted in the CPD office lobby. Maps are available in structured parking lots and online.
F10:
Update the parking assignments at least monthly. City of Stockton Response: The recommendation will be implemented in 90 days. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has implemented this recommendation. Parking assignments are updated weekly.
F11:
Develop a backup system for the computer that tracks the automated garages. Have the IT department develop a disaster recovery procedure in the event of a catastrophic failure. City of Stockton Response: The recommendation will be implemented in 90 days. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has partially implemented this recommendation by performing routine backups to a separate hard drive. Nightly backups to a City of Stockton server have been delayed due to budget constraints. The City anticipates a twelve month delay before the recommendation will be fully implemented.
F12:
Insure that all programs are operated on a secure server not accessible by other departments. City of Stockton Response: The recommendation has been implemented. All programs are now operated on a secure server and only accessible by Central Parking District staff. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has partially implemented this recommendation. Most complex programs reside on a secure server with limited access. Some critical data resides on password protected personal computers and is backed up on a separate hard drive.
F13:
Develop a program that allows online applications, payments, and issuance of parking passes to accommodate anticipated future growth. City of Stockton Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The City’s Information Technology Director is now researching software programs to replace the City’s existing financial management software. Central Parking District staff will work with the Information Technology Director to investigate available technology to implement an on-line program that will allow for on-line applications, payments and issuance of parking passes. Staff will work to accomplish this within six months, although the City’s process, as well as identifying a funding source, may result in additional time to install the program, train staff to use the new software, etc. 23 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has partially implemented this recommendation. Much of the application, notification and complaint process are available on line. Payments are billed automatically. However, the City of Stockton operates eighteen year-old financial software that has no provision for online payment. 14. (No recommendation #14 from the 2007/2008 Grand Jury) 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: A large number of unused parking spaces in highly utilized structures exist on any given day. Most unused parking spaces are sold to individuals and government departments who choose not to use them on a particular day. Grand Jurors regularly observed one structure that never operated at greater than 75% capacity.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Ensure nightly backup of critical data to a City of Stockton server.
R2:
Prioritize purchase and implementation of updated financial software that can accept online payments.
R3:
Evaluate the number of sold spaces and the number of occupied spaces within all parking structures to maximize utilization, generate revenue for the City and better serve customers. RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The Stockton City Council shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding, a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore. 24
R12:
Insure that all programs are operated on a secure server not accessible by other departments. City of Stockton Response: The recommendation has been implemented. All programs are now operated on a secure server and only accessible by Central Parking District staff. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has partially implemented this recommendation. Most complex programs reside on a secure server with limited access. Some critical data resides on password protected personal computers and is backed up on a separate hard drive.
R13:
Develop a program that allows online applications, payments, and issuance of parking passes to accommodate anticipated future growth. City of Stockton Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The City’s Information Technology Director is now researching software programs to replace the City’s existing financial management software. Central Parking District staff will work with the Information Technology Director to investigate available technology to implement an on-line program that will allow for on-line applications, payments and issuance of parking passes. Staff will work to accomplish this within six months, although the City’s process, as well as identifying a funding source, may result in additional time to install the program, train staff to use the new software, etc. 23 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: CPD has partially implemented this recommendation. Much of the application, notification and complaint process are available on line. Payments are billed automatically. However, the City of Stockton operates eighteen year-old financial software that has no provision for online payment.
R14:
(No recommendation #14 from the 2007/2008 Grand Jury) 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: A large number of unused parking spaces in highly utilized structures exist on any given day. Most unused parking spaces are sold to individuals and government departments who choose not to use them on a particular day. Grand Jurors regularly observed one structure that never operated at greater than 75% capacity. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2008/2009 GRAND JURY
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Citizens can file a complaint with CED in person, via the internet, telephone and fax. The city website features the ‘Ask Stockton’ link and inquiries can be made there as well (http://user.govoutreach.com/stockton/faq.php). In November 2008, a CED employee was given the responsibility of answering questions from the public, responding to requests from real estate agents and delivering escrow payoff demands.
F2:
When accessing CED’s contact information through the City of Stockton website, users must click on three links. The public would be better served if the website featured a direct link on the home page.
F3:
Other California cities, such as Sacramento, have internet information systems that allow the public to search by category, property type, case number or address. Stockton code enforcement representatives agree that such a website feature would save time and money.
F4:
On numerous occasions, CED has not been timely in notifying all parties involved in property sale transactions of the pending code citations. Prior to closing escrow, the escrow agent requests a payoff demand from CED. When CED responds to this request, a code enforcement officer makes a return visit to the property. If any new violations are found, the escrow holder is notified. This has caused delays in closing escrow and subsequent post-transaction problems for new property owners.
F5:
Properties are often purchased with pending code citations and without a lien having been recorded. Citations remain on the property and the code enforcement process continues as if property ownership had not changed. Associated fees for the violations continue to be the responsibility of the original owner and are not assessed to the new owner. However, the new owner remains responsible for correcting the violations.
F6:
The Grand Jury has found that the new owner of the property mentioned in one complaint has not accepted the responsibility to remedy the violations. Reactionary complaints are often generated against CED as a result of fees continuing to accrue when property owners do not comply.
F7:
Stockton is one of only four U.S. cities utilizing the newly-developed Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS). Nationwide mortgage holders list foreclosed properties, with 2.2 million registered properties. Stockton code enforcers have access to this registration system. The system is designed to give information on foreclosed properties and to provide users with the name of a contact person.
F8:
The CED is now engaging in outreach efforts, including the proactive publishing and distribution of Q&A brochures to realtors and escrow agents during site specific contacts and scheduled presentations.
F9:
When efforts are being made for compliance, the CED will often allow the property owner an extension of time to complete the required work before assessing fines.
F10:
The CED initiated efforts to equip CEO vehicles with electronic equipment for portable computer access to expedite the transmission of reports to the CED office. Not all vehicles have been modified. When computer access is available, the Grand Jury found some CEOs do not use it.
F11:
Some California cities use Redevelopment Agency Funding (RDA) or other funding methods outside of the General Fund to finance supplemental police services for code enforcement.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Continue efforts to improve the level of CED outreach to residents through community meetings, improved communication and by making a sincere effort to promote cooperation and fairness in addressing code enforcement violations.
R2:
Expand CED outreach publications to inform buyers of the responsibility to correct existing code violations on the property.
R3:
Develop a multi-disciplinary Graffiti Abatement / Community Anti-Blight Task Force that would combine law enforcement, code enforcement and public works staff into one unit that could be funded with Redevelopment Agency funds.
R4:
Add a search feature to the existing website to allow the public to find an active code enforcement case for a specific address.
R5:
Post a direct link to code enforcement ‘contact information’ on the home page of the City of Stockton’s website.
R6:
Improve CED service to the public by providing timely information to reduce escrow delays and post-transaction concerns for new property owners.
R7:
Enforce CED procedures to initiate recording of property liens as promptly as possible, so parties involved with a property sale become aware early in the course of the transaction.
R8:
Ensure access regulations are followed by CEOs when entering for property inspection.
R9:
Complete the installation of CED hardware for remote computer operations in vehicles not yet equipped. RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The Stockton City Council shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The overcrowding problem that was addressed in the 2007/2008 San Joaquin County report continues. The continued use of the gymnasium as a large, open dormitory and the use of former day rooms for inmate housing is evidence of the problem. The issue of overcrowding within the prison system is currently under review by the Federal Court as part of the Plata and Coleman litigation against the CDCR. 5
F2:
Maintenance issues, including peeling paint on the ceiling of the kitchen, were cited in the 2007/2008 San Joaquin County Grand Jury report. The kitchen has been painted. Although the problem with the ceiling paint was remedied, the overall condition of the kitchen deserves further comment. Thousands of meals are prepared daily. It is difficult to maintain a sanitary and efficient kitchen operation while dealing with an aging and worn out kitchen facility.
F3:
The recent implementation of the State Offender Management Systems (SOMS) centralized Inmate Trust Accounts. Inmates no longer have to wait for their trust accounts to be transferred when the inmate moves from the sending institution to the receiving institution. The implementation of the SOMS should significantly reduce the many questions to staff and inmate appeals regarding inmate trust accounts.
F4:
Two DVI inmate escapes within the last year can be traced directly to the failure of staff and/or inadequate release procedures. In the first case, an inmate was released on parole earlier than he should have been, due to one or more errors in calculating his release date. In the second case, two inmates who were related conspired so that one inmate could successfully represent himself as the other. This conspiracy resulted in a mistaken-identity release.
F5:
Although DVI has improved its procedure for reviewing files and interviewing inmates, it is impossible to ensure that available staff with be personally acquainted with inmates to the extent that every inmate’s identity will be known to the releasing staff. Electronic fingerprint scan hardware and software is available for scanning state and/or local databases to positively identify inmates prior to release.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
DVI develop a capital outlay budget proposal to remodel/rebuild the main kitchen.
R2:
DVI obtain the necessary hardware and software to do positive identification of inmates via fingerprint scan or other positive biometric identifiers when releasing inmates. RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: 6 a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore. 7
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
Information Systems Division – Meets expectations for IT Security a. Written Security Policy was clear and comprehensive and all employees were made aware of its content b. The division has developed an online security training program required to be completed by all employees c. Founded intra-governmental IT Security group inviting all county departments and cities to discuss common security issues
F2:
Human Services Agency, Behavioral Health Services, Public Health Services, and San Joaquin County General Hospital – Meets expectations for IT Security a. Each of these health related departments are subject to federal and state oversight and numerous security related regulations; as a result, each exhibited a very sophisticated level of IT security
F3:
Assessor-Recorder-County Clerk Division – Meets expectations for IT Security a. Documented and thorough “Emergency Contingency and Disaster Recovery Plans for Information Systems”
F4:
Agricultural Commissioner’s Office – Does not meet expectations for IT Security a. Out-dated and unsupported Sever Operating System (Windows NT 4.0) still in service, though not in a critical role b. Disaster preparedness and recovery plan is currently under review c. Personnel IT Security training has not yet begun
F5:
Department of Child Support Services – Meets expectations for IT Security a. Provides a good model for the distribution of IT services allowing ISD to maintain and configure the network infrastructure while utilizing departmental IT staff for local support and unique development requirements
F6:
Community Development Department – Meets expectations for IT Security a. The departments’ implementation of ‘thin client terminals’ provides a high level of IT security b. Server recovery from backup is tested annually c. Reciprocal catastrophic disaster recovery plan with neighboring county
F7:
District Attorney’s Office – Does not meet expectations for IT Security a. Evidence of a documented disaster preparedness and recovery plan was not provided
F8:
Employment & Economic Development Department – Meets expectations for IT Security a. EEDD has created a detailed Disaster Recovery Plan and ensured that IT staff had it on hand at all times b. Encryption software for laptops is currently being deployed
F9:
Environmental Health Department – Meets expectations for IT Security a. EHD is transitioning to server virtualization that will significantly enhance disaster recovery efforts b. Ambitious plans for high availability, redundant data systems are in development but budget constraints make near term deployment unlikely
F10:
Public Defenders Office – Does not meet expectations for IT Security a. Primary and backup servers are out-dated. The server operating system (Windows NT 4.0) is nearly 4 years past the manufacturer’s end-of-life date. b. 90% of department employees have so far failed to complete the county’s IT security training c. Critical or confidential “case information” is allowed to be stored on local workstations d. Portable and mobile devices, presumably also with confidential case information, are unencrypted, though password protected
F11:
Public Works Department – Meets expectations for IT Security a. Installing encryption software on all new laptops b. Disaster recovery plan is dependent upon the ability to fall back to paper hard copies for daily operations. This may be appropriate for this department
F12:
Sheriff-Coroners Office – Does not meet expectations for IT Security a. Very clear and well defined standards for a user’s access to confidential data and the determination of the sensitivity of that data exists. b. At least one server is running dated operating system (Windows NT 4.0) c. The department’s IT systems have been designed for high availability and redundant components d. Disaster recovery plan was thorough and comprehensive
F13:
Treasurer and Tax Collector – Meets expectations for IT Security a. Treasury and Tax records are unique in that they are ‘public record’ City of Stockton – Does not meet expectations for IT Security
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
San Joaquin County a) Agricultural Commissioner’s Office i) Upgrade outdated server operating systems ii) Ensure that IT Security training for all personnel begins immediately and full compliance is achieved in a timely manner b) District Attorney’s Office i) Prepare a comprehensive and documented disaster recovery and business continuity plans c) Public Defenders Office i) Upgrade outdated server operating systems ii) Ensure that IT Security training for all personnel begins immediately and full compliance is achieved in a timely manner iii) Establish and enforce policy to prohibit local file storage of confidential information iv) Where portable devices such as laptops are required, insure that hard drives are encrypted d) Sheriff-Coroner’s Office i) Upgrade outdated server operating systems
R2:
City of Stockton a) Chronic understaffing and lack of leadership should be promptly addressed b) Prepare a comprehensive and documented disaster recovery and business continuity plans
R3:
City of Lodi a) Develop plans and preparations for the relocation of the data center to a more secure location b) Extend IT security policy to restrict access to external email accounts from the city network c) Ensure all IT support staff function under unified policies and management
R4:
City of Tracy a) Prepare a clear and comprehensive IT security policy approved and endorsed by city management b) Ensure and document that every employee is informed of the IT security policy and the consequences of violations c) Implement tighter internet access controls on the network
R5:
City of Manteca a) Expand current IT security policies to provide greater guidance and insure that all employees are informed of the policy updates b) Where portable devices such as laptops are required, insure that hard drives are encrypted c) Prepare a comprehensive and documented disaster recovery and business continuity plan d) Ensure that emergency backup power is provided to the entire data center
R6:
City of Ripon a) Prepare a clear and comprehensive IT security policy approved and endorsed by city management b) Ensure and document that every employee is informed of the contents of this policy and the consequences of its violation c) Prepare a comprehensive and documented disaster recovery and business continuity plan d) Adopt manual or automated process that insures every server and workstation is kept current with all security patches and anti-virus updates e) Ensure that the off-site storage of backup tapes is secure RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and the various City Councils, where applicable, shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: The San Joaquin County District Attorney and the San Joaquin County Sheriff, where applicable, shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 60 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore. APPENDICES
R7:
Disaster Preparedness a) Describe your department’s disaster plan for natural or man made disaster (i.e. loss of power, network connectivity, system failure, flood or earthquake). b) Has it been tested and how often? c) Describe your plans for business continuity. d) What is the most serious system failure to date? i) What was your time to full recovery? ii) What lessons were learned? Name of person completing questionnaire: __________________________________________ Phone number: _________________ Email address: _________________
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Future authorized unused bond authorization should remain categorized on the budget until they are used to prevent being overlooked. Board of Trustees Response: Partial agreement. There is no approved formal method of categorizing unused bond in or on State approved budget documents and forms. However, we believe that including any outstanding authorizations in the budget narrative portion of the budget document may satisfy this recommendation. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The Board and administration have implemented this
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) submitted the following truancy report to the California Department of Education (CDE) for fiscal year 2007-2008: Student enrollment ………………… 31,611 Truancy notifications ……………… 12,654 Truancy rate………………………. 40% 66 The district submitted a Truancy Rate of 40% to the California Department of Education. Those interested in truancy levels for school districts rely on this information, as it is posted on the CDE website.
F2:
Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) submitted the following truancy report to the State Controller’s Office (SCO) for the fiscal year 2007-2008: Student enrollment………………… 31,611 Truancy notifications……………… 6,624 Truancy rate…................................ 21% Initial notices of truancy reported to the State Controller’s Office are reimbursable under state mandated cost programs. LUSD reported a Truancy Rate of 21% to the SCO, which resulted in a potential claim of $114,462 for State funds.
F3:
The accurate truancy numbers, prepared by the Child Welfare and Attendance Advisors (CWA) for each school, were not accessed by the Educational Support Services (ESS) staff in time for inclusion in the Consolidated Application Part I in June 2008. Therefore a clerical error made in the ESS office resulted in an inaccurate truancy rate reported on the Consolidated Application.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Lodi Unified School District to correct the inaccurate truancy reports made for the 2007- 2008 fiscal year.
R2:
Lodi Unified School District work with its Technology Department reorganize the manner of reporting truancy information.
R3:
Lodi Unified School District accurately report truancy data to state agencies and to the public. RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The Lodi Unified School District Board of Trustees shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: 67 a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore. 68
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
There are provisions for the owner of the seized documents to informally request copies from the District Attorney or by making a formal request to the Court.
F2:
The Grand Jury finds that the Environmental Unit acted within the scope of its authority in this matter.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Procedures were followed in the hiring of a convicted felon. According to San Joaquin County Work Rules, The Director of Human Resources, by policy, has discretionary authority to determine if an individual’s criminal background would disqualify them from County employment.
F2:
Hiring policies were not manipulated, nor were they unfairly applied. Employment guidelines are presented to new employees during training and orientation. The complainant was aware of policies regarding outside employment at the time they were hired.
F3:
A number of department heads and supervisors are not complying with Civil Service Rule 13 as outlined in the San Joaquin County Employee Performance Guidelines. Rule 13 mandates employee performance evaluations be completed at least annually for permanent Classified Service employees.
F4:
San Joaquin County Employee Performance Guidelines lack mandates for performance evaluations for Exempt-Position employees.
F5:
The Human Resources Department is in the process of implementing software enhancements to record dates and status of all employee performance reviews.
F6:
The County Human Resources software currently lacks the capacity for tracking compliance of performance evaluations.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Enforce annual performance evaluation review policy for all Classified Service position county employees, and by all County departments, as outlined in the San Joaquin County Employee Performance Guidelines, Civil Service Rule 13.
R2:
The Director of Human Resources monitor and strictly enforce compliance of the employee performance review policy by utilizing the enhanced features of the Human Resources software. 62
R3:
The current San Joaquin County Performance Report Form be revised to provide comprehensive assessments of goals met; indicators of current performance; and to establish objectives for the forthcoming review period.
R4:
San Joaquin County employee performance guidelines be amended to include annual performance evaluation reviews for all Exempt-Position employees. RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore. 63
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Jail’s main kitchen facility continues to be in desperate need of replacement. The California Corrections Standards Authority reported on the need to rebuild the kitchen facility.
F2:
3. Adopt viable contingency plans to maintain the current daily cost for prisoner meals and minimum jail standards in the event that it becomes necessary to close the main kitchen due to mechanical/health problems. RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The San Joaquin County Sheriff shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 60 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore. 9
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff, District Attorney, Public Defender and the Court re-visit the feasibility of utilizing video arraignments.
R2:
The Grand Jury be provided with copies of completed investigative reports relating to
R3:
Adopt viable contingency plans to maintain the current daily cost for prisoner meals and minimum jail standards in the event that it becomes necessary to close the main kitchen due to mechanical/health problems. RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The San Joaquin County Sheriff shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 60 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore. 9
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Delta College trustees and administrators avoid making the same mistake by entering into a public/private partnership to develop a center/campus in Lodi or Galt. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The current Board and administration have, in fact, implemented this recommendation. The purchase option for the Lodi campus was allowed to expire. The Galt campus property development has been postponed indefinitely.
F2:
The Board of Trustees thoroughly evaluate all staff and consultants’ recommendations prior to making bond decisions and commitments. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation has been implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The current Board has access to much-improved Measure L Team (bond management staff) reports and is making informed decisions.
F3:
The Board of Trustees use the most current student usage numbers to determine curriculum needs for students, i.e. brick and mortar vs. internet usage. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation has been implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The current Board has access to much-improved Measure L Team reports and is making informed decisions.
F4:
The Board of Trustees refocus on the needs of the students and not personal agendas and work together as a cohesive unit. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation is being implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: Unlike the former Board, the current Board has demonstrated the ability to work together from the first meeting when a newly elected Trustee was selected as President of the Board. Further, the ability of the current Board to work together is demonstrated by a lack of controversy at meetings or in the press. The current Board adopted Policy No. 2715, Board of Trustees Code of Ethics and Standards of Good Practice, as a means of defining responsibility and conduct of individual Board members.
F5:
Delta College Trustees and administration support and work with the new, recently formed committee, Measure L Team, to oversee the various bond programs. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation will be implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The Measure L Team believes it has the support of Trustees and administration. This Team has exceeded all expectations of the 2008/2009 Grand Jury. Reports given to Trustees are timely, concise and accurate.
F6:
The Delta College Board of Trustees to comply with the Brown Act. Further training on the Brown Act to be given to ensure understanding and compliance. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation is being implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The only Brown Act violation observed by Jurors was minor. Meeting agenda were posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting, but not at a location accessible 24 hours a day. The Administration is taking steps to comply.
F7:
The Bond Oversight Committee meet once per month in an effort to pre-approve all expenses charged to Measure L funds. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The committee continues to schedule quarterly meetings but has met more frequently. In October 2008, the State Controller issued a 15 report following the audit of Measure L. Finding (3) states “…oversight by the Citizens’ Oversight Committee (COC) was passive, perfunctory and ineffective.” The Board has yet to pass an amendment to the Citizens’ Oversight Committee Bylaws that will allow pre-approval of expenses charged to Measure L.
F8:
This Grand Jury recommends that the Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee question all changes in projects selected for funding, project plans, or delays in construction. This is a precautionary measure to ensure that Measure L funds are not being wasted. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation is being implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The Committee has access to much-improved Measure L Team (bond management staff) reports to aid the review. However, the Committee does not exercise its full authority as described in Section 15278 of the Education Code. The Committee appears somewhat restrained by the Bylaws and continues to review expenditures months after they occur.
F9:
The Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee to ensure that all aspects of the Brown Act are adhered to in order to give the public a clear picture of the committees’ workings. The Grand Jury believes that the Brown Act ensures a transparent democracy. The violation of the Brown Act cannot be tolerated. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation has been implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The only Brown Act violation observed by Jurors was minor. Meeting agenda were posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting, but not at a location accessible 24 hours a day. The Administration is taking steps to comply. 10. (No recommendation #10 from the 2008/2009 Grand Jury) 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The Board of Trustees recently established a policy of self-evaluation for Trustees and periodic evaluation of the Superintendent/President. Regular evaluations of performance are the basis of improvement and positive corrective actions. Implementation of the new policy will unify the Board and Administration and help prevent problems of the past.
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Continue to use the Measure L Team (bond management staff) in lieu of a consultant.
R2:
Take corrective action for posting Board meeting agenda and Citizen’s Oversight Committee agenda in a location accessible 24 hours a day for the 72 hour period prior to meetings, as required by the Brown Act and subsequent Attorney General opinions. 16
R3:
The Board of Trustees use the most current student usage numbers to determine curriculum needs for students, i.e. brick and mortar vs. internet usage. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation has been implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The current Board has access to much-improved Measure L Team reports and is making informed decisions.
R4:
The Board of Trustees refocus on the needs of the students and not personal agendas and work together as a cohesive unit. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation is being implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: Unlike the former Board, the current Board has demonstrated the ability to work together from the first meeting when a newly elected Trustee was selected as President of the Board. Further, the ability of the current Board to work together is demonstrated by a lack of controversy at meetings or in the press. The current Board adopted Policy No. 2715, Board of Trustees Code of Ethics and Standards of Good Practice, as a means of defining responsibility and conduct of individual Board members.
R5:
Delta College Trustees and administration support and work with the new, recently formed committee, Measure L Team, to oversee the various bond programs. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation will be implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The Measure L Team believes it has the support of Trustees and administration. This Team has exceeded all expectations of the 2008/2009 Grand Jury. Reports given to Trustees are timely, concise and accurate.
R6:
The Delta College Board of Trustees to comply with the Brown Act. Further training on the Brown Act to be given to ensure understanding and compliance. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation is being implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The only Brown Act violation observed by Jurors was minor. Meeting agenda were posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting, but not at a location accessible 24 hours a day. The Administration is taking steps to comply.
R7:
The Bond Oversight Committee meet once per month in an effort to pre-approve all expenses charged to Measure L funds. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The committee continues to schedule quarterly meetings but has met more frequently. In October 2008, the State Controller issued a 15 report following the audit of Measure L. Finding (3) states “…oversight by the Citizens’ Oversight Committee (COC) was passive, perfunctory and ineffective.” The Board has yet to pass an amendment to the Citizens’ Oversight Committee Bylaws that will allow pre-approval of expenses charged to Measure L.
R8:
This Grand Jury recommends that the Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee question all changes in projects selected for funding, project plans, or delays in construction. This is a precautionary measure to ensure that Measure L funds are not being wasted. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation is being implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The Committee has access to much-improved Measure L Team (bond management staff) reports to aid the review. However, the Committee does not exercise its full authority as described in Section 15278 of the Education Code. The Committee appears somewhat restrained by the Bylaws and continues to review expenditures months after they occur.
R9:
The Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee to ensure that all aspects of the Brown Act are adhered to in order to give the public a clear picture of the committees’ workings. The Grand Jury believes that the Brown Act ensures a transparent democracy. The violation of the Brown Act cannot be tolerated. Former Board of Trustees Response: This recommendation has been implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The only Brown Act violation observed by Jurors was minor. Meeting agenda were posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting, but not at a location accessible 24 hours a day. The Administration is taking steps to comply.
R10:
(No recommendation #10 from the 2008/2009 Grand Jury) 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The Board of Trustees recently established a policy of self-evaluation for Trustees and periodic evaluation of the Superintendent/President. Regular evaluations of performance are the basis of improvement and positive corrective actions. Implementation of the new policy will unify the Board and Administration and help prevent problems of the past. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2008/2009 GRAND JURY
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Procurement Department, in coordination with the Accounts Receivable and Accounts Payable Departments, has implemented a process to assure that deliverables are received and correctly invoiced before payment is made.
F2:
Itemization of consultant deliverables continues to be inadequate.
F3:
When questioned about the potential improper use of RTD funds for employee gifts, RTD stated that “Personal use would be a use that does not in any way relate to the business or work of RTD, and would be for the non-business benefit of an individual, and consequently have no business purpose.” However, movie tickets continue to be purchased with RTD funds as gifts for employees and to recognize birthdays.
F4:
A part-time labor relations consultant, being paid approximately $6,000 per month, is still under contract for his fifth consecutive year.
F5:
RTD procurement staff conducted a comprehensive assessment of all current consultants and positions to analyze their continued benefit to RTD. This analysis has resulted in a reduction of consultants and RTD management staff at a cost savings of over $400,000 for the current fiscal year.
F6:
Budgeting excessive amounts for expenses, such as legal services ($960,000) and two security staff ($200,000), may influence the entire budget process and could result in unnecessary increased fares and cuts in services.
F7:
A new police pursuit vehicle was purchased in 2006 and was never utilized. In 2009, the vehicle, with 20 miles on the odometer, was provided to the Stockton Unified School District in exchange for police/security services at the Downtown Transit Station. 11
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The RTD Board commit to greater oversight of expenditures and become more involved in the financial workings of RTD. RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The San Joaquin Regional Transit Board of Directors shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore. 12
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury understands the City of Stockton’s projected budget deficit. However, when funds become available, a high priority should be given to the restoration of police officer positions.
R2:
Develop a committee of elected officials and community leaders to participate with the City Manager and facilitate the recruitment and retention of a new Police Chief.
R3:
Develop a comprehensive plan for relocating the 911/Dispatch Center to a more suitable site.
R4:
Review existing emergency contingency plans for the 911/Dispatch Center and revise them as necessary.
R5:
Re-institute the Street Camera Monitoring, previously manned by retired officers, by utilizing the Volunteers in Police Service (VIPS). RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The Stockton City Council shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore. 4
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The former Library Director created a new position of Program Director III and hired a friend from San Diego to fill the position at a management salary. Her primary responsibility was to raise funds for the library even though she had minimal experience in fund raising. The Grand Jury found no evidence of new fund development during her tenure. The new position was added even though the Library System already had a Deputy Director on the staff that could have performed the same function.
F2:
The former Director of Library Services was unable to demonstrate the requisite management skills or experience to manage this large library system. The Director’s management style was authoritarian which led the branch managers to believe that they were not appreciated and that their concerns and opinions were not heeded and did not count.
F3:
The former Director reassigned staff in an arbitrary manner with no input or prior notice. This unilateral action seemed to further entrench some staffers who were already resistant to change.
F4:
The former Director had an indifferent attitude toward staff safety at the main library. Even after several safety issues had been reported in the news media, the former Director refused to consider the purchase of personal safety alarms for the staff. When the employee union decided to purchase alarms, her attitude toward training staff to use them was indifferent.
F5:
The City Manager’s Office failed to oversee the operation of the Library System. It was the responsibility of a Deputy City Manager to oversee the Library Director. Ineffective and irresponsible oversight contributed to questionable library expenditures and low staff morale.
F6:
The former Director contracted with several consultants and vendors, including a personal life coach, a long-range strategic planning company, and an internet marketing vendor. Substantial expenses were incurred with virtually no benefit to the library system. For example, the City approved a non-competitive, single- source contract with Youniquely4U, a patron based internet marketing service to provide hardware, software and supplies for library checkout. The City paid approximately $75,000 on an untested $96,000 program with very little positive results. Youniquely4U service has been discontinued and the website has been closed.
F7:
The majority of library patrons still attempt to use the library as a source for new books. There is a strong perception, especially by patrons of the branches funded directly by the City of Stockton, that new books are generally unavailable. The current on-line reservation policy ensures patrons’ access to new books. This policy limits walk-in user access to these same new books.
F8:
Valuable historical special-collection materials are stored in an unsecured area of the Chavez Library. A current inventory of these materials does not exist.
F9:
A recent City Audit found $3.4 million in uncollected fines, fees and lost materials.
F10:
The Director of Community Services seems to have an understanding of the existing problems and how to remedy them. In the short time since the reorganization, she has worked with the staff to identify significant issues within the Library System and is working towards resolving them.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Implement an annual amnesty week which allows overdue books and materials to be returned to the library without fees or fines.
R2:
Immediately reallocate funds to increase the purchase of new books and materials.
R3:
The City Manager increase supervision of the Deputy City Manager for library services.
R4:
Implement a zero-tolerance policy with regard to late fees and fines.
R5:
The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and Stockton City Council mutually establish and appoint citizens to a Library Advisory Commission. The Commission will report and make recommendations on matters pertaining to the operation of library services and facilities.
R6:
Revise the current policy to allow for a portion of new books to be placed on shelves so that walk-in customers have the opportunity to check them out.
R7:
Establish internal audit controls for library vendor/consultant contracts, fines and fees.
R8:
The historical special-collection materials be inventoried and stored in a secure area within 6 months.
R9:
The Director of Library Services receive an annual written performance evaluation. RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The Stockton City Council shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court as to Recommendation #5, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore.
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
SUSD Trustees reduce the dollar cap that can be spent for non-instructional and administrative consultants without Board approval. Trustees or a committee of Trustees review consultant contracts to ensure there is a need that employees can not fill and that a meaningful product will be produced. Board of Education Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: This recommendation has been implemented. The Superintendent now gives all consultant contracts to the Board for approval. The Board receives professional, well-prepared documents containing adequate information to make informed decisions.
F2:
SUSD Trustees limit the use of non-instructional and administrative consultants to specific, short term jobs. The primary responsibility of running the District belongs with SUSD employees. Board of Education Response: This recommendation was implemented prior to the Grand Jury’s investigation. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: This recommendation has been implemented. The Superintendent created and filled several new positions with SUSD employees to perform tasks formerly done by consultants.
F3:
SUSD Trustees re-examine the policy of allowing the Superintendent to create positions and hire employees without a competitive application process. Board of Education Response: This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: This recommendation has been partially implemented. The Superintendent retains the ability to create positions and hire without competitive process. The Grand Jury believes the Superintendent used the power wisely when reorganizing SUSD administration. Most administrative positions were filled with qualified personnel from the pool of current SUSD employees, rather than going outside the District.
F4:
SUSD Trustees conduct a thorough, independent audit of restricted (categorical) funds received from State and Federal sources with extra emphasis placed on AB1113 funds. In addition, an audit of purchases made by management be conducted on an annual basis until public confidence is restored. Board of Education Response: This recommendation is being implemented at this time. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: This recommendation has been implemented. SUSD retained the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team who conducted an audit of all operations and prepared a 195 page report. Most facets of SUSD operations received high ratings. However, the section of the audit dealing with categorical funds 27 did not. Section PA 5.6 of the report contains 9 findings and 12 recommendations for improvement of SUSD’s management of categorical funds. The conclusion of the section reads simply: “Standard Implemented: Not Implemented, Rating: 0.” The range of ratings are from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest).
F5:
SUSD Trustees or a committee of Trustees periodically review purchases made by management as a whole and by individual management team members to ensure strict written guidelines are enforced. Board of Education Response: This recommendation was implemented prior to the Grand Jury’s investigation. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: This recommendation has been implemented. The Board of Education receives a thorough report entitled “General Ledger Transactions - Superintendents Location” that lists all purchases. The level of detail provided in the report has improved dramatically under the current Superintendent.
F6:
SUSD Trustees carefully review the budget and question policy decisions made by SUSD management to ensure the District is being run in a prudent, economical, and legal manner. Board of Education Response: This recommendation requires further analysis, which will take place as the Board and staff prepare the 2008-2009 budget. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: This recommendation is being implemented. The Superintendent is providing concise, reliable data to the Board of Education.
F7:
SUSD Trustees review and approve plans for future District-wide fund raising activities.
F8:
SUSD management provide thorough and accurate accounting of all district-wide fund raising activities undertaken by SUSD. The information must be made available to the public on demand. Board of Education Response: This recommendation was implemented prior to the Grand Jury’s investigation. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The recommendation is likely to be implemented if SUSD conducts district-wide fund raising with a foundation. With additional oversight 28 from an independent organization, it will be much more difficult to conceal the source of funds and how they were spent.
F9:
SUSD Trustees ensure SUSD management is held accountable for their actions. Board of Education Response: This recommendation is being implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: This recommendation has been implemented. Three new Trustees were elected in November 2008 and a new management team is in place.
F10:
SUSD Trustees and management work as a team to accomplish common objectives and not lose sight of the District’s mission which is to educate the children of the District. Board of Education Response: This recommendation has been implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: This recommendation has been implemented. SUSD has a solid management team in place. The Superintendent has vision and is a strong proponent of improving student outcome. He is looking at all facets of SUSD and implementing necessary changes.
F11:
The Board of Trustees manage the recent bond measure in a timely and effective manner and regain the public’s confidence. Board of Education Response: This recommendation has been implemented. 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: This recommendation has been implemented. The Board established a Citizen’s Bond Oversight Committee to oversee both Measure C and Measure Q Bonds. The Superintendent has proposed numerous changes to proposed bond projects. Current plans for high school renovation may be replaced with plans to build new high schools. 12. (No recommendation #12 from the 2007\2008 Grand Jury) 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The Superintendent and Trustees took a calculated risk in using the Success for All program. The program was not approved for use by the California Department of Education. The Grand Jury believes this risk was justified. 13. (No recommendation #13 from the 2007/2008 Grand Jury) 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The Superintendent and Trustees took a calculated risk in offering SAT testing and preparation training at no cost to students. Approximately 70% of seniors participated, up from 8% the year before. Again, the Grand Jury believes the risk was justified. 14. (No recommendation #14 from the 2007/2008 Grand Jury) 2008/2009 Grand Jury Finding: The Superintendent resides within Stockton city limits and within the Lodi Unified School District. A family member was enrolled in a SUSD 29 pre-school program targeted to disadvantaged youth. All supporting documentation was reviewed by the Grand Jury and appeared to be in order. Further, the Superintendent kept a promise he made to enroll family members at SUSD.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Stockton Unified School District (SUSD) submitted the following truancy report to the California Department of Education (CDE) for fiscal year 2007-2008: Student enrollment ………………… 38,322 Truancy notifications ……………… 4,521 Truancy rate………………………. 11.8% 71 The District submitted a Truancy Rate of 11.8% to the California Department of Education. Those interested in truancy levels for school districts rely on this information, as it is posted on the CDE website.
F2:
Stockton Unified School District (SUSD) submitted the following truancy report to the State Controller’s Office (SCO) for the fiscal year 2007-2008: Student enrollment………………… 38,322 Truancy notifications……………… 18,909 Truancy rate…................................ 49% Initial notices of truancy reported to the State Controller’s Office are reimbursable under state mandated cost programs. SUSD reported a Truancy Rate of 49% to the SCO, which resulted in a claim of $326,747 for State funds.
F3:
The data for the report to CDE came from the Information Services Department truancy letter database. After a review of the Consolidated Application, it was evident the number of initial truancy notifications reported to the CDE was incorrectly reported by SUSD.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Stockton Unified School District to correct the inaccurate reports made for the 2007-2008 fiscal year.
R2:
Stockton Unified School District to accurately report truancy data to state agencies and the public. RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. 72 c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore. 73
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The Board of Commissioners failed to comply with recommendations made in two audit reports. These audits are conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the purpose of ensuring that the Housing Authority has proper oversight and is held accountable for its spending of taxpayer funds. Section 2.07 of the Housing Authority By-Laws establishes that one responsibility of the Board Commissioners is to ensure, through independent reviews and audits that the Authority operates within the law and according to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations. Several board members were unaware of the results of the recent 2008 Audit Report or the results of a 2004 Audit Report.
F2:
The 2004 OIG Audit Report recommended the termination and restructuring of the contract for legal services on the basis that the Authority disregarded HUD requirements that limit the length of service contracts and omitted required Federal provisions in the attorney’s contract as required by Section 4.06.2 of Housing Authority By-Laws.
F3:
The OIG Audit Report stated, “The attorney’s failure to effectively perform contracted services and reviews added to the problem of the Authority improperly awarding over $3.3 million in contracts for goods and services and the resulting unnecessary financial and legal risks.”
F4:
Contracts have been authorized and executed by the Commissioners and staff without referral for legal counsel review. The lack of quality legal review puts the Authority at risk of litigation and loss of federal funds. 56
F5:
The 2008/2009 Chairperson (originally appointed Dec. 15, 1998) has made racial remarks in the presence of Authority employees and in public meetings. This behavior puts the Authority at risk of discrimination lawsuits, and cannot be tolerated. Section 3.0 of the Housing Authority Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct establishes standards for employee and commissioner conduct that will assure the highest level of public service and it identifies those acts or omissions of acts that could be deemed injurious to the general mission of the Authority. The Chair dismisses the remarks as “colorful language”. The Chair’s conduct in public forum is unprofessional. There have been outbursts and accusations that hinder the Board’s ability to be effective in doing the work of the Authority.
F6:
A Tenant Commissioner (originally appointed May 20, 2006) has a documented history of violations for repeatedly behaving in an abusive manner toward Housing Authority employees and contractors. She is also in violation of Residency Certification regarding income-reporting and criminal-background standards.
F7:
A number of the Commissioners assert that their only responsibility is to “set policy”. Section 2.06 of the Housing Authority By-Laws provides that a commissioner’s responsibility is setting policies governing operations, and to prevent fraud, abuse, mismanagement and discrimination; to ensure that the authority acts legally and with integrity in its daily operations. The Director is responsible for managing the daily operations of the Authority. The Commissioners have abdicated responsibility to provide leadership, stewardship and proper oversight.
F8:
A Commissioner (originally appointed Mar. 29, 2008) has refused to receive the training offered by the Authority. Training is offered to commissioners in order to give them an understanding of federal regulations, the operations and mission of the Authority.
F9:
The 2003/2004 Grand Jury recommended that the Board of Commissioners adopt and enforce a Code of Ethics for the Housing Authority. Section 7.0 of the Housing Authority Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct states, “There shall be established an Ethics Review Committee of the Authority of the County of San Joaquin. The purpose of the Committee shall be to review and render decisions on any matters involving ethical conduct, or breach of ethical conduct, by employees, vendors, or commissioners.” However, a Code of Ethics was not adopted until 2006. This document provided for an Ethics Review Committee to be established within 90 days. An Ethics Review Committee was not established until April 2009.
F10:
In 2007, the Commissioners eliminated the position of deputy director. In 2008, the Executive Director resigned from the Authority. Since there was no Deputy Director to fill the void, the employees did not have effective leadership during the past year.
F11:
The Grand Jury found the Board of Commissioners inadequate in dealing with and in understanding its full responsibility and stewardship. 57
F12:
The Housing Authority attorney’s actions on notices of tenant eviction often result in a stipulated settlement agreement in lieu of court-ordered eviction of non-compliant tenants. The Grand Jury understands the effectiveness of stipulated settlements when used appropriately. However, evicting non-compliant tenants will provide housing for more deserving families.
F13:
Although the Housing Authority has an employee Grievance Procedure in place, grievances are not handled in a timely manner and are often ignored when filed.
F14:
In 2008 the Authority received a favorable Public Housing Assessment (PHA) score on the physical condition of its properties.
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors remove the 2008/2009 Commission Chair (originally appointed Dec. 15, 1998) from the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners pursuant to statute of Housing Authorities Law (California Health & Safety Code, §34282): “For inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office, a commissioner may be removed by the governing body of the county in the case of a county authority.”
R2:
The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors remove the Tenant Commissioner (originally appointed May 20, 2006) from the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners pursuant to statute of Housing Authorities Law (California Health & Safety Code, §34282): “For inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office, a commissioner may be removed by the governing body of the county in the case of a county authority.”
R3:
The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, in consultation with the Housing Authority Director, implement a comprehensive application and interview process in order to make more suitable appointments to the Board of Commissioners.
R4:
The Board of Commissioners adopt a bylaw which requires all commissioners, within 90 days of appointment, to attend specialized training to enhance their understanding of federal rules and the Housing Authority operations.
R5:
The Board of Commissioners require the Executive Director to provide copies of all audit reports to all Commissioners and be prepared to fully discuss them at public meetings.
R6:
The Board of Commissioners seek legal counsel’s advice prior to finalizing binding documents that fall under the purview of federal guidelines.
R7:
The Executive Director and Legal Counsel assist the Commissioners with ongoing training. Due to the nature and ever-changing scope of the Housing Authority, mandatory training will strengthen the Board’s understanding of its responsibility for the entire operation. 58
R8:
The Board of Commissioners involve the recently appointed Ethics Review Committee to deal with complaints on a regular basis, pursuant to Section 7.0 of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct.
R9:
The Executive Director enforce compliance with the existing employee Grievance Procedure, closely monitor the resolution process and report to the Board of Commissioners.
R10:
The Executive Director encourage employees to come forward with personnel matters or complaints.
R11:
The Executive Director of the Authority submit a monthly activity summary report to the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall report on all Findings and Recommendations, where applicable, to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: The Housing Authority Board of Commissioners shall report on all Findings and Recommendations, where applicable, to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore. 59
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Tracy Unified School District (TUSD) submitted the following truancy report to the California Department of Education (CDE) for fiscal year 2007-2008: Student enrollment ………………… 17,235 Truancy notifications ……………… 3,918 Truancy rate………………………. 22.73% 76 The district submitted a Truancy Rate of 22.73% to the California Department of Education. Those interested in truancy levels for school districts rely on this information, as it is posted on the CDE website.
F2:
Tracy Unified School District (TUSD) submitted the following truancy report to the State Controller’s Office (SCO) for the fiscal year 2007-2008: Student enrollment………………… 17,235 Truancy notifications……………… 1,922 Truancy rate…................................ 11% Initial notices of truancy reported to the State Controller’s Office are reimbursable under state mandated cost programs. TUSD reported a Truancy Rate of 11% to the SCO, which resulted in a potential claim of $33,212 for State funds.
F3:
The truancy numbers that were submitted were compiled by attendance clerks from each school that reported. The numbers were given to Clear Vue, an outside consultant, for subsequent reporting to the state agencies. Nine of the district’s schools submitted truancy numbers to the consultant and eight schools did not. Therefore, truancy information from the eight schools never reached state agencies. This confusion and lack of oversight led to under-reporting to both the CDE and the SCO.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Tracy Unified School District to correct the inaccurate truancy reports made for the 2007- 2008 fiscal year.
R2:
Tracy Unified School District Department of Student Services reorganize the manner of reporting truancy information.
R3:
Tracy Unified School District accurately report truancy data to state agencies and to the public. RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The Tracy Unified School District Board of Trustees shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore. Z RAND ] 2008-2009 URY Speakers Housing Authority of San Joaquin County Clifford Hatanaka, Interim Director San Joaquin County Human Services Agency Joseph E. Chelli, Director San Joaquin County Public Works Thomas R. Flinn, Director San Joaquin County Revenue and Recovery Linn Smith, Chief Deputy Veterans Services Ronald L. Green, Veterans Service Officer San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control Agency John R. Stroh, Manager San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services Ronald Baldwin, Director of Emergency Operations San Joaquin County Office of Education Frederick A. Wentworth, Ed.D Superintendent of Schools Health Plan of San Joaquin John Hackworth, CEO 79 Z RAND ] 2008-2009 URY Site Tours Stockton Police Department Deuel Vocational Institution San Joaquin County Migrant Housing (Harney, Mathews, Farmington) San Joaquin County Jail and Sheriff’s Office Port of Stockton Sheriff’s Court Services – Stockton Courthouse N.A. Chaderjian and O.H. Close Youth Correctional Facilities San Joaquin County Juvenile Probation San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services San Joaquin General Hospital Mary Graham Children’s Shelter Stockton Fire Department 80