San Joaquin County Grand Jury

2011-2012

4 reports

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: 1 The County-sponsored training for new foster parents is outdated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 1 No later than November 1, 2014, the San Joaquin County HSA is to review and update its training programs for new foster parents as well as its annual training for continuing foster parents to assure relevance, interest to foster parents and a broader breadth of topics.
F2: 1 When social workers do not file a form SOC158A in a timely manner it may result in unrecoverable overpayments to foster parents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: 1 No later than November 1, 2014, the Eligibility Payment Unit and the Children Services is to develop an information sharing and tracking system to identify and hold social workers accountable for submitting timely payment requests. 3.0 Required Monthly Visitations by Social Workers Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations requires every child in foster care to have a scheduled face-to-face visit with the social worker at least monthly. Seventy-five percent of these visits must be at the foster home. The purpose of these visits is to check on the welfare of the child and to insure that there are no problems with the placement in the home. Additional unscheduled visits may occur if a complaint has been made about the foster home or caregivers or if the Social Worker deems it important to assure the child’s welfare. Following each visit the social worker is required to document the monthly visit in the CWS/CMS, which is used statewide in California for child welfare. This data base is used to track visitations of the foster children and verifies eligibility for funding under federal regulations. The federal standard for Timely Monthly Caseworker Visits is 90%. San Joaquin County had a 91.2% overall visitation rate in 2013. This is comparable to other counties in the State based on a review of a State-wide compilation of the SafeMeasures reports. This report provides an array of information based upon data entered into the CWS/CMS. No testimony or materials reviewed indicated that there exists a standardized reporting form or checklist which may be used by the Social Worker during the visit or immediately after. Some social workers just write notes in their car following the visit which they then input into the CWS/CMS as time allows. Recently reported problems with State agencies dealing with child care have shown that a lack of documentation reduces investigative abilities and accountability of social workers charged with protecting youth placed under care. While no such incidents have been revealed in the County, precaution and preventive action may prevent future issues. Findings
F3: 1 There is a lack of immediate detailed documentation of foster care site visits by social workers. This could result in problems in reviewing or investigating the accuracy of information about problems that exist in a foster home.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 1 No later than December 1, 2014, HSA is to develop a standardized form or checklist to be used by social workers following their monthly on site visits with foster children. Conclusion Providing foster care to protect youth who have been abandoned or are from homes that no longer can care for them is an important County service. Just as important is the possibility that these youth will be placed in adoptive homes with parents who will love and care for them. Support for these children is an important role for society, and an organization that gives its best is critical. The Grand Jury’s investigation of the County’s foster care programs administered by the Human Services Agency resulted in mixed findings. The people who work in the foster care program are dedicated to their jobs and helping the youth. As with many governmental agencies, they have been hampered by lack of resources, dated and out- moded tools and administrative procedures that do not place primary focus on their mission. In some areas of the foster care program, such as training for prospective and active foster parents, the private sector does a better job. The County’s foster care program is regulated by a State Agency, the California Community Care Licensing Division, which has repeatedly been shown in news reports to be incapable of serving the at-risk youth of this State. Mandatory training under State regulations is repetitive, boring and often irrelevant. Initiative at the County level to make the foster care and adoptive service process even more supportive, relevant and dedicated to the youth would be a clear sign to the community that County officials really care. The County suffers from its own inertia. Regulations prohibit some administrators from knowing which social workers are behind or failing in their responsibilities. While this results in comparatively small financial impacts on the County, the inability to hold HSA employees accountable for their actions may have an operational impact on the foster families. Repeated changes in social workers assigned to a youth may impact both the child and the parents. The Grand Jury believes that there are relatively easy solutions to these concerns – the HSA administration needs to show resolve to identify, address and correct the problems. The bright side of the Grand Jury’s investigation was the commitment and love shown by the foster parents interviewed. Despite the obstacles placed before them, they care and persevere to give the children supportive home environments. While not practical, the Grand Jury would hope that all foster parents approved in the process could be of the caliber of those met. Children are our society’s future! Foster children deserve no less an opportunity and support than that given to all children. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to all findings and recommendations in this report. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Lesley D. Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email a copy of the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at: grandjury@sjcourts.org.
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F2: because F2 is untrue. While it is agreed that, at the time when the Grand Jury initially examined the Applicant’s file, certain items were missing from Applicant’s file, subsequently the Authority provided both pertinent documents and witnesses to confirm all necessary information. The absence of the pertinent documents at the time of the Grand Jury’s investigation may have been caused by misfiling. Or, the missing material may have been caused by unauthorized tampering by employees and/or ex-employees whose design was to remain anonymous and then conspire to complain to others, including the Grand Jury. If the Grand Jury had asked the Authority, we would have advised that the bank statements mentioned in the Grand Jury’s report were for the purpose of asset verification, not income verification. Income was appropriately verified with workplace pay stubs, all done in accordance with HUD regulation. Suffice it to say that the issue of ‘income’ was not then, nor now, an issue. Additionally the Grand Jury inaccurately summarizes the facts surrounding the processing time for the Applicant in question. Specifically, the Report discusses the sixty (60) applicants they ‘sampled’ from the ‘pull’ which took place from the November, 2010, ‘waiting list.’ In fact, there were three hundred (300) applicants taken from the November 2010 ‘pull’. Of the 300 applicants scheduled for interviews approximately 130 attended their appointment. Of these 130, only sixty-four (64) were determined to be ‘eligible’ for the program. Their application information, including any preferences, were then verified before issuance of vouchers. The Applicant was processed in the middle of the pack – there was no preference in the processing. Rather, the Authority agrees that the Grand Jury found no explicit or implicit evidence that the Applicant was not processed according to HUD regulations. The Grand Jury learned that the Complainant, as well as 299 other applicants, were accidently ‘pulled’ in August of 2010. This accidental pulling occurred months before the matter involving the subject relative Applicant. In short, these 300 applicants were, in error, given additional preference points. Of course, this error was remedied before any vouchers were issued and letters were sent to all, including the Complainant. It is understandable that the Complainant would have wanted to keep the extra preference points that had been assigned – as would the other 299 applicants who were accidently pulled – but the HUD regulations would prohibit such action. The Authority is acutely aware of the expectation of those seeking housing assistance and we regret any inconvenience caused to the unknown Complainant, but here the Authority complied with HUD regulations and the Authority’s policy and procedures when it determined eligibility. The Board of Commissioners is satisfied that the employee had no knowledge of an application being made by an adult family relative.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the Housing Authority’s response to the 2011-2012 Finding F2 and Recommendation R2.1 for clarification. The Grand Jury witnessed the computer program’s tracking system including a data entry example and security access characteristics for staff. No further action required. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.2 – All employees attend annual training for “Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct Policy”. Agency Response: “As required under current regulations Authority employees have and will continue to attend periodic training, budget permitting, that covers the subject of the Privacy Act, the Enterprise Income Verification regulations, HUD regulations and all related subject. In addition, every employee already executes the Authority’s own Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct agreeing to follow all applicable local, state and federal laws as a condition to employment.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed staff training requirements and documentation of training completion. The Housing Authority is commended for its organization of these records. No further action required. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F3: The Housing Authority has been lax in file room security and fire protection/prevention. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R3 – Continue with anticipated security improvement and fire prevention improvements. Agency Response to Finding F3 and Recommendation R3: “The Authority disagrees with F3 but agrees to continue to improve its security and fire prevention but only, again, as budget allows. As noted in the Report, the Authority, now having the ability under its budget to update security measures and prevent file tampering, has completed several security upgrades to the Administrative Offices and the file room that include more restrictive access, key code restricted entry to file rooms and Administrative offices, surveillance cameras, the addition of a confidential file clerk, and implementation of a new and more restrictive procedure for file checkout and return. The Authority wants to also correct any suggestion that the Authority’s file room and Administrative Offices do not meet all local building codes and HUD requirements for storage, when the buildings meet or exceed all building codes and the digital file storage is maintained as required by HUD. As stated above, in the course of the Grand Jury’s investigation, the Authority was concurrently investigating and believe that at least one applicant file may have been accessed inappropriately by staff not related to the Applicant. This matter will be investigated to determine if any regulations were violated.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury verified improvements in security. During a site visit, the Grand Jury observed upgraded security controls and noted that a designated employee was assigned to protect access to Housing Authority documents in the file room. No further action required. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F4: The Housing Authority’s published policy covering family members of employees who apply for vouchers under the HCVP is in need of augmentation to establish a cross reference to employee disclosure. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R4 – Amend the pre-application to provide for voluntary self-disclosure of relationship by applicants of relatives employed by the Housing Authority. Agency Response: “The Authority disagrees with F4 and R4 as the current law does not require applicants to ‘voluntary self-disclosure.’ However, the Authority can, and has, amended its Personnel Policy to require its employees to advise of any relationship with applicants once they become aware of the application. In short, the duty to disclose will be placed where the Authority has the most control, upon the current Authority’s employees.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed a complete package of the Housing Authority’s Personnel Policies including all forms, including self-disclosure, required for employees. The updated Pre-Application forms and policies were included in this package and they met the requirements of the recommendation. No further action is required. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F5: Complaint procedures are not clearly defined and are not posted. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R5 – Complaint procedures should be clearly defined and posted in a prominent location if requested by applicants. Agency Response to Finding F5 and Recommendation R5: “The Authority disagrees with this F5 and R5 as these procedures are both posted. All applicants receive instructions in their applications packet and during any subsequent evaluation on how to complain and appeal any adverse decision. However, the Authority agrees to post complaint procedures in additional locations.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed complaint procedures that are part of the Housing Voucher application package and are also located on the Housing Authority’s web site. No further action is required. Conclusion The 2012-2013 Grand Jury determined that there was sufficient evidence and documentation provided to satisfy the Housing Authority met all of the recommendations made by the 2011- 2012 Grand Jury. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury commends the Housing Authority for their organization of materials that are required for employees and applicants. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). San Joaquin County Grand Jury Follow-up Report to the 2011-2012 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0311 San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District Preface This report describes the summary from the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report including the background of their investigation. Described herein are the methods the 2012-2013 Grand Jury used to determine if the agency investigated responded appropriately to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury’s recommendations. The 2011-2012 Grand Jury findings and recommendations as well as the agency’s responses are listed in this report and is followed by the 2012-2013 Grand Jury’s follow-up results. The legal advisor for the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District submitted the initial response to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report. A copy of the original agency response may be located on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury web-site under Previous Grand Jury Rosters and Reports at http://www.stocktoncourt.org/grandjury/2011-2012.htm. Summary The 2011-2012 Grand Jury investigated the San Joaquin Mosquito and Vector Control District (District) due to a complaint alleging verbal sexual harassment, hostile work environment, management retaliation and nepotism. During the investigation, other issues were alleged relating to the secret and illegal spraying of a toxic chemical in the mosquito fish ponds and failure to report the spraying to the proper reporting agencies. Background The San Joaquin Mosquito and Vector Control District is an independent special district that provides many vital programs in the county. The District manages the mosquito population levels that help reduce the spread of viruses to humans and animals. According to the California Health and Safety Code Section 2002(K), Vector means any insect or animal capable of transmitting the causative agent of human disease or capable of producing human discomfort or injury including, but not limited to, mosquitoes, flies, mites, ticks, other arthropods, rodents and other vertebrates. The governing body of the District is composed of 11 Board of Trustee members; seven members are appointed by and represent each incorporated city in the county and four members are appointed by the County Board of Supervisor’s and represent the county at large. The Board employs a manager who oversees program functions, hires and supervises staff. The major funding sources to the District are derived from property taxes and assessments. On- going real estate foreclosures have resulted in an increased workload of neglected properties for the District to maintain. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report and the files regarding this investigation, conducted interviews, requested additional information and conducted a site visit to determine if the District responded appropriately to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury recommendations. Findings/Recommendations/Responses 2012-2013 Grand Jury Results 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F1: Sexual harassment had been committed in the form of rude, vulgar, and lewd remarks. These remarks were made on several occasions in the presence of several employees and met the criteria as specified in the District Policy #2210. Agency response: “The District disagrees in part with this finding. Management received a report that an employee had told lewd jokes to other employees. The reporting person was not present at the time of the alleged incident and the incident was reported to have occurred well before the report was made. No one present at the alleged incident ever reported it or complained to management. Because no complaint was ever made by those present, the alleged incident, if it did in fact occur, does not appear to have risen to the level of creating an ‘intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment’. However, such behavior, regardless of whether it created a hostile working environment, is in violation of Policy No. 2210 and the alleged violator was counseled not to engage in such behavior. Management did report to the Grand Jury a separate incident involving inappropriate banter. Those involved were counseled and to management’s knowledge no further instances have occurred.” 2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R1 – Review the effectiveness of the District’s current Sexual Harassment Policy and take appropriate steps to improve the training. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R2 – The District’s annual prevention of Sexual Harassment training be given as a separate program. Agency response to Recommendations R1 and R2: “Management considers the current Sexual Harassment Policy to be sufficient. Regarding training, the District complies with California law by sending all employees in a supervisorial role to attend 2 hours of Sexual Harassment Training on a biennial basis and provides annual in-house training to each employee on Harassment in the Workplace, which includes Sexual Harassment Prevention and Sexual Discrimination. Management is aware of one actual case of inappropriate sexual bantering and one reported case of inappropriate sexual comments and jokes over a period of 20 years. Currently management trains its employees on Sexual Harassment Prevention training in conjunction with other mandated safety/policy training subjects. Management will provide its next scheduled Sexual Harassment Prevention training as a stand-alone program.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the District’s current sexual harassment training program and reviewed documentation indicating its training program is approved by an organization specializing in sexual harassment training. The District provided information documenting their training program. The Grand Jury also reviewed documentation showing the District’s stand-alone training program had been completed, who attended and who conducted the training. The Grand Jury requires no further action. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F2: The Grand Jury found no evidence to support a claim of retaliation against the complaining employee. Agency response: “The District agrees with the finding.” 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F3: The Nepotism Policy #2230 applies to new applicants only. Agency response: “The District agrees with the finding.” 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F4: There was no evidence of criminal violations occurring based on the review by the District Attorney’s Office. Agency response: “The District agrees with the finding.” Conclusion The 2012-2013 Grand Jury determined there was sufficient evidence and documentation confirming that the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District met all of the
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: 2.1 above.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the police officers’ Management of Assaultive Behavior training records. The SUSD PD also provided a training log documenting MAB training completion. These documents met the requirements of the recommendation. The 2012- 2013 Grand Jury requires no further action. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F2: The complainants were not notified of the results of their complaint according to the sixty (60) day timeline set forth in the SUSD Board policies. Agency Response: “The District agrees with this finding. The District assumes this finding references a complaint filed in March 2010. The independent investigator experienced difficulties scheduling interviews with pertinent witnesses, and there was a large number of parties involved.” 2011/2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R2 – Follow District policy pertaining to the filling of complaints and adhere to the sixty (60) day timeline. Agency Response: “This recommendation requires further analysis to be completed on or before December 17, 2012. Currently, the District cannot implement this recommendation in every case. The District follows this timeline to the best of the District’s resources and ability. Where investigations involve a number of individuals or a number of issues, it is at times difficult to abide by the 60-day timeline set forth in policy. The 60-day timeline is aspirational and not legally mandated. However, the District strives to expeditiously resolve complaints. As such, the District will review its complaint policies and determine if timelines should be extended. Beyond District policy, it should be noted the Government Code allows up to one year for investigations of complaints lodged against police officer, which are often complex and time- consuming. The District is dedicated to resolving complaints as quickly as possible.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the amended District policy and regulation (BP/AR 1312.3) regarding the 60-day timeline response for complaints. The Grand Jury determined that the amended policy and regulation met the recommendation. No further action is required. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F3: Neither proof of insurance nor a fingerprint clearance through DOJ could be provided. There is also no proof of a TB test for the pilot as required by Board Policy and state law. Agency Response: “The District agrees with this finding. The District believes that the pilot in question was fingerprinted and passed a background clearance. However, California Penal Code Section 11105.2(d) requires agencies to notify the California Department of Justice when the fingerprinted person will no longer be connected with the school district. At the time a person’s association with the school district ends, the SUSD Police Department destroys all fingerprinting and criminal history records relating to that individual. The helicopter last flew in connection with SUSD on October 16, 2009. Because the helicopter program was over and the volunteer would no longer be associated with the Stockton Unified School District, records were likely destroyed at that time. The individual in question was never alone with students. He was surrounded by staff, administrators, police officers, Board members and others while at Nightingale Elementary. An SUSD police officer accompanied him during the Make-a-Wish type helicopter ride with one student. He had no other student contact. It is not the District’s practice to require TB testing for one-time presenters/visitors at our schools. Examples include community members who participate in the Rotary Read-in each year, or inspirational speakers at school assemblies. The pilot/volunteer had contact with students once and only for a limited period of time.” 2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R3 – Follow Board Policy §3.35 and California Health & Safety Code §121545 (mandatory TB test). Agency Response: “This recommendation requires further analysis. First, Administrative Policy 3.35 applies solely to parent volunteers and provides in pertinent part that ‘a parent/guardian needs to do the following:...Provide Tuberculosis clearance (negative TB skin test, or written clearance from physician).’ Second, H&S Code §121545, although cited in Administrative Policy 3.35, appears to apply only to private schools. Nonetheless, the District does comply with H&S Code §121545, which provides in part, ‘At the discretion of the governing authority of a private school, this section shall not apply to volunteers whose functions do not necessitate frequent or prolonged contact with pupils.’ Further, Education Code §49406 applies to public school employers. It provides also in part, ‘(f) At the discretion of the governing board, this section shall not apply to those employees not requiring certification qualifications who are employed for any period of time less than a school year whose functions do not require frequent or prolonged contact with pupils.’ As such, not all visitors to school campuses are required to have a TB test. For instance, President Bush visited Bush Elementary School, Governor Brown visited Van Buren Elementary school, parents attend school performances or sporting events and each year we have numerous visitors who participate in the annual Read-In without being subject to a TB test. The District will review its current policy and determine if a more stringent policy for TB testing should be adopted. The District shall provide notification to the Grand Jury upon review of the District policy on or before December 17, 2012.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the amended policy and regulation (BP/AR 1240) regarding tuberculosis testing. The Grand Jury determined that the amended policy and regulation met the recommendation. No further action is required. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F4: Evaluations have not been done on an annual basis for each employee. Agency Response: “The District agrees with this finding. However, as of July 31, 2012, all current Police Department employees were evaluated for the 2011-2012 school year.” 2011/2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R4 – Prepare timely evaluations in accordance with the Department Policy Manual. Agency Response: “This recommendation has been implemented. Evaluations are up to date for all Police Department employees. Evaluations will be completed in a timely manner in the future. Specifically, the Police Department will follow the schedule published by SUSD Human Resources for classified employees.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed documentation that verified evaluations were up to date and also reviewed the evaluation schedule. The Grand Jury is satisfied with the results and requires no further action. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F5: The small number of officers handling calls for service makes it very difficult to keep up with the report demand. Agency Response: “The District agrees with this finding. The officers of the Stockton Unified School District Police Department average over 300 reports per year per officer. Many of the cases are complex and require extensive time to investigate and to write up. This report writing burden is far heavier than the average for most other police departments. Despite the volume of reports, many of the officers complete reports in a timely manner. To alleviate this concern, the District is taking the following steps: The Board authorized the hiring of two additional police officers who were sworn in on July 11, 2012 SUSD PD has developed a simplified report form for minor cases that will take less time for officers to fill out (Exhibit C). The District has developed new guidelines for reports that can be completed by school site administrators rather than police officers.” 2011/2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R5 – Reassess the report taking procedure to find an alternative method for documentation of incidents, including the feasibility of electronic transmissions. Agency Response: “The District is in process of implementing this recommendation. The Police Department command staff is conducting an analysis of the current report writing system with the goal of reducing the report writing burden through process simplification. Supervisors are actively coaching officers who write reports with unnecessary information to streamline and shorten the time spent writing reports. The Police Department deployed a mobile report writing system in March 2011. Laptops were put in the patrol cars with a product called ARMS Mobile Report Writing, which allows for electronic submissions of all but two sections of a report. The vendor, End2End, Inc., has assured us that all areas will be available to ARMS mobile report writers in an upgrade scheduled for October 2012. This new technology, as well as the steps set forth in the response to Finding 5, will improve the report concerns.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury conducted a site visit to observe this new technology in use. The ARMS Mobile Report Writing technology was demonstrated to the Grand Jury in a classroom setting followed by a visit to an actual police vehicle that contained the laptop in a SUSD PD car. The Grand Jury did not see the ARMS Mobile Report Writing technology in use on patrol but is satisfied with the classroom demonstration. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury requires no further action. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F6: There is a perception of bias for the Lieutenant to investigate internal affairs complaints. Agency Response: “The District agrees that there are some individuals who believe bias does exist. These claims have been asserted for several years, and have been investigated both internally and externally by independent consultants on both the local and national level. All of these investigations came to the same conclusion: there is no credible evidence of bias. The District and the SUSD Police Department are committed to providing fair and unbiased investigations of all complaints. All sustained complaints are reviewed by the Chief of Police, independent legal counsel and the Human Resources Department. Previous charges of bias, as well as this Grand Jury Report, failed to substantiate any bias or discrimination. Nonetheless, the Police Department uses and will continue to use independent consultants for police internal affairs investigations when it is deemed appropriate. The decision of the appropriate investigator will be made by the Chief of Police in consultation with the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and District legal staff.” 2011/2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R6 – Establish Department Policy to use outside investigators to avoid any perception of bias. Agency Response: “The District will partially implement this recommendation within the next three months and forward the new policy to the Grand Jury. The District has historically utilized both internal and external investigators depending on the facts of each matter. Each investigation conducted by an outside investigator places an additional financial strain on the District. A determination must be carefully made on a case-by-case basis as to whether that additional cost is justified and necessary. The adopted policy will maintain this flexibility. The decision of the appropriate investigator will be made by the Chief of Police in consultation with the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and the District legal counsel.” The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the amended policy and determined that it met the 2011-2012 Grand Jury’s recommendation. No further is action required.
Findings & Recommendations 16 findings
F1: Voucher notification letters are unclear and misleading.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 1 Officers participate and complete POST and department training as required by law and District policy.
F2: The complainants were not notified of the results of their complaint according to the sixty (60) day timeline set forth in the SUSD Board policies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Follow District policy pertaining to the filing of complaints and adhere to the sixty (60) day timeline. 3.0 Violation of Board Policy §3.35‐ Background Clearance for all Volunteers A private citizen used his own helicopter to assist the Department occasionally for special functions and general patrol of the schools. During the investigation it was not clear whether the pilot was fingerprinted as a volunteer as stated in Board Policy §3.35. Proof of DOJ clearance through a background check was requested but could not be provided. There is also no record of a tuberculosis (TB) test as is required by District policy. The Grand Jury requested SUSD PD provide the additional insurance documentation that would be required for a helicopter to be used by the Department. No documentation for an insurance rider could be located by SUSD PD. All employees and volunteers who have access to students within the District must be cleared properly to maintain a high level of safety in the schools.
F3: Neither proof of insurance nor a fingerprint clearance through DOJ could be provided. There is also no proof of a TB test for the pilot as required by Board Policy and state law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Follow Board Policy §3.35 and California Health & Safety Code §121545 (mandatory TB test). 4.0 Violation of SUSD Policy 1002.3 The SUSD PD Policy 1002.3 states that all non‐probationary employees are to have a yearly evaluation and other probationary employees will be evaluated monthly. The Grand Jury reviewed personnel evaluations to determine whether they were done in a timely manner in accordance with Department policy. Some files had yearly evaluations completed for the employees but they were not done in consecutive years throughout their employment history. Many of the evaluations indicated employees were doing an outstanding job several years ago, but were subject to severe discipline or termination recently. Evaluations provide a record of employee development, work performance, what is expected of them, and how they are to meet those expectations.
F4: Evaluations have not been done on an annual basis for each employee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Prepare timely evaluations in accordance with the Department Policy Manual. 5.0 Report Processing Employees had been reprimanded because they could not keep up with the volume of paperwork that the Department requires for calls for service. Testimony revealed that the employees believed the report volume put them in a “no win” situation because overtime was not always authorized for completion of their paperwork. The SUSD PD generates several thousand written reports each year concerning incidents at the schools. In 2009, there were 3,836 reports written, in 2010, 4,630 and in 2011 there were 5,754. Other police departments in the County were surveyed and many of them are writing and transmitting their reports electronically from their vehicles, which saves time for the officer.
F5: The small number of officers handling calls for service makes it very difficult to efficiently keep up with the report demand.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Re‐assess the report taking procedure to find an alternate method for documentation of incidents, including the feasibility of electronic transmissions. 6.0 Internal Affairs The SUSD PD internal affairs process has been criticized because of the factions within the organization. The Lieutenant has been assigned to do the internal affairs investigations within the department. Many employees who were the subject of investigations had prior negative ongoing issues with the Lieutenant and felt the investigations were biased. More of the internal affairs investigations are now being outsourced to one of several individuals.
F6: There is a perception of bias for the Lieutenant to investigate internal affairs complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Establish Department Policy to use outside investigators to avoid any perception of bias.
F1.1: The frequency and consistency of training is not current with the Peace Officer Standards and Training and District mandates.
F1.2: SUSD PD is lacking specific training in dealing with special needs children.
F2.1: There is a lack of productive two-way communication between employees and management.
F2.2: Social workers efforts to improve the agency are ignored and joint problem- solving opportunities have turned into accusations. This adds to the workers’ morale. 50
F2.3: Most employees are not familiar with, or are hesitant to use, the services offered for emotional and psychological counseling through Options, an employee assistance program.
F2.4: There is no formal in-house critical incident debriefing for the staff.
F3.1: Information regarding low morale and disconnect with the social workers was removed from the 2010 San Joaquin County Peer Quality Report just one week prior to its submission to the required state agency.
F3.2: Reports were not made available to staff. This gives validity to the concept of the lack of communication.
F4.1: There is lack of financial planning and responsibility on behalf of the District’s managing board.
F4.2: The District lacks a plan for new revenue.
Findings & Recommendations 9 findings
F1: 1 The large percentage of consent items on the agendas of the public Board meetings does not encourage openness in the conduct of its deliberations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 1 The Board of Supervisors biannually review its policy, procedures, and practices relative to the structure of the agenda, giving special attention to the placement of a greater number of discussion items on the agenda. 130 2.0 Agendas and the County Website Staff reports providing background information about each agenda item are available on the website, but the hyperlinks to that material were not always readily evident. The County’s Information Technology Department and the Clerk of the Board have made modifications on the County website so that there is a direct link between an item listed on the agenda and its supporting staff report. This makes it easier for the public to access supporting documents for each agenda item. Government Code Section 54954.2(a)(1) requires that the Board “…shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session.” These descriptions should be clear as to the Board’s intended action so that the public knows what issues are coming before the Board. While some descriptions were not very informative when this investigation began, the County is now using more complete and understandable language for descriptions.
F2: 1 Improved hyperlinks to staff reports for agenda items were in progress when the Grand Jury began its investigation and are now functioning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: 1 No later than September 30, 2013 the County develop a schedule for regular review of the website for its ongoing improvement to ensure the accessibility of timely information to the public. 3.0 Public Comment Process At the beginning of each Board meeting, any member of the public may address the Board on any matter on the agenda or within the jurisdiction of the County. Each Board agenda includes the statement “Persons wishing to address the Board may complete the Public Comment Form which is located in the tray on the back wall of Chambers or which may be obtained from the Board of Supervisors’ Office, Suite 627. Please no personal attacks.” The Public Comment Forms are used to identify who is requesting to speak and the agenda item(s). It is also used to identify the speaker in the meeting minutes. Early in each Board meeting, the Chair makes an announcement about when and how public comment will be allowed and the procedures that must be followed. This includes how items may be removed from the consent calendar for public discussion. The Chair also announces that the Board Policy is to allow three minutes per person for public comment about an agenda item at the meeting before any Board discussion. If requested, an individual’s time for comments may be extended at the discretion of the Chair. The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors has a much more extensive explanation of public comment on each agenda: “PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Matters under the jurisdiction of the Board, and not on the posted agenda, may be addressed by the general public at the beginning of the regular agenda and any off-agenda matters before the Board for consideration. However, California law prohibits the Board from taking action on any matter which is not on the posted agenda unless it is determined to be an emergency by the Board of Supervisors. Any member of the public wishing to address the Board during the “Public Comment” period shall be permitted to be heard once for up to 5 minutes. Please complete a Public Comment Form and give it to the Clerk of the Board. “The agenda is divided into two sections: “CONSENT CALENDAR: These matters include routine financial and administrative actions and are identified with an asterisk (*). All items on the consent calendar will be voted on as a single action at the beginning of the meeting under the section titled “Consent Calendar” without discussion. If you wish to discuss an item on the Consent Calendar, please notify the Clerk of the Board prior to the beginning of the meeting or you may speak about the item during Public Comment Period. “REGULAR CALENDAR: These items will be individually discussed and include all items not on the consent calendar, all public hearings and correspondence. “ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON A MATTER ON THE AGENDA: Please raise your hand or step to the podium at the time the item is announced by the Board Chairperson. In order that interested parties have an opportunity to speak, any person addressing the Board will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes unless the Chairperson of the Board grants a longer period of time. “BOARD AGENDAS AND MINUTES: Board agendas, Minutes, and copies of items to be considered by the Board of Supervisors are typically posted on the Internet on Friday afternoons preceding a Tuesday meeting at the following website: www.stancounty.com/bos/agenda-minutes.shtm. “Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Clerk’s office at 1010 10th Street, Suite 6700, Modesto, CA during normal business hours. Such documents are also available online, subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting, at the following website www.stancounty.com/bos/agenda-minutes.shtm.” 132 The Grand Jury finds that Stanislaus County provides much more information to the public on how they can participate in the Board meetings.
F3: 1 Neither the San Joaquin County Board agenda website nor the posted Board agendas contain information on the public comment process with the exception that a Public Comment Form must be completed to address the Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 1 No later than September 30, 2013 the County update the Board meeting agendas to include complete information about the public comment process, including how to request that an item be pulled from the consent agenda for public discussion.
F1.1: The large percentage of consent items on the agendas of the public Board meetings does not encourage openness in the conduct of its deliberations.
F2.1: Improved hyperlinks to staff reports for agenda items were in progress when the Grand Jury began its investigation and are now functioning.
F2.2: Providing more complete descriptions of agenda items was in progress when the Grand Jury began its investigation and is now in use.
F2.3: There is no regular or formal review of the agenda website by County staff or the Board. Any review is informal and sporadic.
F3.1: Neither the San Joaquin County Board agenda website nor the posted Board agendas contain information on the public comment process with the exception that a Public Comment Form must be completed to address the Board.
F3.2: Neither the County website or the agendas contain information related to removing items from the Consent agenda for discussion.