San Joaquin County Grand Jury

2012-2013

10 reports

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Not all Community Partners receive complete and timely background information from the California Department of Justice which would enable them to guarantee that all of their employees are legally eligible to work with children. Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By November 1, 2014, Stockton Unified School District is to require all Community Partners to have their own unique contract with the California Department of Justice so that each Community Partner receives fingerprint reports and Subsequent Arrest Notifications. 2.0 Employee Qualifications The California Education Code Section 8483.4 describes the employee qualifications required by the After School and Safety Program grant: "The grant administrator is to establish minimum qualifications for staff members who directly supervise students that meet the district's qualifications for an instructional aide. Documentation that demonstrates this requirement should be maintained for audit purposes." Therefore, employees of the Community Partners who directly work with the students in the after-school program must meet the same qualifications as for instructional aides (paraprofessionals) in the District. The contracts state that the Community Partner, "will only place after-school staff employees at SUSD sites who are NCLB compliant." The NCLB requirements for paraprofessionals are as follows: “1. High school diploma or the equivalent, and Two years of college (48 units), or 2. 3. A. A. Degree (or higher), or Pass a local assessment of knowledge and skills in assisting in instruction." 4. The Grand Jury examined many employee documents and numerous issues were found. One Community Partner did not have any academic documentation for one employee. Another Community Partner hired an individual who had only partially met the local assessment requirement. A Community Partner accepted transcripts from an unaccredited university; hired an applicant with an unevaluated diploma from a foreign college; and accepted transcripts from two individuals even though the documents did not show the students' names. The NCLB requirements are simply stated but can be very complex in certain situations. At least some of the Community Partners do not have the expertise to analyze transcripts. They have not received training to gain this expertise, nor have they been provided assistance from any entity that could enable them to guarantee that college degrees and/or units are valid. District after-school administration also does not possess the necessary skills to validate after-school employee qualifications. Expertise in applying the NCLB requirements is typically found in a district's human resources department. Early in December, a highly publicized conflict occurred between the Stockton Unified School District and Boys and Girls Club of Stockton. During the week of December 9, 2013, the national Boys and Girls Club revoked the charter of the local organization. Soon after, the District invalidated the contract with Boys and Girls Club. Very quickly, the YMCA was contracted to take over the 12 schools formerly served by Boys and Girls Club of Stockton. While attempting to provide jobs for as many of the Boys and Girls Club employees as it could, it was found that eight were not NCLB qualified. In addition, a District administrator audited Boys and Girls Club personnel files and found 18 to 20 employees had not been qualified to work in SUSD after-school programs. Findings
F2: Community Partner administrators do not have expertise in applying the procedures to verify the No Child Left Behind requirements that resulted in unqualified employees working in the after-school programs. Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: By August 1, 2014, Stockton Unified School District is to provide expertise to the Community Partners in applying NCLB requirements through on-going training and/or consultation. 3.0 Auditing of Contracts The current contracts between the District and the Community Partners contain two exhibits that require the Community Partner to certify that their employees meet specific requirements prior to being hired. Exhibit F of the contract requires the Community Partners to certify that the fingerprint requirements are met for all employees. Exhibit G requires the Community Partners to certify that the NCLB requirements are fully met. No evidence was found that the District conducted any audits of the Community Partners prior to January 1, 2014. In 2014, the District did audit Boys and Girls Club of Stockton and found numerous examples of their employees not meeting the NCLB requirements. The Grand Jury investigation also found numerous examples of employees not meeting NCLB requirements or the Community Partner not reviewing DOJ reports. Given the extent of issues found during the Grand Jury investigation, it appears that greater monitoring is needed. Findings
F3: 1 Some of the Community Partners included in the investigation allowed employees to work with students without having reviewed DOJ reports. As a result, the District was potentially exposed to liability and students were potentially endangered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 1 No later than December 31, 2014, and not less than annually thereafter, the Stockton Unified School District is to audit the hiring practices of its Community Partners to determine whether they have received and reviewed Department of Justice reports prior to placing personnel in Stockton Unified School District schools.
F4: The District's exclusion of the word "and" at the end of #1 and the word "or" at the end of #2 in contract language found in Exhibit G allows these requirements to be interpreted differently than intended and may lead applicants to believe that they meet NCLB requirements when they do not. Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: By September 1, 2014, the Stockton Unified School District is to modify the contract language of Exhibit G so that it is identical to the actual NCLB qualifications. Conclusion Since 2004 when the Stockton Unified School District after-school programs began to provide a more academic program, the quality of services to children has greatly improved. The programs have expanded and serve more students. The Community Partners strive to place the best individuals in schools to work with students but are faced with many challenges. The jobs are low-paying, many of the employees are students themselves and there is a very high rate of turnover. This creates impediments, particularly in the areas of hiring and training of personnel. It is imperative that these challenges be met as the safety of students and the quality of instruction are at stake. During interviews with Community Partners and with District administrators there appears to be a willingness to address these critical issues. The Grand Jury expects this will happen. 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 Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees shall respond to each Finding and Recommendation contained 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendicies

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: Blind spots in the common areas of the housing units can be a safety concern.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 1 The Youth Authority Administrators of N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility and O.H. Close Youth Correctional Facility determine all repairs needed, prioritize the repairs needed for the welfare of the youths and make the necessary repairs.
F2: There is a lack of positive activities for idle inmates at the Honor Farm after completion of their work assignments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The San Joaquin Sheriff’s Department, with the assistance of other agencies, by December 31, 2013, implement additional educational (vocational or other) programming for its Honor Farm inmates. Acknowledgements The Sheriff, his immediate staff, the Correctional Officers, and Deputy Sheriffs, are all to be commended for their performance, positive attitude and level of professionalism in their efforts to protect the citizens of San Joaquin County. The Grand Jury would also like to thank the private citizens who volunteer their time to assist the Sheriff’s Department. Currently there are more than 150 volunteers who are team-oriented, positive, and supportive, helping make a difference in the lives of the inmates. Response Requirements From The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department: 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 60 days.
F1.1: The building and grounds maintenance issues observed are significant enough to jeopardize the health and safety of the youths and the staff members.
F1.2: The building and grounds maintenance issues observed could lead to expensive repairs if not addressed soon.
F2.1: The absence of GPS devices and computers in the fire vehicles may delay the response times to emergencies.
F2.2: The absence of GPS devices and computers in fire vehicles put firefighters at risk when responding to an emergency outside their assigned area and without the necessary data.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 38 findings
F1: 1 Citing budget cuts, CCLD’s fulfillment of its regulatory and oversight role has deteriorated to the point of allowing some Group Homes to go unmonitored or un-inspected for periods of up to four years.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: 1 Within 90 days, CPS and Probation submit a written request to CCLD that it fulfill statutory requirements for annual Inspections of all Group Homes in San Joaquin County.
R5: 1.1 Within 90 days, HSA/CPS and Probation, in conjunction with the Department of Human Resources, initiate the establishment of an enhanced Group Home Monitoring Program in San Joaquin.
F2: 1.1 The distribution of the AFDC-FC Funds flow through HSA and are tied to a one page Placement Agreement between the Group Home Provider and HSA/CPS and or Probation Department.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: 1.2 Within six months, HSA/CPS and Probation revise its current Placement Agreement with Group Homes to include a provision that HSA/CPS and Probation have a contractual right to rescind a Host Letter.
R3: 1.1 Within six months, HSA/CPS and Probation develop an enhanced Placement Agreement to include the requirement that all Group Home Administrators complete the Mandatory Reporter training program developed by CDSS and the Office of Child abuse Prevention (OCAP) (known as the Child Abuse Mandated Reporter Training).
F3: 1 An alarming number of Administrators demonstrated a lack of comprehension and/or a misinterpretation of their, as well as their staff’s obligations, under the Mandatory Reporting Laws.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 1.1 Within six months, HSA/CPS and Probation develop an enhanced Placement Agreement to include the requirement that all Group Home Administrators complete the Mandatory Reporter training program developed by CDSS and the Office of Child abuse Prevention (OCAP) (known as the Child Abuse Mandated Reporter Training).
F4: 1 The contractual relationship between the Group Home Providers, HSA/CPS and Probation is the execution of a one page Group Home Placement Agreement which is inadequate to provide sufficient detail of living environment and allow for proper enforcement and oversight of the Group Home Providers and the At-Risk Youth that reside in them.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: 1 Within six months, HSA/CPS and Probation develop a comprehensive and detailed Group Home Placement Agreement.
F5: 1.1 Five counties in California have instituted enhanced local oversight of the Group Homes within their jurisdictions to provide better services and protection for At-Risk Youth in an effort to fill the void created by the State’s deteriorating oversight.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: 1.1 Within 90 days, HSA/CPS and Probation, in conjunction with the Department of Human Resources, initiate the establishment of an enhanced Group Home Monitoring Program in San Joaquin.
F1.1: Citing budget cuts, CCLD’s fulfillment of its regulatory and oversight role has deteriorated to the point of allowing some Group Homes to go unmonitored or un-inspected for periods of up to four years.
F1.2: There is no indication that CCLD provides follow-up review of the Group Home’s Program Statement to assure that it is in compliance with new laws or regulations.
F1.3: HSA/CPS and Probation do not receive copies of CCLD inspections unless they specifically request them.
F1.4: HSA/CPS and Probation do not routinely receive copies of investigations of Group Home violations by CCLD.
F1.5: Investigations and inspections do not take place on weekends or after regular business hours.
F1.6: Investigations of major incidents are not always handled by CCLD in a timely manner.
F1.7: CCLD performed unannounced audits of 21 of the 28 Group Homes under Grand Jury review between February 21, 2013, and March 20, 2013.
F1.8: CCLD issued 34 citations to the Group Homes under Grand Jury review between February 21, 2013, and March 20, 2013.
F2.3: Review of documents and sworn testimony revealed a number of providers were not operating in compliance with their approved Program Statements.
F2.4: There is a lack of comprehension and/or a misinterpretation of Group Home Providers and their staff regarding their obligations under the Mandatory Reporting Laws.
F2.6: . Caregiver’s testimony revealed they were occasionally required to care for up to six youths by themselves, which they attributed to an increase in the number of runaways during the periods of understaffing.
F2.8: Some Group Home Providers have created their own Non-Public School (NPS) to educate the special education youth in their charge.
F2.9: A Group Home Provider changed the educational placement of a county-placed youth without notification or consent of the placement agency.
F3.1: An alarming number of Administrators demonstrated a lack of comprehension and/or a misinterpretation of their, as well as their staff’s obligations, under the Mandatory Reporting Laws.
F3.2: Some Administrators responsible for multiple Group Homes throughout the County seldom visit these individual homes.
F3.3: One Administrator, by standing practice, had delegated most of the Administrative responsibilities to an individual classified as a Facility Manager who did not possess the prerequisite education or certification, in violation of CCR’s.
F3.4: Compliance for attendance at weekly training sessions developed to meet state mandated annual training requirements varied among the group homes.
F3.5: Some Caregivers who worked the night shift as well as those who were employed on a part- time basis did not regularly attend the weekly training sessions provided by the Provider. Nor were they required to make-up any sessions they failed to attend in order to comply with the 40 hour annual training requirement, as required by CCR’s.
F4.1: The contractual relationship between the Group Home Providers, HSA/CPS and Probation is the execution of a one page Group Home Placement Agreement which is inadequate to provide sufficient detail of living environment and allow for proper enforcement and oversight of the Group Home Providers and the At-Risk Youth that reside in them.
F4.2: CPS Social Workers and/or Probation Officers are required to visit their At-Risk Youth at least once a month, but they do not always comply with that requirement.
F2.1.1: The distribution of the AFDC-FC Funds flow through HSA and are tied to a one page Placement Agreement between the Group Home Provider and HSA/CPS and or Probation Department.
F2.1.2: Neither HSA/CPS nor the Probation Department has the ability to rescind their original Host Letter. The only recourse a placement agency has with a non-compliant Group Home Provider is removal of the At-Risk Youth from the home and placing them elsewhere.
F2.5.1: Many State required incident report forms reviewed were filled out incompletely; specifically, the check-off sections indicating whether or not reporting requirements had been met.
F2.5.2: Cases reviewed reveal some incident reports were made by a supervisor, not necessarily the employee who witnessed the incident. This has resulted in delays in submitting the reports to CCLD, HSA/CPS and Probation.
F2.5.3: Unusual Incident/Injury Reports were found not to have been signed by both the writer and reviewer, as required by CCR’s.
F2.5.4: Some Supervisors modified reports prior to submittal to CCLD.
F2.5.5: Many Unusual Incident/Injury Reports failed to indicate if any follow-up had been undertaken to determine why the youth had run away.
F2.6.1: Facility Managers and staff from both large and small Group Homes were unaware of State’s minimum staffing ratio requirements.
F2.7.1: A number of caregivers were terminated by Group Home Providers during the period of 2007 through 2012 for sexual misconduct or violations of the At-Risk Youths’ personal rights.
F2.7.2: Group Home Providers are not required to conduct their own review of National Sex Offender registries as part of their hiring process.
F4.2.1: CPS Social Workers and/or Probation Officers visitations with the At-Risk Youth may take place other than at the Group Home.
F5.1.1: Five counties in California have instituted enhanced local oversight of the Group Homes within their jurisdictions to provide better services and protection for At-Risk Youth in an effort to fill the void created by the State’s deteriorating oversight.
F5.1.2: HSA/CPS and Probation management would embrace a collaborative approach to enhancing the Monitoring of Group Home Providers.
Findings & Recommendations 21 findings
F1: 1 The City of Escalon has no adopted Municipal Code provision, policy or procedure related to the disposal of major capital assets stating who has authority, the methods to follow or the reporting requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 1 Prior to December 2013 the City Council adopt either an ordinance or a policy detailing procedures to be used for the disposal of surplus capital assets, including who is responsible for the disposal, when City Council approval is required, notification requirements, what information is made available to the public and how such information it is to be presented.
F2: 1 The surplus property policy has no reference to compliance with Government Code Sections 54220 et seq.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: 1 No later than September 30, 2013 the City adopt a policy for disposition of surplus land and buildings to include when appraisals are to be conducted, required compliance with Government Code Section 54220 et seq., and a prior public disclosure of the proposed sale.
F3: 1 The staff report for land sale to the housing developer provided very little information. The public must read through an attached long and comprehensive agreement containing many legal requirements in order to obtain basic information on land sale, such as sale price versus appraisal value.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: 1 No later than September 30, 2013 the City adopt a policy for disposition of surplus land and buildings to include when appraisals are to be conducted, required compliance with Government Code Section 54220 et seq., and a prior public disclosure of the proposed sale.
R3: 1 Before any future disposal of land or buildings is finalized a report is provided to the City Council in open session that includes the purpose of the sale; evidence of compliance with applicable State laws; the full identity of the purchaser; the total sale price; and, if the sale price is less than the appraised value, the reason for the difference. City of Manteca The Grand Jury received information and documentation from the City of Manteca in response to its survey and questionnaire. The Grand Jury determined there was not sufficient information provided so a thorough review could not be completed within the Grand Jury’s time constraints. Therefore, the Grand Jury makes no findings regarding the City of Manteca’s disposition of major capital assets and suggests that a future County Grand Jury conduct a thorough review of the information provided. City of Ripon The City of Ripon identifies sections of its Municipal Code for its authority and procedures for disposition of capital assets. Section 3.20.020 identifies a Purchasing Officer appointed by the City administrator responsible for administering the sale of all supplies and capital assets that cannot be used by other City departments. Section 3.20.070 of the Code requires a formal bidding process for sales of personal property, and Section 3.20.100 describes the formal bidding procedures for articles to be sold. Section 3.20.110 allows the purchasing officer to sell surplus personal property with an estimated value of less than $25,000 without first seeking sealed bids and following the formal bidding procedures. Response to the Grand Jury’s survey indicated that between 2007 and 2012 the City of Ripon had no sales of surplus land; 15 dispositions of buildings through negotiated sales; six vehicles sold through a public auction; and, one sale of major equipment through a public auction. No specific agreement with the private auction firm which conducted a vehicle sale of the City was provided. However, City Council approval of the sale with a list of vehicles to be sold was provided. Information related to the most recent property sale during the survey period included an independent appraisal and various buyer agreements. Minutes of redevelopment agency approval of the sale were also provided.
F5: 1 Ordinance No. 110 establishing provisions for purchasing and disposal of personal property and capital assets by the City of Ripon was adopted in 1958. Procedures related to the disposal are vague and do not clearly address either an adopted policy or procedure. Requirements for the sale of land and buildings are not addressed in a manner that can be easily understood by the public, nor are there clearly defined procedures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: 1 No later than December 1, 2013, the Municipal Code be reviewed and amended to clarify the distinction between purchase and sale of City property, and to update disposition procedures, clarifying the process for disposal of surplus vehicles and equipment.
F6: 1 Correspondence between the City and the State Department of Justice in October 2011 indicated that the State’s contract agreement with private auction firms might be terminated because of state budget cuts. There was no indication if the matter has been resolved. Since the state agreement is comprehensive and benefits the City, an alternative agreement should be available for the City’s use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: 1 The City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare no later than November 1, 2013, a comprehensive auction agreement for use by the City.
F7: 1 The City of Tracy has no procedures manual or clearly defined procedures for the disposition of surplus vehicles and equipment. While no indications of any questionable actions were identified, the lack of clear and transparent procedures could raise concerns about the public’s interest being protected.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: 1 That prior to December 1, 2013, the City adopt procedures related to the disposition of vehicles and equipment, including who is responsible for the disposal, when council approval is required, notification requirements and information made available to the public.
F8: 1 There was no indication from the County materials received that a public disclosure of the results of sales of surplus vehicles and equipment was made. Unless the Board of Supervisors was the authorizing agent for the sale pursuant to the County Administrative Manual, the process is handled completely at an administrative level.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: 1 Beginning September 30, 2013 the County Administrative Officer provide a quarterly public report to the Board of Supervisors summarizing the disposals of vehicles and equipment during the preceding quarter. The report should include the amount of revenues derived from the sales.
F1.1: The City of Escalon has no adopted Municipal Code provision, policy or procedure related to the disposal of major capital assets stating who has authority, the methods to follow or the reporting requirements.
F1.2: The contractual agreement with the private auction firm hired by the City was a form provided by the company containing very limited information such as protection for the City and fees to be paid.
F1.3: The disposal of land was by negotiated sale, with all discussions held in closed session. Only the minimum information required by the Brown Act was disclosed on the Agenda.
F1.4: No information on the details of the land sale was provided to the public prior to the City Council’s public action.
F2.1: The surplus property policy has no reference to compliance with Government Code Sections 54220 et seq.
F3.1: The staff report for land sale to the housing developer provided very little information. The public must read through an attached long and comprehensive agreement containing many legal requirements in order to obtain basic information on land sale, such as sale price versus appraisal value.
F5.1: Ordinance No. 110 establishing provisions for purchasing and disposal of personal property and capital assets by the City of Ripon was adopted in 1958. Procedures related to the disposal are vague and do not clearly address either an adopted policy or procedure. Requirements for the sale of land and buildings are not addressed in a manner that can be easily understood by the public, nor are there clearly defined procedures.
F5.2: Staff reports at the time real property is sold do not contain sufficient information to inform the public about the proposed transaction.
F6.1: Correspondence between the City and the State Department of Justice in October 2011 indicated that the State’s contract agreement with private auction firms might be terminated because of state budget cuts. There was no indication if the matter has been resolved. Since the state agreement is comprehensive and benefits the City, an alternative agreement should be available for the City’s use.
F6.2: Stockton Code Section 3.60.010 requires the City manager to present the City Council a report on personal property sales valued under $20,000. There is no indication whether the report is to be a public document. A written response from the City indicated that in the past the information was included in a weekly newsletter provided to the City Council. No surplus property sales took place between 2008 and 2010; however, a sale that occurred in 2011 was not reported as required by Municipal Code. The City indicated they were in the process of updating their surplus property sale procedures.
F7.1: The City of Tracy has no procedures manual or clearly defined procedures for the disposition of surplus vehicles and equipment. While no indications of any questionable actions were identified, the lack of clear and transparent procedures could raise concerns about the public’s interest being protected.
F7.2: The agreement with the private auction firm contained limited protection for the City against claims or other possible legal actions resulting from the auction.
F8.1: There was no indication from the County materials received that a public disclosure of the results of sales of surplus vehicles and equipment was made. Unless the Board of Supervisors was the authorizing agent for the sale pursuant to the County Administrative Manual, the process is handled completely at an administrative level.
F8.2: The County indicated that it does not have a policy requiring independent appraisals of real property it sells because there is no requirement for an appraisal under the Government Code. This lack of information makes it difficult for the public to determine if the sale was in the public interest.
Findings & Recommendations 32 findings
F1: 1 The agenda reports for the Events Center project for the December 14, 2004 council meeting, and other major projects were presented to Council Members with inadequate time to review the complex issues. The same finding was disclosed in the 2005-2006 Grand Jury report City of Stockton Redevelopment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 1 Information regarding major new and/or complex projects or programs that have an adverse impact on the City’s financial condition be provided to the City Council members and public not less than 10 calendar days before the date of proposed Council actions to allow for a thorough review of materials and an opportunity for the Council Members and public to ask questions.
F2: 1.1 While the City Auditor is accountable only to the City Council under the City Charter, city managers influenced the Auditor’s day-to-day operations through recommendations on the City Auditor’s budget, thus limiting the Auditor’s direct interaction with department heads.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: 1 The City Council adopt a concise policy by December 31, 2013 identifying the City Council’s oversight obligations of the City Auditor, whether an individual or a firm, and the review process of the Auditor’s findings and reports.
F3: 1 The long-term nature of the contract with the former External Auditor firm may have been a major cause of complacency by both the auditors and City staff. The friendliness between the auditors and finance staff undermines the integrity and objectivity regarding the thoroughness of the audit process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 1 The City Council adopt a policy no later than November 1, 2013 that stipulates all contracts for external audit services, including the preparation of the CAFR, be awarded for three year terms, with a maximum of two one- year extensions.
F4: 1.1 The Finance Department under the prior city government did not provide other City departments with timely or accurate information regarding financial status of expenditures versus budget appropriations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: 1 No later than December 31, 2013, the City Council approve a study for an approach to replace or upgrade the finance operation’s computer and software to current technology standards, and to develop a plan under the Direction of the City Manager and Chief Financial Officer to implement such a change.
F5: 2 An identification of key performance indicators had not been clearly presented by the City Council to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: 2 A public discussion and subsequent development of key performance indicators by the City Council with assistance from the City Manager, Chief Financial Officer and City Auditor, be completed prior to February 2014.
F6: 1 Testimony from both elected and appointed City officials indicated the Audit Committee provided limited oversight of the City Auditor’s function. Presentations on the annual financial audit were not detailed, and no witness recalled the Committee making inquiries into the External Auditor’s results, findings or recommendations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: 1.1 No later than November 1, 2013 the City Council amend Council Policy No. 100-4 to create a single Finance Committee to replace the current budget and audit committees, to allow the new Committee’s involvement with the FY 2012-13 CAFR review and the FY 2014-15 budget adoption. The purpose of the new Standing Committee would be to review in detail and make comprehensive recommendations to the whole City Council on financial matters including, but not limited to, those related to the City’s budget; internal and external auditor reports; proposed bonds or loans; any proposed fee or tax increases or modifications; and modifications to the City’s account and/or budget structures. The Committee should meet no less than quarterly.
F7: 1 The degree of training and knowledge about municipal finance varies among the current council members who responded to the Grand Jury’s survey.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: 1 The City Council submit a policy resolution for consideration during the LCC annual conference for the League to establish training programs for local elected officials to learn about the various aspects of municipal finance similar to the depth and content of the CSAC courses.
F8: 1 The behind the scenes actions and lack of complete and clear information from former city managers resulted in elected officials and the public having a false sense of confidence in the City’s financial condition.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: 1 The City Manager and his/her administrative staff provide detailed, timely, and accurate information supporting proposals with significant long-term financial implications for the City and that such documents be available to the public.
F1.1: The agenda reports for the Events Center project for the December 14, 2004 council meeting, and other major projects were presented to Council Members with inadequate time to review the complex issues. The same finding was disclosed in the 2005-2006 Grand Jury report City of Stockton Redevelopment.
F1.2: Few Council Members asked questions of City staff about the City’s financial condition or the financial impacts of major expenditures they were being asked to approve.
F1.3: The City Council’s approval of loans between restricted funds without receiving any information or documents on the repayment requirements or impacts created an unclear picture of the actual fund balances in the various accounts.
F2.3: The recent practice of using a firm as the City Auditor gives the City Council more flexibility in directing what audits and studies are to be conducted since a wider field of expertise offered by the firm can be tapped to undertake the investigations.
F3.1: The long-term nature of the contract with the former External Auditor firm may have been a major cause of complacency by both the auditors and City staff. The friendliness between the auditors and finance staff undermines the integrity and objectivity regarding the thoroughness of the audit process.
F3.2: The City Auditor did not manage the external audit process in an effective manner to determine if a full independent review of the accounting processes was being conducted.
F3.3: The final audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011 indicated there had been major deficiencies and material errors in the prior financial accounting records and procedures, which the prior external audit firm failed to identify and emphasize in their reports.
F3.4: Concerns raised by the former External Auditors were repeated in subsequent Reports to Management indicating a lack of accountability before implementation of the City’s action plan response by prior city management.
F4.2: Recommendations have been provided to the Stockton Civil Service Commission to upgrade selected staffing classifications and qualifications in the Finance Department; a CPA has recently been hired to augment the finance department’s management. Additional classification reviews are needed to improve the overall qualifications and accounting capabilities of the department’s employees.
F4.3: The complexity of City funds and accounts permitted prior city governments to move money among accounts without adequate tracking or knowledge of actual balances in the funds.
F6.1: Testimony from both elected and appointed City officials indicated the Audit Committee provided limited oversight of the City Auditor’s function. Presentations on the annual financial audit were not detailed, and no witness recalled the Committee making inquiries into the External Auditor’s results, findings or recommendations.
F6.2: Appointment to and removal from the Budget Committee by the prior city government had been based on political alliance rather than interest or knowledge of the City’s fiscal activities, limiting the inquiries into the former management’s activities.
F7.1: The degree of training and knowledge about municipal finance varies among the current council members who responded to the Grand Jury’s survey.
F7.2: The current City Manager and CFO provide training on financial matters as they relate to issues being presented to the city council.
F7.3: The lack of knowledge about municipal finance resulted in some council members not having the ability to ask questions or understand the financial information presented to them.
F2.1.1: While the City Auditor is accountable only to the City Council under the City Charter, city managers influenced the Auditor’s day-to-day operations through recommendations on the City Auditor’s budget, thus limiting the Auditor’s direct interaction with department heads.
F2.1.2: The City Council showed little actual activity in fulfilling its obligations to oversee the City Auditor’s office.
F2.2.1: The City Auditor was instructed by a former city mayor and former city manager not to review the City’s overall finances. The City Auditor did not at that time or since, conduct independent reviews of revenue or expenditure projections used for project and program funding.
F2.2.2: Elected officials testified that the City Auditor was not assertive in conducting reviews and evaluations of city contracts, department programs, or the overall City financial condition, thus denying the City Council and public an independent review of financial implications of the city managers’ recommendations.
F2.2.3: The City Auditor did not conduct, nor did the City Council direct, a separate review of compliance with construction contracts related to the Events Center or the assumptions on which financial decisions for the project were made.
F4.1.1: The Finance Department under the prior city government did not provide other City departments with timely or accurate information regarding financial status of expenditures versus budget appropriations.
F4.1.2: Using the cumbersome and outdated financial software, few detailed financial reports have been prepared for the City Council because of the difficulty in extracting and arranging data in a meaningful manner.
F5.1.1: A director’s management of his/her department’s budget relies on timely and accurate information on expenditures versus budgeted amounts. Failure to have the information available to the directors reduces their ability to be financially accountable.
F5.1.2: A City Manager requires timely and accurate financial information to provide oversight and control of expenditures versus appropriations, which was not readily available in the past. F 5.2 An identification of key performance indicators had not been clearly presented by the City Council to the public. F 5.3 Past City Councils were not kept informed of the extent to which departments were or were not adhering to their budget appropriation limits, or about the City’s overall financial health.
Findings & Recommendations 16 findings
F1: 1 The Board of Trustees failed to comply with the Government Code Section 54954.2(a) (1) by providing an inadequate description of agenda items proposed for discussion and action at a public meeting. Specifically, it violated the Brown Act at its January 15, 2013 District Board meeting by having an inadequate description of Item No. Review of Current Trustee Health Insurance Plan, under consideration and the proposed action to be taken by the Board.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: 1.1 As a result of its violation of the Government Code 54954.2(a) (1), the Board of Trustee immediately rescind its action on Item No. 6, Review of Current Trustee Health Insurance Plan of the January 15, 2013 Board meeting.
R2: 1.1 The District Board immediately rescind its action of January 15, 2013, pertaining to providing health insurance benefits to Trustees. If the topic is reconsidered, a resolution is to be prepared clearly indicating details of the health insurance coverage being provided, for whom coverage is available and the total cost to the District. 3.0 Trustees’ Knowledge of District Finance As the legislative body for the District, the Trustees must have a working knowledge of the District’s finances to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to the public they serve. The District currently has an operating budget of $7.7 million and reserve funds in excess of $9 million. None of the Trustees interviewed could provide the Grand Jury (with any certainty), an explanation regarding the intended use/s of the reserve funds. Only one Trustee interviewed could provide even an approximate estimate of the amount of the District’s budget. Some testified that knowledge of the District budget and finance was left to the Board’s budget committee and they only looked at fiscal issues when the budget was being adopted. The public cannot easily become informed about the District’s finances because its website does not provide information on the District budget or its annual independent audit.
F2: 1.1 A majority of the District’s Trustees, under sworn testimony, did not know the details of the health insurance program they were voting to grant themselves.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: 1.1 The District Board immediately rescind its action of January 15, 2013, pertaining to providing health insurance benefits to Trustees. If the topic is reconsidered, a resolution is to be prepared clearly indicating details of the health insurance coverage being provided, for whom coverage is available and the total cost to the District. 3.0 Trustees’ Knowledge of District Finance As the legislative body for the District, the Trustees must have a working knowledge of the District’s finances to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to the public they serve. The District currently has an operating budget of $7.7 million and reserve funds in excess of $9 million. None of the Trustees interviewed could provide the Grand Jury (with any certainty), an explanation regarding the intended use/s of the reserve funds. Only one Trustee interviewed could provide even an approximate estimate of the amount of the District’s budget. Some testified that knowledge of the District budget and finance was left to the Board’s budget committee and they only looked at fiscal issues when the budget was being adopted. The public cannot easily become informed about the District’s finances because its website does not provide information on the District budget or its annual independent audit.
F3: 1 A majority of the Trustees lack a working knowledge of District finances.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 1.1 Beginning September 30, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, the District General Manager include an item on the District Board’s agenda to provide information on the District’s budget, expenditures and reserves.
F4: 1 Membership on the District Board is seen as a family right and obligation passed through generations, or as a pathway for political advancement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: 1 No later than November 1, 2013, the County Board of Supervisors and the City Council of each city in the County petition the appropriate agencies and/or the State legislature to establish term limits of two consecutive four-year terms for District Board Trustees. 5.0 The Best Governance Structure of the District Board to Serve the Public Mosquito abatement districts have been in existence in California since the late 1880s when it became known that mosquitos carried disease. The early districts were created when the State was more rural and had fewer incorporated cities. In San Joaquin County, the first mosquito abatement district was formed in 1945 and was comprised of the City of Lodi and the northern portion of the County. In 1955, the County and the City of Stockton created a mosquito abatement district encompassing the southern part of the County. In 1980, the two districts consolidated to form the current District. In every case, the district was an independent special district. In light of its investigation and those of prior grand juries, the 2012-2013 Grand Jury questioned whether the currently constituted District is the most effective means of providing vector control services to the citizens of the County. The Grand Jury reiterates that it has the respect for the employees of the District in keeping the County safe from mosquito and vector-carried diseases. It does have concerns about whether having a separate district with a separate board as the legislative body is the most effective structure for the present and future needs of the County.
F5: 1 Issues regarding non-transparent functioning and actions of the District Trustees bring into question the need for the District Board as presently appointed by the Cities and the County Board of Supervisors. Conclusion When enacting the Ralph M. Brown Act, the State Legislature clearly articulated its intent by stating “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards, and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business." It further stated “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” It is through this Grand Jury’s review of the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District Board of Trustees actions, that it determined the current Board of Trustees and their senior management lack the proper awareness of this legislative intent and the associated legal requirements. The lack of awareness by the District Board indicates they have not properly implemented the intent of the legislature by ensuring all of their business activities are open to public review and debate. The Grand Jury believes that through adoption and implementation of the recommendations contained within this report that the public’s right to be informed of the activities of their public servants will be better fulfilled. Further, a new look at the Board’s composition or even a new organizational structure may better serve the San Joaquin County community. 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 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). Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and
F1.1: The Board of Trustees failed to comply with the Government Code Section 54954.2(a) (1) by providing an inadequate description of agenda items proposed for discussion and action at a public meeting. Specifically, it violated the Brown Act at its January 15, 2013 District Board meeting by having an inadequate description of Item No. Review of Current Trustee Health Insurance Plan, under consideration and the proposed action to be taken by the Board.
F1.2: The District Board violated the requirements of California Government Code Section 54953.3 by failing to have clearly indicated on its sign-in sheet that such a requirement was a voluntary action for the public and that no adverse impact would result from failing to sign.
F1.3: The District Board violated Government Code Section 54957.5 by failing to have the agenda materials provided to Trustees available to the public at the same time as delivered to the Trustees. It also placed restrictions on the public’s access to the materials before and during Trustee meetings.
F1.4: At the time this investigation started, the only information on the District’s website was the current meeting agenda. Information about prior meeting agendas, agenda background materials and meeting minutes was not accessible on the website. This information has subsequently been added to the District’s website.
F3.1: A majority of the Trustees lack a working knowledge of District finances.
F3.2: The District website does not include basic financial documents for public review.
F4.1: Membership on the District Board is seen as a family right and obligation passed through generations, or as a pathway for political advancement.
F4.2: Long terms on the District Board may lead to complacency in reviewing District financial conditions and a clear understanding of issues brought before the Board for consideration.
F5.1: Issues regarding non-transparent functioning and actions of the District Trustees bring into question the need for the District Board as presently appointed by the Cities and the County Board of Supervisors. Conclusion When enacting the Ralph M. Brown Act, the State Legislature clearly articulated its intent by stating “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards, and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business." It further stated “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” It is through this Grand Jury’s review of the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District Board of Trustees actions, that it determined the current Board of Trustees and their senior management lack the proper awareness of this legislative intent and the associated legal requirements. The lack of awareness by the District Board indicates they have not properly implemented the intent of the legislature by ensuring all of their business activities are open to public review and debate. The Grand Jury believes that through adoption and implementation of the recommendations contained within this report that the public’s right to be informed of the activities of their public servants will be better fulfilled. Further, a new look at the Board’s composition or even a new organizational structure may better serve the San Joaquin County community. 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 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). Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and
F2.1.1: A majority of the District’s Trustees, under sworn testimony, did not know the details of the health insurance program they were voting to grant themselves.
F2.1.2: A number of Trustees, under sworn testimony, indicated that they thought they were voting for health insurance coverage for the Trustee only, and not for family members.
Findings & Recommendations 12 findings
F1: 3, F2.1, F2.2 and Recommendations: R1.1, R1.2, R1.3, R.2.1, R2.2 San Joaquin County Assessor-Recorder-Clerk respond within 60 days to Findings: F2.1, F2.2, F3.1, F3.2, F3.3, F3.4 and Recommendations: R2.1, R2.2, R2.3, R3.1, R3.2, R3.3 Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable David P. Warner, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 222 East Weber Avenue, Room 303 Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at grandjury@sjcourts.org
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 1 Beginning Tax Year 2013-2014, the Tax Collector conduct two tax sales each year.
F2: 1 There is no regular, scheduled communication between the Tax Collector’s office and the Assessor-Recorder’s office regarding foreclosed and/or abandoned properties which contributes to the inaccuracy of affected records.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: 1 By December 31, 2013, the Assessor-Recorder and the Tax Collector develop, revise and/or refine departmental policies and procedures that will facilitate meaningful, timely and accurate communications between and among all parties to ensure the accuracy of all records shared by both offices.
F3: 1 There is no time frame established for processing changes of ownership to expedite tax collection.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 1 The Assessor-Recorder establish defined timelines for the processing of regular changes of property ownership by December 31, 2013 and conduct training for all staff on methods to achieve established timelines.
F1.1: By conducting a tax auction of defaulted properties only once each year, the San Joaquin County Treasurer-Tax Collector decreases the number of opportunities for the County to realize a more rapid recovery of revenue from defaulted property taxes.
F1.2: The San Joaquin County Treasurer-Tax Collector uses only face-to-face auctions as a means to conduct property sales thereby limiting the number of participants in tax auctions.
F1.3: The San Joaquin County Treasurer-Tax Collector has insufficient staff to manage an ever- increasing volume of delinquent property tax demands.
F2.1: There is no regular, scheduled communication between the Tax Collector’s office and the Assessor-Recorder’s office regarding foreclosed and/or abandoned properties which contributes to the inaccuracy of affected records.
F2.2: The use of two different computer programs within the tax valuation/collection structure hinders the daily exchange of critical information among departments charged with overseeing public assets.
F3.1: There is no time frame established for processing changes of ownership to expedite tax collection.
F3.2: The back-log of documents requiring processing is mounting due to staff shortages.
F3.3: The computer technology currently used by the Assessor-Recorder’s Office is insufficient to keep pace with the demand on processing time, especially of agricultural properties.
F3.4: While not totally obsolete, the aging 18 year-old computer hardware system in use at the Assessor-Recorder’s Office does not provide for the most efficient use of staff time or effort.
Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: 1 The staffing of all law and justice agencies in the County has been reduced increasing the threat to the safety of the citizens and their property.
F2: 1 The savings from eliminating 33 correctional officer positions have been partially negated by overtime paid to officers when there are more than 1,252 inmates and therefore does not provide the intended savings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: 1 The County Board of Supervisors, before November 1, 2013, approve an increase to the staffing level of correctional officers to fully staff the County Jail including the Honor Farm.
F3: 1 The duplication of special units, specialized training and police functions (e.g., property room, dispatch, investigation technicians) cause inefficient use of limited resources.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton and Tracy, before September 1, 2013, each appoint two representatives, one to represent law enforcement and one to represent the governing body or management, to form an ad hoc committee. The committee’s purpose is to conduct a study on how to increase countywide efficiency of law enforcement agencies by taking a regional approach to some or all of their services. A preliminary report is to be released before December 31, 2013, of actions already taken to increase efficiency and additional actions that will be taken between January 2014 and June 2015.
F1.1: , F1.4 R1.1.2, R1.4 Escalon City Council
F2.1: The savings from eliminating 33 correctional officer positions have been partially negated by overtime paid to officers when there are more than 1,252 inmates and therefore does not provide the intended savings.
F2.2: County jail inmates who are being released due to jail overcrowding are then able to commit crimes when they otherwise would have been incarcerated, which is increasing the crime problem in the County.
F3.1: The duplication of special units, specialized training and police functions (e.g., property room, dispatch, investigation technicians) cause inefficient use of limited resources.
F3.2: There are examples of cooperation between different agencies in the County but each agency still operates autonomously most of the time.
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: 4 Public Administrator F2.1, F2.2 Stockton City Council F1.1, F1.2, F1.4 R1.1.2, R1.2, R1.4

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

Additional documents

Documents found alongside this year's reports, not grand jury reports or responses.