Gran Jurado del Condado de San Joaquin
2012-2013
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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: [email protected]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendicies
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
Blind spots in the common areas of the housing units can be a safety concern.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
1 The Board approved the purchase of 31 new school buses without proper analysis.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
1 By September 30, 2015, the Board should adopt a policy requiring that as part of any proposal for the purchase or sale of District assets exceeding $30,000, District staff will provide a full accounting and justification as required by the California Education Code and financial reports best practices to ensure fiduciary duty is adhered to. 2.0 Special Education Transportation Services FCMAT gathered data in mid-June 2014 for its transportation review. In its October 2014 report the following was stated: ... District documentation identifying the number of special education students varies from 3,750 to 4,000 students. An audit of both the district's and Storer's transportation routing indicates that the district is transporting approximately 1,143 students who have Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) identifying transportation as a related service. However, data from the district's special education program suggests that approximately 1,037 students are identified as requiring transportation as a related service. This is a difference of approximately 106 students. Based on the district's current student enrollment of approximately 36,382, the district is identifying approximately 11% of its students as needing special education services. This is slightly higher than the state average. However, the district is identifying approximately 1,143, or approximately roughly 30% of these special education students as requiring transportation, which is more than double the rate in other districts most recently reviewed by FCMAT. A high rate of identification of special education students as requiring transportation as a related service suggests a liberal approach to identification by the district's IEP team. The high rate of identification results in the use of additional transportation resources. The district needs to aggressively review its internal identification process by fully implementing both the decision tree (transportation guiding questions for the IEP team) and the special education transportation guidelines shared with FCMAT during its fieldwork. Staff indicated that implementing transportation guidelines and guiding questions for the IEP assessment team was being finalized and would be introduced in the coming school year. ...It would benefit the district to critically examine both the percentage of special education students being identified as requiring transportation service, and the costs for the added service.
F2:
1 The District has transported more special education students than requested by the special education program.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
1 By December 31, 2015, the Board should direct District staff to complete implementation of the transportation guidelines and guiding questions for IEP team assessments including additional training specific to transportation department support. In addition the Board should require quarterly staff reports about progress on implementation of the transportation guidelines.
F1.1:
The Board approved the purchase of 31 new school buses without proper analysis.
F1.2:
The Board approved the sale of 31 new school buses based on a factually inaccurate staff report without proper analysis.
F2.1:
The District has transported more special education students than requested by the special education program.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
38 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
21 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
32 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
32 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
16 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
1: The frequency and consistency of training is not current with the Peace Officer Standards and Training and District mandates. Agency Response: “The District disagrees with this finding. All of the officers of the Stockton Unified School District Police Department are current with the training mandates of the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST Commission). Further, the Police Department has a training plan for all of its officers. (Please see the SUSD PD training plan and POST documents attached hereto as Exhibit A, the names of two employees in the POST documents have been redacted to preserve confidential personnel information.)” 2011-2012 Grand Jury
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
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.
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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
1 – Follow Housing Authority policy and procedures when disbursing public funds and determining eligibility. Agency Response to
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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
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
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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
1 – The District implement a solid fiscally responsible plan with balanced budgets. Agency Response to
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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
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 20112012 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
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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
City staff provided inaccurate and incomplete information to the City Council which could jeopardize the eligibility for the City receiving future grants. Recommendation
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
City Council direct staff to conduct a comprehensive review for the Council by September 30, 2014, of the FAA and Caltrans safety zone requirements related to development and mandated requirements on runway lengths at the Tracy Airport to insure the City is in compliance for future grant funds. 2.0 Business Proposal to the City It was alleged that City Council and staff had entered into a secret and illegal agreement with a local developer related to changes in the Airport's runway lengths. The investigation revealed the developer offered to pay a total of $425,000 to the City between 2013 and 2022 in exchange for the City meeting the contingencies listed in the developer's AAM. The investigation reviewed the AAM's requested contingencies from the City, and whether staff or City Council had entered into any agreement with the local developer without following City policies. Although this investigation discovered no evidence to substantiate the Complainant's allegations, there were, however, actions taken by the City directly related to the contingencies requested in the unsolicited AAM. The extent to which the various staff recommendations and actions were part of specific response to the AAM's requests, or were part of a general development project review was addressed by the Grand Jury due to the lack of minutes, notes or other documentations of the discussions between City staff and the local developer. However, testimony indicated that implementation of the contingencies in the AAM could have resulted in substantial financial benefit to the local developer from changes in the development within the safety zones. Contingencies A and B in the AAM requested that the City revise the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and submit it to the FAA reflecting Runway 12/30 as a short general aviation runway when adopting an update of the Tracy Airport Master Plan, and physically re- mark Runway 12/30 to a maximum length of 3,996 feet. Tracy City Council and staff took the following actions regarding the Tracy Airport: On June 6, 2013, staff sent an e-mail to a consulting airport engineer requesting . the airport runway length be changed to 3,997 feet on the grant application to the FAAfor re-pavement. The engineer replied to staff on the same date that the revisions had been made on the application. On June 18, 2013, staff recommended to City Council that Runway 12/30 be reduced from 4,002 feet to 3,997 feet in length. Staff informed City Council that the runways at the airport were being completely reconstructed and brought up to current safety standards. The Runway 12/30 through the pavement design process would be 3,997 feet in length when completed. Staff also informed City Council that the runway changes would alter the possible land uses surrounding the airport: On the same date, City Council voted unanimously to reduce Runway 12/30 to 3,997 feet and authorized staff to submit an application to the FAA requesting funding for the repaving of the runways at the airport, including Runway 12/30, to a length of 3,997 feet. On July 1, 2013, staff wrote to the COG that the City was in the process of updating the ALP to reflect Runway 12/30 at 3,997 feet in length. On July 11, 2013, the local developer submitted an application to the City to amend the ESP to be consistent with a shortened runway. On August 6, 2013, City Council approved a contract with an airport consultant to 0 update the ALP to reflect Runway 12/30 to under 4,000 feet. On December 1, 2013, the fuel sales operator at the airport wrote to staff that he had agreed to support the City's decision to keep Tracy Airport as a 'boutique airport' in return for revisions on his business agreement with the City. The fuel sales operator said in his letter to the City that he was aware of the January 19, 2012, NOTAM filed by the City alerting pilots that Runway 12/30 was under 4,000 feet in length, and this could potentially eliminate the jet fuel business at the Airport if this facility was officially changed to a small airport classification by the FAA. Contingencies C and E in the AAM requested that the City notify the ALUC of the revised ALP, reflecting the length change to Runway 12/30, and to amend the ALUCP to reflect Runway 12/30 as a short general aviation runway if the ALUC did not agree to the amendment, and notify the ALUC of the City's intent to override the ALUCP and proceed accordingly with the override process. The amendment to the ALUCP would have allowed a change in the ESP development. In addition the City was to generate and process amendments to the ESP and the City's General Plan to reflect a safety compatible zone consistent with the 2011 California Transportation Safety Compatibility Zone designated for a short general aviation runway, and reflect zoning development in these areas accordingly. Tracy City Council and staff took the following actions in regards to the Tracy Airport: On July 1, 2013, staff notified COG that the City was in the process of updating the ALP to reflect Runway 12/30 at 3,997 feet in length. In August 2013, the developer submitted an ESP amendment to the ALUC with higher density building proposed in the airport's safety zone. On September 26, 2013, COG acting as the ALUC, ruled that the amendment to the ESP was inconsistent with the 2009 ALUCP. On October 15, 2013, City Council requested staff to research and return with information for its review as to what the override process for the ALUC decision would entail, and to schedule this issue for a meeting in early 2014. To date, the City has not placed this issue on the City Council agenda for public hearing and vote. Contingency D in the AAM requested that the City set the fuel flowage fee at no less than $0.07 per gallon, reimbursed to the local developer. The Tracy City Council took the following action: On June 18, 2013, the City Council approved an amendment revising the fuel flowage fee to a flat $0.07 per gallon on all aviation fuel sold at the airport by the contracted fuel sales operator. The AAM requested the City meet contingencies listed in exchange for a financial commitment by the developers company to the City over the next ten years. The developer stated the following: "We initially committed to funding an Airport shortfall for five years, however we have adjusted that commitment based on recent negotiations with the parties. There are a few important aspects that need to be addressed in the agreement ..." On June 19, 2013, a local developer drafted a $50,000 check to the City of Tracy "to assist Turlock Air Center" and "to create harmony at the Airport as well as create a positive neighborhood relationship with the pilots in that area". The check included a notation that it was for the 2009 ALUCP. The City accepted and deposited this payment. These series of actions related to changes in the Tracy Airport runway length and designation were not individually illegal or necessarily inappropriate for the City to take. Cumulatively, however, they appear to result in a single beneficiary – the local developer of the Ellis Specific Plan. The end result of the actions supporting the AAM's contingencies was not made known to the public through staff reports or public meetings. The Grand Jury is not making a determination on the appropriateness of the actions, but is concerned about the perception of collusion between the City and the local developer, and the lack of transparency to the public. Findings
F2:
1 The Tracy City Council did not enter into any written contractual agreement related to any of the contingencies contained in the Airport Agreement Memorandum. However, language in the AAM gave a clear perception that there was an agreement between City staff and the local developer to undertake the contingencies in the memorandum.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The Tracy City Council adopt a policy by September 30, 2014, requiring full disclosure of any actions taken by the City on proposed substantial changes to major development projects within the City of Tracy. City Acceptance of Third Party Payments 3.0 The City of Tracy accepted and deposited a check from a local development company, in the amount of $50,000. The check was identified as an initial payment for the fuel sales operator's contractual debt to the City. When the check was received, City staff and representatives of the City Attorney's office met to discuss what to do with the check because staff was not aware of what actions should be taken as a result of receiving the check. The Grand Jury was not able to learn of the result of that discussion. It was determined that the City currently has no policy of how to handle a third party payment for an obligation to the City. In this specific instance, there is no indication that the payment was illegal or inappropriate. However, in light of the other actions taken by the local developer and the City the perception that it was part of a quid pro quo related to the changes in the Airport's designation is very strong. Finding
F3:
There are no adopted policies or procedures for the City to accept a third party check for a debt owed to the City under a contractual agreement with a private firm. Recommendation
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Tracy City Council adopt a policy by September 30, 2014, relating to the acceptance of third party payments for contractual obligations to the City of Tracy. 4.0 Airport Classification and Future Development The Ellis Specific Plan was originally approved by the City in 2008. In January 2013, the ESP was modified and approved by the City, with a specific number of housing units and commercial buildings permitted. The FAA airport classification has no effect on the total number of units agreed to be built under the specific plan. However, an airport's classification does change the allowable densities and locations of housing units and commercial buildings permitted to be built. The FAA mandates specific sized safety zones based on an airport's designated classification, which is based on an airport's runway length. An airport with runways less than 4,000 feet in length is classified in the small airport category, a medium airport is 4,000 feet to 5,999 feet and a large airport is 6,000 feet or more. The protected safety zone size and requirements between a small and medium-sized airport are considerable and the types of developments allowed between these two classifications could be substantial. In this specific instance the change from a medium airport to a small airport would have allowed changes to the ESP that could result in substantial financial benefits to the local developer. If the airport designation change was approved the overall change to the development project and any potential benefit to the City would need to be further reviewed by the City. Finding
F4:
The change in the Tracy Airport runway length, requested in the Airport Agreement Memorandum, could have resulted in significant changes in the Ellis Specific Plan uses and densities allowed to be developed within the safety zone. 5.0 City Review of Business Licenses The City continued its contractual agreement with the airport fuel sales operator after becoming aware that the operators business license had become suspended by the State. Documents reviewed indicated that the fuel sales operator's business license had been suspended prior to approval of an amendment to the original agreement between the City and the operator on June 18, 2013. City staff was not aware of the license suspension at the time the amendment was being processed and approved by the City. Due to its non- compliance with contract requirements the operator had no legal authority to enter into the contract amendment, and the City had reason to void the contract at that time. Subsequently, the City was advised that the suspension was made in error due to actions taken by the State agency in charge of business license compliance. On February 4, 2014, staff recommended the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to send a notice of termination to the fuel sales operator. The termination was based on numerous contract deficiencies which the operator failed to correct after due notice. Finding
F5:
The City processed an amendment to the airport fuel operator's contract without checking the current status of the operator's State license. Recommendation
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The Tracy City Council adopt a policy by September 30, 2014, requiring the review of the current status of a business' State license when any applicable City contract is proposed to be amended or renewed. Conclusion The Mayor and City Council are expected by the citizens they represent to require that their staff conduct thorough reviews of all information regarding City matters prior to making recommendations to the City Council. If staff and management are not held to a high standard of performance regarding their review process on all City matters, the degree of accuracy for the information provided to the City Council could be in question. This could lead to decisions being made by City Council that are based on flawed facts, as well as actions being taken that are not in the best interest of the citizens of Tracy. This investigation discovered no evidence to substantiate the complainant's allegations of a secret and illegal business agreement having officially been entered into between a local developer, City staff, and the City Council. However, there is an alarming number of City actions taken directly related to the contingencies in the AAM that bring cause for concern. This investigation discovered that City staff and City Council in Tracy made recommendations and took actions that if completed would have met most of the contingencies listed in the AAM. This could have brought about changes to the Tracy Airport that would permanently affect its current uses. The Grand Jury questions whether these were a specific quid pro quo between the City and the developer for political or other considerations, or just a City attitude of knowing what the results would be but "wink-wink" we won't say anything. There are many ways to deceive the public – don't give complete information; give partially accurate information; or turn a blind eye to the real issue and hope no one notices. These can be used by private enterprise, City staff or elected City officials. Whatever the reason, whatever the approach, there is a victim. In this case it is the City's credibility with its citizens. City Council Members are the sentinels of the City and the citizens they represent. If the City Council and staff conducted City business as if they were in a glass room with unobstructed view by the citizenry, then transparency would not be an issue and the trust from the people they represent would be earned. Disclaimers 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). This report was issued by the Grand Jury with the exception of one member of the jury. This juror was excluded from all parts of the investigation including interviews, deliberations, and the writing and approval of the report. 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 the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. Tracy City Council shall respond to all of the findings and recommendations contained in this report. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable 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 Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at [email protected] Appendices
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
12 hallazgos
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 [email protected]
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.