San Joaquin County Grand Jury

2013-2014

14 reports

Findings & Recommendations 16 findings
F1: 1 While there are pockets of poverty throughout Stockton, much of it is concentrated in South Stockton where incomes and educational attainment are low.
F2: 1 South Stockton has some of the lowest levels of homeownership in the City. This creates a more transient population and one with less “buy-in” to the community.
F3: 1 The activity of street gangs stems from and exacerbates poverty problems for South Stockton residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 1 By December 31, 2015, the City Council shall begin quarterly public reporting of its results from the Operation Ceasefire and Marshall Plan programs, with emphasis on criminal activities that originate or concentrate in South Stockton.
F4: 1 South Stockton has been neglected and underserved by City government for many years.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: 1 By December 31, 2015, the City resources be allocated on an equitable distribution based on the needs of each City Council district, and the City in its present and future budgets provide the necessary resources to increase the CEO and SPD staff necessary to adequately address the longstanding neglect affecting South Stockton. 3.0 Crime No area of Stockton is without crime problems. In 2012, based on data provided by the City and media reports, the City had a violent crime rate of 782.8 per 100,000 residents, compared to a statewide rate of 332.6 and a nationwide rate of 223.2. Including property crimes, Stockton’s overall crime rate is the highest in the county. Compared to Riverside, a city with a similar population and density, Stockton had a violent crime rate that was more than double. Stockton homicides peaked at 71 in 2012, giving the City a homicide rate of 23.7 per 100,000 residents compared to a national rate of about five. The SPD oversees anti-crime efforts throughout the City. After the City’s economic collapse in 2008, SPD lost more than 100 experienced officers. The trend seems to have abated somewhat, however, layoffs, resignations, and retirements, as well as the difficulties of finding qualified personnel, have reduced the police force significantly in recent years. The SPD is rebuilding, but it will take time. Street gangs are among the major problems faced by the SPD. At least 45 gangs are known to be active in Stockton. Although gang activity can be found citywide, much of it is concentrated in South Stockton. Efforts are being made to address crime with programs such as the Marshall Plan, Operation Ceasefire, and the Blitz program. The Blitz program strategically utilizes City resources within secured neighborhoods for a 90-day period, using code enforcement, SPD, and other City departments aimed to reclaim neighborhoods by addressing blight, crime, and drug activity. However, no area of South Stockton presently has been designated as part of the Blitz program. STAND is working in cooperation with SPD to implement community policing, which is becoming the standard for the City. Community policing involves assigning officers to specific neighborhoods for extended periods.
R4: 1 By September 30, 2015, the City should begin holding a series of public workshop/forums devoted to the needs of South Stockton – as guided by its residents – with the purpose of developing short- and long-term goals to correct the long neglected issues affecting South Stockton.
F1.1: While there are pockets of poverty throughout Stockton, much of it is concentrated in South Stockton where incomes and educational attainment are low.
F1.2: Compared to the rest of the City, South Stockton has few major retail outlets, including major grocery outlets, and only in recent months did a financial institution announce plans to locate a branch in South Stockton.
F1.3: People outside and inside South Stockton perceive the area as being an unsafe place to do business, shop, or live. 2.0 Housing and Code Enforcement About 30 percent of South Stockton residents are homeowners, roughly half the rate for the City as a whole, according to Census Bureau data. Citywide, homeownership is highest among whites, roughly 68 percent, and lowest among African Americans and Hispanics, about 42 percent. More than 60 percent of the South Stockton housing units are rentals. The Code Enforcement Office (CEO) is responsible for enforcing the City’s building codes and abating blight and graffiti. There are fewer than 10 CEO staff members to cover the City. Due to the low number of CEO staff, Code Enforcement staff is limited to responding to complaints and are not able to proactively initiate their independent investigations. There are no plans by the City Manager to add code enforcement staff during the next two budget years. CEO efforts are largely reactive, meaning enforcement officers respond to complaints rather than proactively addressing problems. There are efforts to abate blight by several groups, including STAND, a non-profit organization, working with the SPD and CEO to eradicate blight, slumlords, and to reduce crime and drugs, buying homes, and rehabilitating them for occupancy by low income families. Findings
F2.2: Code enforcement is inadequately staffed to deal with the problems of South Stockton. Enforcement and abatement efforts are reactive rather than proactive.
F2.3: In many cases, South Stockton residents do not report blight, graffiti, and building code violations because they do not believe the City will help, and/or they fear reprisals from their landlord.
F2.4: The City is not aggressively taking proactive steps to remove slumlords from South Stockton.
F2.5: STAND is making contributions to address housing, drug activity, crime, and quality-of-life issues in South Stockton.
F3.1: The activity of street gangs stems from and exacerbates poverty problems for South Stockton residents.
F3.2: Crimes of violence, in recent years soared citywide as policing levels plummeted.
F3.3: In recent months the City has begun to address the problems of crime, but it will take months, possibly years, of effort to rebuild the police force decimated by the City’s bankruptcy.
F4.1: South Stockton has been neglected and underserved by City government for many years.
F4.2: City officials, with some notable exceptions, continue to speak about the problems of South Stockton, but take little action.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: 1 A majority of Stockton City Council Members stated that they disagreed with official responses they had previously approved on August 13, 2013, which raises concerns of whether members read the report and responses.
F2: 1 Over the last four years, almost all responses by the County and the Cities were approved by unanimous votes after little or no discussion by the elected officials or the public. Recommendation
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: 1 All legislative bodies publicly explain the reasons for its response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations prior to voting to approve their response. Conclusion Much of this report addresses the differences between the personal opinions of Stockton City Council Members versus the responses they approved. It is the opinion of the 2013-2014 Grand Jury that this type of discrepancy could be found in responses from the County, other cities, school districts and other special districts. In addition, it is the opinion of the 2013-2014 Grand Jury that this type of discrepancy could be found in decisions other than responses to grand jury reports. The governing body of an agency determines policy for the agency. Staff accomplishes most of the work of the agency. The governing body must rely on its staff to provide timely, accurate and comprehensible materials to them so that they are able to make appropriate decisions. The issues found in this report indicate that some officials rely too much on the work of staff. All members of a governing body, whether elected or appointed, must consider their own beliefs and then ask questions and, when appropriate, state disagreement with the work of their staff. These officials are in their positions to oversee the work of staff, not to accept whatever their staffs propose. Members of governing bodies are elected or appointed to make appropriate decisions while considering the interests of their constituents as well as their personal beliefs. This balance between their own beliefs and what they hear from those whom they represent leads to the best decisions.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: 1 The County-sponsored training for new foster parents is outdated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 1 No later than November 1, 2014, the San Joaquin County HSA is to review and update its training programs for new foster parents as well as its annual training for continuing foster parents to assure relevance, interest to foster parents and a broader breadth of topics.
F2: 1 When social workers do not file a form SOC158A in a timely manner it may result in unrecoverable overpayments to foster parents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: 1 No later than November 1, 2014, the Eligibility Payment Unit and the Children Services is to develop an information sharing and tracking system to identify and hold social workers accountable for submitting timely payment requests. 3.0 Required Monthly Visitations by Social Workers Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations requires every child in foster care to have a scheduled face-to-face visit with the social worker at least monthly. Seventy-five percent of these visits must be at the foster home. The purpose of these visits is to check on the welfare of the child and to insure that there are no problems with the placement in the home. Additional unscheduled visits may occur if a complaint has been made about the foster home or caregivers or if the Social Worker deems it important to assure the child’s welfare. Following each visit the social worker is required to document the monthly visit in the CWS/CMS, which is used statewide in California for child welfare. This data base is used to track visitations of the foster children and verifies eligibility for funding under federal regulations. The federal standard for Timely Monthly Caseworker Visits is 90%. San Joaquin County had a 91.2% overall visitation rate in 2013. This is comparable to other counties in the State based on a review of a State-wide compilation of the SafeMeasures reports. This report provides an array of information based upon data entered into the CWS/CMS. No testimony or materials reviewed indicated that there exists a standardized reporting form or checklist which may be used by the Social Worker during the visit or immediately after. Some social workers just write notes in their car following the visit which they then input into the CWS/CMS as time allows. Recently reported problems with State agencies dealing with child care have shown that a lack of documentation reduces investigative abilities and accountability of social workers charged with protecting youth placed under care. While no such incidents have been revealed in the County, precaution and preventive action may prevent future issues. Findings
F3: 1 There is a lack of immediate detailed documentation of foster care site visits by social workers. This could result in problems in reviewing or investigating the accuracy of information about problems that exist in a foster home.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 1 No later than December 1, 2014, HSA is to develop a standardized form or checklist to be used by social workers following their monthly on site visits with foster children. Conclusion Providing foster care to protect youth who have been abandoned or are from homes that no longer can care for them is an important County service. Just as important is the possibility that these youth will be placed in adoptive homes with parents who will love and care for them. Support for these children is an important role for society, and an organization that gives its best is critical. The Grand Jury’s investigation of the County’s foster care programs administered by the Human Services Agency resulted in mixed findings. The people who work in the foster care program are dedicated to their jobs and helping the youth. As with many governmental agencies, they have been hampered by lack of resources, dated and out- moded tools and administrative procedures that do not place primary focus on their mission. In some areas of the foster care program, such as training for prospective and active foster parents, the private sector does a better job. The County’s foster care program is regulated by a State Agency, the California Community Care Licensing Division, which has repeatedly been shown in news reports to be incapable of serving the at-risk youth of this State. Mandatory training under State regulations is repetitive, boring and often irrelevant. Initiative at the County level to make the foster care and adoptive service process even more supportive, relevant and dedicated to the youth would be a clear sign to the community that County officials really care. The County suffers from its own inertia. Regulations prohibit some administrators from knowing which social workers are behind or failing in their responsibilities. While this results in comparatively small financial impacts on the County, the inability to hold HSA employees accountable for their actions may have an operational impact on the foster families. Repeated changes in social workers assigned to a youth may impact both the child and the parents. The Grand Jury believes that there are relatively easy solutions to these concerns – the HSA administration needs to show resolve to identify, address and correct the problems. The bright side of the Grand Jury’s investigation was the commitment and love shown by the foster parents interviewed. Despite the obstacles placed before them, they care and persevere to give the children supportive home environments. While not practical, the Grand Jury would hope that all foster parents approved in the process could be of the caliber of those met. Children are our society’s future! Foster children deserve no less an opportunity and support than that given to all children. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to all findings and recommendations in this report. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Lesley D. Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email a copy of the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at: [email protected].
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: 1 There is no documentation to verify when and by whom VBM ballots are picked up by ROV staff from the Postal Service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 1 By September 1, 2016, ROV develop written policies and procedures for daily tracking of the VBM ballots picked up at the post office. Tracking should include who picked up the ballots, when they were picked up, how many were received and when they arrived at the ROV office.
F2: 1 The ballots were moved from a secured 24-hour surveillance facility to a less secure location.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: 1 By September 1, 2016, ROV store all ballots and equipment in a secured location with 24-hour surveillance
F1.1: There is no documentation to verify when and by whom VBM ballots are picked up by ROV staff from the Postal Service.
F1.2: The public was not informed for 328 days after election certification about the unusually high number of late ballots from the 2014 Gubernatorial Primary Election, June 3, 2014.
F2.1: The ballots were moved from a secured 24-hour surveillance facility to a less secure location.
F2.2: The warehouse video was not viewable because the system overwrites itself every three to four months.
F2.3: There is no documentation of material and equipment movement between ROV and the storage facilities.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: 1 A number of Reclamation Districts do not have signed contracts for some of their professional services which may affect reimbursement for costs incurred in an emergency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 1 No later than November 1, 2014, the Board of Trustees of each Reclamation District is to review their current legal services contract to assure it contains all services provided by the law firm and that the contract contains all relevant information required under Federal and State laws and regulations to assure reimbursement of permitted costs in the event of an emergency.
F2: 1 Many small Districts are unable to maintain the separation of financial duties that are recommended by generally accepted accounting practices due to their size and lack of financial resources.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: No later than December 31, 2014, all Districts that do not have an adopted annual operating budget are to prepare the framework for an annual budget and utilize it for all subsequent fiscal years. 3.0 Are there more efficient organizations? The County’s Reclamation Districts are small organizations. Only seven of the Districts responding to the survey indicated they have full time employees. Many have part-time employees and a few utilize outside contract employees to perform the work associated with the District. As previously discussed, most do not have administrative staff but instead use their legal firms to provide basic administrative, accounting and financial services. The lack of financial resources is the primary reason for the limited staffing. Twenty-four of the Districts have at least one Trustee with over 20 years of service on the Board. Because of the small populations in most of the Districts, the Grand Jury finds no cause for concern with this length in office. All Districts responded that their Trustees have filed the required Fair Political Practices Commission’s “Statement of Economic Interest” (Form 700). Those Trustees who receive no compensation for service on the Boards are not required to take the training required under AB 1234. Because of the small size of the Districts, the Grand Jury investigated whether consolidation, dissolution or some other action could result in more cost savings and efficiencies. Districts are hesitant to undertake consolidation or other actions. Many have very limited resources and there are costs and other considerations associated with dissolution or other actions. These include: (1) The application/processing fees charged by LAFCo, legal fees to prepare, advertise and adopt the required legal actions; (2) Identifying who will provide the services the District provided, a finding LAFCo is required to make before approving any action; and (3) The potential personal liability of Trustees for either dissolving a District or assuming responsibility for another District where the flood control work has not been kept to standards. There is one small District that had the land filled in creating an island thus eliminating the need for reclamation activities. However, the cost of dissolution (LAFCo charges $10,350 for an application to dissolve a district) and potential residual liability does not make that action attractive to the District’s property owners or Trustees. A District, responding to the survey, indicated that it is dormant and has had no activity for many years. Another District remains as a reclamation district but has no budget or activity. As a result, the District would be eligible for funding should the need arise without the time and expense of being re-established. A third District has been administratively taken over by a larger, independent agency when the reclamation land fell within the new agency’s purview. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (California Government Code Section 56000 et seq.) requires each county LAFCo to conduct a review of the services provided by independent special districts within its jurisdiction. This is known as a Municipal Services Review (MSR). These are for the purpose of identifying and analyzing information about the governance structure and efficiency of these service providers and to identify opportunities to improve the quality, efficiency or cost effectiveness of local services. The law requires an MSR be conducted at least every five years. However, the State guidelines for preparing an MSR were not finalized until August 2003. The San Joaquin LAFCo has not conducted its review of Reclamation Districts. The delay has been the result of staff shortages and limited funding. LAFCo indicated that the review is being scheduled for Fiscal Year 2014-2015. The Grand Jury reviewed the draft survey LAFCo proposes to use for its MSR for Districts. It found the breadth and range of information being requested should allow LAFCo to determine the effectiveness of current District services and to identify areas of potential increased effectiveness. If the MSR recommends consolidation, dissolution or other actions, LAFCo currently has the authority to waive or adjust the processing fees which may make it more feasible for the small Districts. Findings
F3: 1 LAFCo has not conducted the Municipal Services Review for Reclamation Districts in the County due to personnel and financial constraints, limiting objective information on how well Reclamation Districts are performing their mandated services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 1 No later than November 1, 2014, as the agency responsible for addressing Reclamation Districts’ level of services provided, LAFCo is to hold a meeting for all Reclamation Districts in the County to jointly discuss how the Districts can better provide services within current financial constraints.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: 1 A number of Reclamation Districts do not have signed contracts for some of their professional services which may affect reimbursement for costs incurred in an emergency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 1 No later than November 1, 2014, the Board of Trustees of each Reclamation District is to review their current legal services contract to assure it contains all services provided by the law firm and that the contract contains all relevant information required under Federal and State laws and regulations to assure reimbursement of permitted costs in the event of an emergency.
F2: 1 Many small Districts are unable to maintain the separation of financial duties that are recommended by generally accepted accounting practices due to their size and lack of financial resources.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: No later than December 31, 2014, all Districts that do not have an adopted annual operating budget are to prepare the framework for an annual budget and utilize it for all subsequent fiscal years. 3.0 Are there more efficient organizations? The County’s Reclamation Districts are small organizations. Only seven of the Districts responding to the survey indicated they have full time employees. Many have part-time employees and a few utilize outside contract employees to perform the work associated with the District. As previously discussed, most do not have administrative staff but instead use their legal firms to provide basic administrative, accounting and financial services. The lack of financial resources is the primary reason for the limited staffing. Twenty-four of the Districts have at least one Trustee with over 20 years of service on the Board. Because of the small populations in most of the Districts, the Grand Jury finds no cause for concern with this length in office. All Districts responded that their Trustees have filed the required Fair Political Practices Commission’s “Statement of Economic Interest” (Form 700). Those Trustees who receive no compensation for service on the Boards are not required to take the training required under AB 1234. Because of the small size of the Districts, the Grand Jury investigated whether consolidation, dissolution or some other action could result in more cost savings and efficiencies. Districts are hesitant to undertake consolidation or other actions. Many have very limited resources and there are costs and other considerations associated with dissolution or other actions. These include: (1) The application/processing fees charged by LAFCo, legal fees to prepare, advertise and adopt the required legal actions; (2) Identifying who will provide the services the District provided, a finding LAFCo is required to make before approving any action; and (3) The potential personal liability of Trustees for either dissolving a District or assuming responsibility for another District where the flood control work has not been kept to standards. There is one small District that had the land filled in creating an island thus eliminating the need for reclamation activities. However, the cost of dissolution (LAFCo charges $10,350 for an application to dissolve a district) and potential residual liability does not make that action attractive to the District’s property owners or Trustees. A District, responding to the survey, indicated that it is dormant and has had no activity for many years. Another District remains as a reclamation district but has no budget or activity. As a result, the District would be eligible for funding should the need arise without the time and expense of being re-established. A third District has been administratively taken over by a larger, independent agency when the reclamation land fell within the new agency’s purview. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (California Government Code Section 56000 et seq.) requires each county LAFCo to conduct a review of the services provided by independent special districts within its jurisdiction. This is known as a Municipal Services Review (MSR). These are for the purpose of identifying and analyzing information about the governance structure and efficiency of these service providers and to identify opportunities to improve the quality, efficiency or cost effectiveness of local services. The law requires an MSR be conducted at least every five years. However, the State guidelines for preparing an MSR were not finalized until August 2003. The San Joaquin LAFCo has not conducted its review of Reclamation Districts. The delay has been the result of staff shortages and limited funding. LAFCo indicated that the review is being scheduled for Fiscal Year 2014-2015. The Grand Jury reviewed the draft survey LAFCo proposes to use for its MSR for Districts. It found the breadth and range of information being requested should allow LAFCo to determine the effectiveness of current District services and to identify areas of potential increased effectiveness. If the MSR recommends consolidation, dissolution or other actions, LAFCo currently has the authority to waive or adjust the processing fees which may make it more feasible for the small Districts. Findings
F3: 1 LAFCo has not conducted the Municipal Services Review for Reclamation Districts in the County due to personnel and financial constraints, limiting objective information on how well Reclamation Districts are performing their mandated services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 1 No later than November 1, 2014, as the agency responsible for addressing Reclamation Districts’ level of services provided, LAFCo is to hold a meeting for all Reclamation Districts in the County to jointly discuss how the Districts can better provide services within current financial constraints.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: 1 The Mayor knowingly disclosed information regarding selection of Mr. Garcia as City Manager, prior to City Council approval, and based on discussions and actions that had occurred in legal closed sessions of the Stockton City Council. The disclosure occurred without the authorization of the City Council as required by Government Code Section 54963(a).
F2: 1 Overall, the recruitment process for the city manager position was flawed due to a lack of clear leadership and adherence to provisions of the Request for Proposal and recruitment contract.
F3: 1 The Mayor has volunteers working out of the Mayor’s City Hall office with unknown levels of supervision.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: That the City Council adopt an ordinance prior to October 1, 2014, requiring all volunteers working for any City elected official to undergo training through the City’s Human Resources Department and Information Technology Department on the City’s directives related to computer access, e-mails and security and be required to sign an acknowledgement that they understand and will comply with the directives. Conclusion The release of confidential information from closed sessions was persistent throughout the recruitment for Stockton’s city manager position. Even before the City Council interviewed the recruiter’s short list of six candidates, names were known in City Hall and among a limited number of the public. Shortly after the October 10, 2013, Closed Session meeting when the City Council selected two finalists for further consideration, certain members of the public knew what the votes were in the closed session, who the finalists were, and very clearly who the Mayor’s choice was for the city manager position. The people contacting Council Members about who they should vote for have supported Mayor Silva. All of the Council Members were aware of the confidential leak – yet took no steps to address it. While there was no legal requirement for the Council Members to take action, there was an ethical obligation. Are they not as culpable as the Mayor? The Grand Jury believes there is an ongoing culture in Stockton City Hall, among elected and appointed officials and city employees that ignores the need for confidentiality when it suits their personal advantage. Details of closed session labor negotiations are known by employee unions before the next negotiation session. Details of sensitive financial negotiations mysteriously are known by the public and the media. Liability, unfair decisions, financial impacts and public ridicule are all potential results from violations of the Brown Act’s confidentiality requirements. Changing that culture is not something that can be legislated or adjudicated. Change must come from a dedicated commitment from ALL elected officials and city employees. The entire City Council needs to stop pointing fingers and start showing the public that it is serious about confidentiality requirements! The release of confidential information by the Mayor potentially exposed the City to substantial financial liability, subjected the City to ridicule and lowered public confidence in the City’s legislative body. The Grand Jury has no authority to recommend or to take legal action against the Mayor. The Government Code provides no additional criminal or civil judicial redress for the Mayor’s actions. A professionally conducted recruitment of a city manager is a process that works as confirmed by the hundreds of recruitments that occur each year in California and throughout the United States. The Stockton City Council left those on staff with experience in executive recruitment out of the process. It hijacked a professional recruiter’s efforts to the point the recruitment was not effective. Why did the elected officials not leave the details of a matter as important to a community as hiring a city manager to those with experience? The Council’s principal role during a city manager recruitment is the evaluation of the candidates and the selection of a finalist. That role is important enough as the focus of their energy. Any action at this point rests solely with the citizens of the City of Stockton. This is not an issue that can be solved through a legal process, it is a political issue. How much more of these detrimental activities will the citizens of Stockton tolerate? 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). 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. The Stockton City Council shall respond to each Finding and Recommendation 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].
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Not all Community Partners receive complete and timely background information from the California Department of Justice which would enable them to guarantee that all of their employees are legally eligible to work with children. Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By November 1, 2014, Stockton Unified School District is to require all Community Partners to have their own unique contract with the California Department of Justice so that each Community Partner receives fingerprint reports and Subsequent Arrest Notifications. 2.0 Employee Qualifications The California Education Code Section 8483.4 describes the employee qualifications required by the After School and Safety Program grant: "The grant administrator is to establish minimum qualifications for staff members who directly supervise students that meet the district's qualifications for an instructional aide. Documentation that demonstrates this requirement should be maintained for audit purposes." Therefore, employees of the Community Partners who directly work with the students in the after-school program must meet the same qualifications as for instructional aides (paraprofessionals) in the District. The contracts state that the Community Partner, "will only place after-school staff employees at SUSD sites who are NCLB compliant." The NCLB requirements for paraprofessionals are as follows: “1. High school diploma or the equivalent, and Two years of college (48 units), or 2. 3. A. A. Degree (or higher), or Pass a local assessment of knowledge and skills in assisting in instruction." 4. The Grand Jury examined many employee documents and numerous issues were found. One Community Partner did not have any academic documentation for one employee. Another Community Partner hired an individual who had only partially met the local assessment requirement. A Community Partner accepted transcripts from an unaccredited university; hired an applicant with an unevaluated diploma from a foreign college; and accepted transcripts from two individuals even though the documents did not show the students' names. The NCLB requirements are simply stated but can be very complex in certain situations. At least some of the Community Partners do not have the expertise to analyze transcripts. They have not received training to gain this expertise, nor have they been provided assistance from any entity that could enable them to guarantee that college degrees and/or units are valid. District after-school administration also does not possess the necessary skills to validate after-school employee qualifications. Expertise in applying the NCLB requirements is typically found in a district's human resources department. Early in December, a highly publicized conflict occurred between the Stockton Unified School District and Boys and Girls Club of Stockton. During the week of December 9, 2013, the national Boys and Girls Club revoked the charter of the local organization. Soon after, the District invalidated the contract with Boys and Girls Club. Very quickly, the YMCA was contracted to take over the 12 schools formerly served by Boys and Girls Club of Stockton. While attempting to provide jobs for as many of the Boys and Girls Club employees as it could, it was found that eight were not NCLB qualified. In addition, a District administrator audited Boys and Girls Club personnel files and found 18 to 20 employees had not been qualified to work in SUSD after-school programs. Findings
F2: Community Partner administrators do not have expertise in applying the procedures to verify the No Child Left Behind requirements that resulted in unqualified employees working in the after-school programs. Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: By August 1, 2014, Stockton Unified School District is to provide expertise to the Community Partners in applying NCLB requirements through on-going training and/or consultation. 3.0 Auditing of Contracts The current contracts between the District and the Community Partners contain two exhibits that require the Community Partner to certify that their employees meet specific requirements prior to being hired. Exhibit F of the contract requires the Community Partners to certify that the fingerprint requirements are met for all employees. Exhibit G requires the Community Partners to certify that the NCLB requirements are fully met. No evidence was found that the District conducted any audits of the Community Partners prior to January 1, 2014. In 2014, the District did audit Boys and Girls Club of Stockton and found numerous examples of their employees not meeting the NCLB requirements. The Grand Jury investigation also found numerous examples of employees not meeting NCLB requirements or the Community Partner not reviewing DOJ reports. Given the extent of issues found during the Grand Jury investigation, it appears that greater monitoring is needed. Findings
F3: 1 Some of the Community Partners included in the investigation allowed employees to work with students without having reviewed DOJ reports. As a result, the District was potentially exposed to liability and students were potentially endangered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 1 No later than December 31, 2014, and not less than annually thereafter, the Stockton Unified School District is to audit the hiring practices of its Community Partners to determine whether they have received and reviewed Department of Justice reports prior to placing personnel in Stockton Unified School District schools.
F4: The District's exclusion of the word "and" at the end of #1 and the word "or" at the end of #2 in contract language found in Exhibit G allows these requirements to be interpreted differently than intended and may lead applicants to believe that they meet NCLB requirements when they do not. Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: By September 1, 2014, the Stockton Unified School District is to modify the contract language of Exhibit G so that it is identical to the actual NCLB qualifications. Conclusion Since 2004 when the Stockton Unified School District after-school programs began to provide a more academic program, the quality of services to children has greatly improved. The programs have expanded and serve more students. The Community Partners strive to place the best individuals in schools to work with students but are faced with many challenges. The jobs are low-paying, many of the employees are students themselves and there is a very high rate of turnover. This creates impediments, particularly in the areas of hiring and training of personnel. It is imperative that these challenges be met as the safety of students and the quality of instruction are at stake. During interviews with Community Partners and with District administrators there appears to be a willingness to address these critical issues. The Grand Jury expects this will happen. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days. The Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees shall respond to each Finding and Recommendation contained in this report. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Lesley D. Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email a copy of the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at: [email protected]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendicies
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F1: 1 District HR being left out of the hiring process of the Interim Chief and Captain caused confusion thus the pre-employment requirements for the positions were not met.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 1 The District Board is to develop and implement a policy/procedure no later than November 1, 2014 to insure the District HR is involved in the hiring process of police personnel to properly vet the applicant according to the current state law and district board policy.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: City staff provided inaccurate and incomplete information to the City Council which could jeopardize the eligibility for the City receiving future grants. Recommendation
Related Recommendations (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.
Related Recommendations (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
Related Recommendations (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
Related Recommendations (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
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office is in compliance with the California Code of Regulations Title 15, Section 1073.
F2: The inmate was made aware of the Grievance Policies and Procedures. All 31 grievances were resolved or found by the SO not to be valid Title 15 grievances. Conclusion This investigation afforded the Grand Jury the opportunity to look at a specific application of policies and procedures by the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office. Grievances are part of the checks and balances for the well-being of the inmates housed in the Jail. Sometimes the grievance system is abused. The California Code of Regulations Title 15, Section 1073(b) allows the SO to establish written policies and procedures to control the submission of repetitive grievances. Those safeguards against abuse of the grievance system are written in the San Joaquin County Jail’s policy. The policies and procedures maintain that the grievance procedure is necessary for maintaining security, safety and order in the San Joaquin County Jail. This is a part of interpersonal communications and provides a positive means of communication between inmates, staff and management. It allows inmates to vent frustrations in a diplomatic manner rather than through some other means, which could jeopardize or threaten the security and safety of the officers, inmates and the jail. The San Joaquin County Jail did not restrict the inmate’s opportunity to file grievances. 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 Section 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 recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 60 days of receipt of the report. The San Joaquin County Sheriff shall respond to each findings 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]

* 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.