San Joaquin County Grand Jury

2015-2016

8 reports

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: The Board of Supervisors response to F1.1 stated that the Public Defender's Office does not have the personnel to track whether every defendant has paid. Defendants have no incentive to pay, and there are no consequences for non-payment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 1 By September 1. 2016 the Board of Supervisors conduct a feasibility study to determine if the county can support a Chief Financial Evaluation Officer or designee to vet defendants' ability to pay, and track and collect public defender fees. Agency Response: "This recommendation was implemented by County staff. As stated above, to vet defendants' ability to pay, track and collect public defender fees would be costly and ineffective due to most indigent client's modest income to no means. The ability to pay assessment to determine if defendants are able to pay the registration/flat fee can be conducted by the Court, using the Pretrial Services information and any follow up with the defendant in court. Fees can be collected at the Public Defender's Office and tracked by the Defender's fiscal staff." The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action required.
F1.1: There are no established policies or procedures to assess indigent defen dants' ability to reimburse the Public Defender's Office for court appointed counsel. Agency Response: "Disagree. There is a policy and procedure to assess fees. In March of 2010, the Department requested, and the Board of Supervisors approved R-10-95, which permitted San Joaquin County courts to assess a registration fee of up to $50 upon appointment of counsel pursuant to Penal Code section 987.5(a.) The assessed fee was to be paid at the Office of Revenue and Recovery, a division of the Treasurer-Tax Collector. A survey of other counties' procedures and policies also lead our Department to the generation of a flat fee, rather than an hourly rate. In August 2010, a letter was sent to each judge, commissioner and court personnel requesting that the court assess a flat fee of $125 for a misdemeanor case and $175 for a felony case to every defendant who had the ability to pay. This amount included the registration fee pursuant to Penal Code section 987.5(d.) The location for payment was modified after it was determined that all fees paid by defendants for public defender services to the Office of Revenue and Recovery were to be applied to all other balances first to other county agencies before being credited to the department of the Public Defender. Other counties have also experienced this issue. For this reason, the court was notified that the location of payment was changed to the Public Defender's Office. This procedure continued for a period of time until the court gradually stopped informing and assessing defendant's registration fee or the flat fee. It is the intention of this Department to immediately resume the procedure by requesting that the court assess and order the indigent defendants to pay the flat fee of $125 for a misdemeanor and $175 for a felony to each client. The flat fee of $50 would be payable at the Public Defender's Office. The money collected would be tracked by the Public Defender’s fiscal staff. The Public Defender’s Office does not have the personnel to track whether every defendant has paid. The Department will monitor the ongoing assessment of the fee through the Courts."
F1.2: There is no communication and oversight among the Public Defender's Office, the County Administrator's office and the Courts for the collection of the fees assessed to the indigent defendants. Agency response: "Disagree. As stated in Response to F1.1 above, the Public Defender's Office established policies and procedures in 2010 to assess and collect fees from indigent defendants, which had also been communicated to the San Joaquin County Superior Court. The Department intends to resume such procedure by September1, 2016. In addition, County Administration reached out to other County departments to determine if a coordinated effort between several departments might make a County Evaluator position more effective. In short, the answer is no, primarily due to the differences in eligibility and the Department' ability to provide services and payment plans based upon existing legislation."
F1.3: Financial information required to determine indigence in the County is not being verified. Agency Response: "Disagree. Financial information, which includes household income, assets, (real estate, vehicles, money in the bank) and debts, is currently obtained from the majority of defendants in custody, during a Pretrial Services Interview conducted by the Pretrial Services Unit, a branch of the San Joaquin County Probation Department. At that interview, the defendant are told that the information reported will be shared with the court to determine eligibility for pretrial release. A defendant has an incentive to disclose employment and asset information, as those are evidence of stability and support a pretrial release. Penal Code section 987.8 states that the court can order a defendant to appear before a county officer to make inquiry into the ability to pay all or a portion of legal assistance, impose liens, preside over noticed hearing to determine ability to pay and set amounts to be reimbursed and order the sum reasonable and compatible with the defendant's financial ability. Penal Code section 987.8(e) outlines the defendant's rights at a hearing. This process requires additional court appearances. According to the Assistant Treasurer-Tax Collector, a position comparable to a County Evaluation Officer within San Joaquin County is a Senior Collection Clerk, which has a total cost of $82,491 per year and the total cost of a Collections Supervisor is $95,254 per year. It is anticipated that the County would need to hire six Senior Collections Clerks and one Collections Supervisor to staff San Joaquin County three courthouses (Stockton, Lodi and Manteca). In addition, the Office of Revenue and Recovery states that they would charge our Department their hourly rate to track down delinquent payments. It would also be ineffective to vet financial information through these positions. The majority of defendants appointed to the public defender's office have low to no income, outside of public assistance. It is anticipated that the majority (estimated at over 80%) of defendants would be financially unable to pay more than the flat fee that our Department has previously implemented. In addition, the majority of defendants accused of felony charges that remain in custody have lost any job that they may have had. A flat fee has greater likelihood of being recovered, eliminates the need for county officers and ability to pay hearings and is an equitable cost for indigent defendants. At the completion of the defendant's case, the Court will be asked to access the full $125 or $175, minus the $50 registration fee, payable to the Public Defender's Office."
Findings & Recommendations 17 findings
F1: l The Board approved the purchase of 31 new school buses without proper analysis. Agency Response: “The Board disagrees with this finding …. The Board’s June 2013 decision to purchase the 31 busses was based on facts and analysis available at the time of the decision, and only after receiving information from staff on the costs related thereto. This further affirms the District’s experience and due diligence in managing transportation to benefit the needs of our students.”
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 Mokelumne Rural Fire District operated in a fiscally irresponsible manner. Mokelumne Rural Fire District Response: “MRFD agrees with this Finding, in part. The former Administrative Assistant was allowed to have purchasing power on behalf of the District, (including use of a District credit card) and was the primary person responsible for the day-to-day handling of the District’s finances. This individual made improper, personal purchases, and was terminated and formally charged with theft of public funds. “The District has implemented stringent purchasing procedures… “The District disagrees with the Finding that the District spent $8,000.00 on ‘Life Lock’ (sic) services for employees potentially affected by the embezzlement activities of the former Administrative Assistant. The funds were $4,120.00 for coverage for 9 full-time employees and their dependents.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: 1 By September 1, 2016, ROV store all ballots and equipment in a secured location with 24-hour surveillance
F3: 1 The Grand Jury found that the subject of consolidation has been considered by LAFCo and some of the rural fire districts. LAFCo Response: “Agree. This finding is consistent with the Municipal Service Review for the Rural Fire Protection Districts in San Joaquin County adopted by the Commission in December 2011.”
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: 1 The County should use Lodi’s efforts as a framework to start the strategic planning process.
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.” Agency Response: “The respondent agrees with this recommendation. While multiple public workshops, forums and surveys have been conducted recently in South Stockton, this community engagement activity will continue. This recommendation will be carried out through the South Stockton Promise Zone implementation efforts for which the City Council allocated $100,000 in the current budget. A recommendation for using this $100,000, which includes community 125 engagement, strategic planning and implementation, is currently being developed for Council consideration.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury determined no further action required. 2014-2015
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. 17
F1.3: Financial information required to determine indigence in the County is not being verified. 28
F1.4: The scope of the problem is compounded by a lack of accurate and comparable data.
F1.5: “Administrators have been spending inordinate amounts of time dealing with issues involving trustees, making it difficult for them to complete necessary District work.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this finding.” 129 2.0 Fact: Dramatically escalating legal costs
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.
F3.1: The City of Lodi along with private individuals and agencies have taken encouraging steps to address the homeless issue. The success Lodi has achieved can be attributed to the coordinated efforts of public agencies, non-profit groups and churches (see Appendix 2).
F3.2: The County’s “2010-2015 Consolidated Plan” listed seven “Weaknesses in Organizational Structure” to address the homeless population and actions necessary to eliminate those weaknesses. The County’s “2015-2019 Consolidated Plan” provided no evidenced the issues were addressed.
F3.3: “The independent, full-time position of Safety Program Manager has been vacant since May 2013 and the decision to fill the position on an interim basis with the Deputy Director of Wastewater caused some employees to perceive it to be a conflict of interest.” Agency Response: “The City of Stockton disagrees with this finding. The Department does not have a position of Safety Program Manager in its workforce. Currently, the only full-time position allocated to the Department's safety program is the Occupational Health and Safety Specialist that was vacated in 2013. MUD is pursuing an immediate recruitment of the Occupational Health and Safety Specialist position and intends to have this position filled in the current 2015-2016 fiscal year. For the past two years, the Deputy Director of Wastewater, an expert in the safety field, has been assigned these duties. In addition, the entire safety program for the Department was evaluated in 2014 and a new program developed with expert consultant support under the view and support of the City's Risk Management Division and Cal/OSHA staff. The MUD will continue with consultant services in 2015-16 to develop policies and evaluate the ongoing need for a Safety and Training Program Manager position in future years as the policies are available for the manager to implement.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury determined no further action is required.
F3.4: “Complaints regarding safety concerns have often been filed directly to Cal/OSHA by MUD employees intimating a lack of trust in management personnel to solve issues.” Agency Response: “The City of Stockton disagrees partially with this finding. Staff may contact their direct supervisor, union representative, manager, employee Safety Committee, Deputy Director, Director, the City's Risk Management Division and the City Manager's Office regarding safety concerns. It is also the prerogative of any MUD employee to contact Cal/OSHA at any time if he or she feels they have a safety concern in the workplace so that an employee need not only address their concerns with MUD management. Over the past few years, many staff safety concerns have been brought to the attention of management staff, safety committee and addressed accordingly. Therefore, the City of Stockton disagrees with the part of the finding holding that there is or was a lack of trust in MUD management to solve such issues. This has been a cooperative effort between staff, the Department's Safety Committee and management. As a result, millions of dollars have been spent on staff safety training and infrastructure improvements throughout all the divisions and department-wide to address concerns and improve safety for all employees. “MUD has developed a Safety Program Manual that identifies a total of 25 Program Elements, seven of which have been completed with four in draft form as of the date of this letter. These Program Elements are developed by NES, Inc., reviewed by the Safety Committee and signed by the assigned manager, Safety Committee Chairperson and the Director of MUD prior to distribution to a total of 37 control copy binders throughout the Department. Once the Program Element has been issued, training is then conducted specific to the Program Element. Specific changes are being developed to address concerns and being implemented.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. 115
F4.1: “Board by-laws Sections 9000, 9005, 9010, and 9011 were violated by the Board members as described in this report.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this Finding.”
F4.2: “By-law changes dealing with the Board were added or updated as a result of Board member behavior.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this Finding.” 131 Conclusion The 2015-2016 Grand Jury believes the District has substantially complied with the
Findings & Recommendations 18 findings
F1: l The Board approved the purchase of 31 new school buses without proper analysis. Agency Response: “The Board disagrees with this finding …. The Board’s June 2013 decision to purchase the 31 busses was based on facts and analysis available at the time of the decision, and only after receiving information from staff on the costs related thereto. This further affirms the District’s experience and due diligence in managing transportation to benefit the needs of our students.”
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 Mokelumne Rural Fire District operated in a fiscally irresponsible manner. Mokelumne Rural Fire District Response: “MRFD agrees with this Finding, in part. The former Administrative Assistant was allowed to have purchasing power on behalf of the District, (including use of a District credit card) and was the primary person responsible for the day-to-day handling of the District’s finances. This individual made improper, personal purchases, and was terminated and formally charged with theft of public funds. “The District has implemented stringent purchasing procedures… “The District disagrees with the Finding that the District spent $8,000.00 on ‘Life Lock’ (sic) services for employees potentially affected by the embezzlement activities of the former Administrative Assistant. The funds were $4,120.00 for coverage for 9 full-time employees and their dependents.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: 1 By September 1, 2016, ROV store all ballots and equipment in a secured location with 24-hour surveillance
F3: 1 The Grand Jury found that the subject of consolidation has been considered by LAFCo and some of the rural fire districts. LAFCo Response: “Agree. This finding is consistent with the Municipal Service Review for the Rural Fire Protection Districts in San Joaquin County adopted by the Commission in December 2011.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 1 The County should use Lodi’s efforts as a framework to start the strategic planning process.
F4: 1 “Board by-laws Sections 9000, 9005, 9010, and 9011 were violated by the Board members as described in this report.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this Finding.”
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. 17
F1.3: Financial information required to determine indigence in the County is not being verified. 28
F1.4: The scope of the problem is compounded by a lack of accurate and comparable data.
F1.5: “Administrators have been spending inordinate amounts of time dealing with issues involving trustees, making it difficult for them to complete necessary District work.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this finding.” 129 2.0 Fact: Dramatically escalating legal costs
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.
F3.1: The City of Lodi along with private individuals and agencies have taken encouraging steps to address the homeless issue. The success Lodi has achieved can be attributed to the coordinated efforts of public agencies, non-profit groups and churches (see Appendix 2).
F3.2: The County’s “2010-2015 Consolidated Plan” listed seven “Weaknesses in Organizational Structure” to address the homeless population and actions necessary to eliminate those weaknesses. The County’s “2015-2019 Consolidated Plan” provided no evidenced the issues were addressed.
F3.3: “The independent, full-time position of Safety Program Manager has been vacant since May 2013 and the decision to fill the position on an interim basis with the Deputy Director of Wastewater caused some employees to perceive it to be a conflict of interest.” Agency Response: “The City of Stockton disagrees with this finding. The Department does not have a position of Safety Program Manager in its workforce. Currently, the only full-time position allocated to the Department's safety program is the Occupational Health and Safety Specialist that was vacated in 2013. MUD is pursuing an immediate recruitment of the Occupational Health and Safety Specialist position and intends to have this position filled in the current 2015-2016 fiscal year. For the past two years, the Deputy Director of Wastewater, an expert in the safety field, has been assigned these duties. In addition, the entire safety program for the Department was evaluated in 2014 and a new program developed with expert consultant support under the view and support of the City's Risk Management Division and Cal/OSHA staff. The MUD will continue with consultant services in 2015-16 to develop policies and evaluate the ongoing need for a Safety and Training Program Manager position in future years as the policies are available for the manager to implement.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury determined no further action is required.
F3.4: “Complaints regarding safety concerns have often been filed directly to Cal/OSHA by MUD employees intimating a lack of trust in management personnel to solve issues.” Agency Response: “The City of Stockton disagrees partially with this finding. Staff may contact their direct supervisor, union representative, manager, employee Safety Committee, Deputy Director, Director, the City's Risk Management Division and the City Manager's Office regarding safety concerns. It is also the prerogative of any MUD employee to contact Cal/OSHA at any time if he or she feels they have a safety concern in the workplace so that an employee need not only address their concerns with MUD management. Over the past few years, many staff safety concerns have been brought to the attention of management staff, safety committee and addressed accordingly. Therefore, the City of Stockton disagrees with the part of the finding holding that there is or was a lack of trust in MUD management to solve such issues. This has been a cooperative effort between staff, the Department's Safety Committee and management. As a result, millions of dollars have been spent on staff safety training and infrastructure improvements throughout all the divisions and department-wide to address concerns and improve safety for all employees. “MUD has developed a Safety Program Manual that identifies a total of 25 Program Elements, seven of which have been completed with four in draft form as of the date of this letter. These Program Elements are developed by NES, Inc., reviewed by the Safety Committee and signed by the assigned manager, Safety Committee Chairperson and the Director of MUD prior to distribution to a total of 37 control copy binders throughout the Department. Once the Program Element has been issued, training is then conducted specific to the Program Element. Specific changes are being developed to address concerns and being implemented.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. 115
F4.1: “Board by-laws Sections 9000, 9005, 9010, and 9011 were violated by the Board members as described in this report.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this Finding.”
F4.2: “By-law changes dealing with the Board were added or updated as a result of Board member behavior.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this Finding.” 131 Conclusion The 2015-2016 Grand Jury believes the District has substantially complied with the
Findings & Recommendations 17 findings
F1: l The Board approved the purchase of 31 new school buses without proper analysis. Agency Response: “The Board disagrees with this finding …. The Board’s June 2013 decision to purchase the 31 busses was based on facts and analysis available at the time of the decision, and only after receiving information from staff on the costs related thereto. This further affirms the District’s experience and due diligence in managing transportation to benefit the needs of our students.”
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 Mokelumne Rural Fire District operated in a fiscally irresponsible manner. Mokelumne Rural Fire District Response: “MRFD agrees with this Finding, in part. The former Administrative Assistant was allowed to have purchasing power on behalf of the District, (including use of a District credit card) and was the primary person responsible for the day-to-day handling of the District’s finances. This individual made improper, personal purchases, and was terminated and formally charged with theft of public funds. “The District has implemented stringent purchasing procedures… “The District disagrees with the Finding that the District spent $8,000.00 on ‘Life Lock’ (sic) services for employees potentially affected by the embezzlement activities of the former Administrative Assistant. The funds were $4,120.00 for coverage for 9 full-time employees and their dependents.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: 1 By September 1, 2016, ROV store all ballots and equipment in a secured location with 24-hour surveillance
F3: 1 The Grand Jury found that the subject of consolidation has been considered by LAFCo and some of the rural fire districts. LAFCo Response: “Agree. This finding is consistent with the Municipal Service Review for the Rural Fire Protection Districts in San Joaquin County adopted by the Commission in December 2011.”
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: 1 The County should use Lodi’s efforts as a framework to start the strategic planning process.
R4: Convene and create a permanent "coordinating committee" of the local agencies that are providing services to the homeless. Use the talents and resources of these various groups to coordinate services (especially emergency food and shelter), focus on strengths, share resources and behave collaboratively. Continue the "homeless fairs" conducted every Friday at the Salvation Army's "Hope Harbor" facility; at these "fairs" homeless individuals can improve their personal hygiene with showers, haircuts, etc. On the fourth Friday of each month, representatives of different social service agencies, including medical and mental health services, are available on site to provide information about their services and to schedule follow-up appointments for those seeking assistance. In addition, representatives from local financial institutions, EDD and Job Corps will participate.
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. 17
F1.3: Financial information required to determine indigence in the County is not being verified. 28
F1.4: The scope of the problem is compounded by a lack of accurate and comparable data.
F1.5: “Administrators have been spending inordinate amounts of time dealing with issues involving trustees, making it difficult for them to complete necessary District work.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this finding.” 129 2.0 Fact: Dramatically escalating legal costs
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.
F3.1: The City of Lodi along with private individuals and agencies have taken encouraging steps to address the homeless issue. The success Lodi has achieved can be attributed to the coordinated efforts of public agencies, non-profit groups and churches (see Appendix 2).
F3.2: The County’s “2010-2015 Consolidated Plan” listed seven “Weaknesses in Organizational Structure” to address the homeless population and actions necessary to eliminate those weaknesses. The County’s “2015-2019 Consolidated Plan” provided no evidenced the issues were addressed.
F3.3: “The independent, full-time position of Safety Program Manager has been vacant since May 2013 and the decision to fill the position on an interim basis with the Deputy Director of Wastewater caused some employees to perceive it to be a conflict of interest.” Agency Response: “The City of Stockton disagrees with this finding. The Department does not have a position of Safety Program Manager in its workforce. Currently, the only full-time position allocated to the Department's safety program is the Occupational Health and Safety Specialist that was vacated in 2013. MUD is pursuing an immediate recruitment of the Occupational Health and Safety Specialist position and intends to have this position filled in the current 2015-2016 fiscal year. For the past two years, the Deputy Director of Wastewater, an expert in the safety field, has been assigned these duties. In addition, the entire safety program for the Department was evaluated in 2014 and a new program developed with expert consultant support under the view and support of the City's Risk Management Division and Cal/OSHA staff. The MUD will continue with consultant services in 2015-16 to develop policies and evaluate the ongoing need for a Safety and Training Program Manager position in future years as the policies are available for the manager to implement.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury determined no further action is required.
F3.4: “Complaints regarding safety concerns have often been filed directly to Cal/OSHA by MUD employees intimating a lack of trust in management personnel to solve issues.” Agency Response: “The City of Stockton disagrees partially with this finding. Staff may contact their direct supervisor, union representative, manager, employee Safety Committee, Deputy Director, Director, the City's Risk Management Division and the City Manager's Office regarding safety concerns. It is also the prerogative of any MUD employee to contact Cal/OSHA at any time if he or she feels they have a safety concern in the workplace so that an employee need not only address their concerns with MUD management. Over the past few years, many staff safety concerns have been brought to the attention of management staff, safety committee and addressed accordingly. Therefore, the City of Stockton disagrees with the part of the finding holding that there is or was a lack of trust in MUD management to solve such issues. This has been a cooperative effort between staff, the Department's Safety Committee and management. As a result, millions of dollars have been spent on staff safety training and infrastructure improvements throughout all the divisions and department-wide to address concerns and improve safety for all employees. “MUD has developed a Safety Program Manual that identifies a total of 25 Program Elements, seven of which have been completed with four in draft form as of the date of this letter. These Program Elements are developed by NES, Inc., reviewed by the Safety Committee and signed by the assigned manager, Safety Committee Chairperson and the Director of MUD prior to distribution to a total of 37 control copy binders throughout the Department. Once the Program Element has been issued, training is then conducted specific to the Program Element. Specific changes are being developed to address concerns and being implemented.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. 115
F4.1: “Board by-laws Sections 9000, 9005, 9010, and 9011 were violated by the Board members as described in this report.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this Finding.”
F4.2: “By-law changes dealing with the Board were added or updated as a result of Board member behavior.” Agency Response: “The District accepts this Finding.” 131 Conclusion The 2015-2016 Grand Jury believes the District has substantially complied with the
Additional Recommendations 8

Not linked to specific findings.

R6: Consider the implementation of the "Downtown Street Team" program currently working in San Jose. This program employs homeless people to conduct basic maintenance and beautification projects in downtown areas. Develop a resource guide for property owners that defines nuisance behavior and how to respond to such behavior. Develop a corresponding resource guide for homeless individuals which defines legal and illegal behavior.
R8: Continue to encourage the cooperation of private community groups to consolidate that mid-day meal at the Salvation Army. Local groups that want to help should be on the same page and agree to provide meals in locations that promote and reward appropriate behavior. We wish to acknowledge Rev. David Hill and members of Grace Presbyterian Church for their understanding, cooperation and leadership in this effort.
R9: Secure and/or re-allocate City resources to provide LPD bike patrols for Lodi's downtown area after 4 pm. While homeless persons are certainly present in the downtown area, they are only responsible for approximately 40% of the nuisance behavior; the so-called "drunk 20s" are responsible for the remaining 60%. Encourage local faith communities to "adopt" a homeless individual and/or family, providing housing assistance while the individual finds work, enrolls in school, receives treatment for medical/mental health conditions, etc. We are aware of at least one local church, Bear Creek Community Church under the leadership of Rev. Bill Cummins, has made and implemented this commitment. This strategy is similar to that used after the end of the Vietnam War when refugee families were "sponsored" by faith communities as they assimilated into American society.
R11: Initiate an educational campaign to help local community groups, faith communities and others understand how they can channel their compassion for the homeless in ways that effectively contribute to their long term health and safety. As this reports indicates, not all help is helpful, but it is welcomed and appreciated if delivered with more focused intent. Such an educational campaign would also help to dispel some of the misinformation that is expressed about homeless people.
R12: To discourage the homeless, as well as others who are not homeless, from hanging out in the downtown area, place signs that discourage "aggressive" and illegal panhandling" from local residents, tourists and business patrons. Consider placing "parking meters" to collect funds from those who would like to help out, but need a mechanism that guarantees funds are received and allocated to agencies that can do the most good. In addition, place signs that indicate the locations of public restrooms.
R13: Organize neighborhood "block walks" that check on and discourage homeless individuals who are sleeping in inappropriate areas and causing a public safety hazard. This effort could be done in conjunction with the "safe neighborhoods" initiative sponsored by the LPD. Provide neighborhood groups with resource guides by which to direct the people they encounter to local resources. Explore how such block walks could be coordinated with National Night Out.
R14: Insist on agency collaboration in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) process to insure that the highest priority needs receive greater consideration than individual agency requests. We would like to see greater agreement and commitment to a more substantial "big picture" objective than the awarding of smaller grants that tend to achieve short term objectives, but do not build long term sustainability.
R15: Encourage the LPD and local service providers to sensitively gather information about the homeless people with whom they interact; find out who they are, where they came from, where they intend to go, and how they can receive services to help them. The more we know about this population, which we tend to paint with a very broad brush, the more effectively we can respond. AND CONTRACTOR OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY B. Longer Term Strategies and Actions The following is a list describing a number of strategies and actions that can be implemented over a longer period of time, probably anywhere between three to five years. Many of them will require a level of cooperation and collaboration with service providers located in Stockton and/or affiliated with the San Joaquin County. The county's Department of Mental Health and the District Attorney's office are now included as members of the leadership group that is shepherding this entire project, which is an excellent sign of commitment to seriously address the homeless issue.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: 1 There are no established policies or procedures to assess indigent defendants’ ability to reimburse the Public Defender’s Office for court appointed counsel. F1.2 There is no communication and oversight among the Public Defender’s Office, the County Administrator’s Office and the Courts for the collection of the fees assessed to the indigent defendants. F1.3 Financial information required to determine indigence in the County is not being verified. Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 2 By December 31, 2016 the Board of Supervisors develop policies and procedures to vet defendants, track and collect fees due the county from the indigent defendants for court appointed counsel.
F1.2: There is no communication and oversight among the Public Defender’s Office, the County Administrator’s Office and the Courts for the collection of the fees assessed to the indigent defendants.
F1.3: Financial information required to determine indigence in the County is not being verified.
Findings & Recommendations 11 findings
F1: San Joaquin County’s “Homeless Prevention Plan” 2. “Homelessness in Lodi; Current Conditions, Challenges and Recommended Strategies; Committee on Homelessness (September 2015) 9 Appendix 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 Appendix 2 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: 1 By Jan. 1, 2017, the County develop and implement a strategic plan to address homelessness in San Joaquin County that includes measureable long- and short-term goals and objectives with an established timeline and an annual evaluation process. Beds in a day room at the Stockton Shelter for the Homeless. 2.0 Coordination of County departments/agencies Homelessness is a complex problem requiring coordination, cooperation and communication among multiple departments within the County’s organizational structure. These include but are not limited to the Sheriff, District Attorney, Health Care Services, Human Services, Employment and Economic Department, Housing Authority and Community Development. Upper management/department heads need to be the leaders in this effort to improve coordination, cooperation and communication. Through the course of the investigation it became apparent that there was a lack of communication among the various County agencies to address the issue of homelessness; because the issue is everyone’s responsibility, it is nobody’s responsibility. The Board of Supervisors has taken some initial steps to form a task force to address homelessness. The process is still in its infancy and at this time there is no overarching leadership within the County. Funding this effort may require reprioritizing and reallocating existing resources.
F2: 1 Departments within the County’s organizational structure have no consistent or focused strategies to work together in addressing homelessness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: 1 By Jan. 1, 2017, the Board of Supervisors should appoint one individual within County government to oversee all matters related to homelessness reporting directly to the County Administrator. That person needs the authority and resources to bring together the necessary entities to develop and implement the County’s Strategic Plan on Homelessness.
F3: 1 The City of Lodi along with private individuals and agencies have taken encouraging steps to address the homeless issue. The success Lodi has achieved can be attributed to the coordinated efforts of public agencies, non-profit groups and churches (see Appendix 2).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 1 The County should use Lodi’s efforts as a framework to start the strategic planning process.
F1.1: The Consolidated Plan does not contain a clearly defined strategic plan to address homelessness. It does reference a “Homeless Prevention Plan.” (see Appendix 1).
F1.2: County staff members responsible for addressing homeless programs were not involved in the creation of the Consolidated Plan and have limited working knowledge of the report. Some statements in the Plan, i.e. expanding of the number of beds available, are not substantiated.
F1.3: No upper management County staff member is involved with the “Community Coalition on Homelessness Interagency Council.”
F1.4: The scope of the problem is compounded by a lack of accurate and comparable data.
F2.1: Departments within the County’s organizational structure have no consistent or focused strategies to work together in addressing homelessness.
F2.2: There is no lead County department or agency coordinating efforts directed toward the homeless. 6
F3.1: The City of Lodi along with private individuals and agencies have taken encouraging steps to address the homeless issue. The success Lodi has achieved can be attributed to the coordinated efforts of public agencies, non-profit groups and churches (see Appendix 2).
F3.2: The County’s “2010-2015 Consolidated Plan” listed seven “Weaknesses in Organizational Structure” to address the homeless population and actions necessary to eliminate those weaknesses. The County’s “2015-2019 Consolidated Plan” provided no evidenced the issues were addressed.
Findings & Recommendations 19 findings
F1: MUSD By-law 9000 b "Role of the Board"
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: 1 By September 30, 2015 a policy should be adopted by the MUSD Board of Trustees to accomplish the following: When a Board member or an administrator becomes aware of any improper behavior by any Board member, it will be immediately shared with the Superintendent and all Board members.
R7: S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . world To V---- San . BYLAW NO. 9000 (a) MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ROLE OF THE BOARD The Governing Board has been elected by the community to provide leadership and citizen oversight of the District. The Board shall ensure that the District is responsive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of the community. The Board shall work with the Superintendent to fulfill its major responsibilities, which include: 1) Setting the direction for the District through a process that involves the community parents/guardians, students, and staff and is focused on student learning and achievement. Establishing an effective and efficient organizational structure for the District by: 2)
F2: MUSD By-law 9005 "Governance Standards"
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: MUSD By-law 9005 "Governance Standards"
F3: MUSD By-law 9010 "Public Statements" MUSD By-law 9011 "Disclosure of Confidential/Privileged Information"
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: 1 Newly elected Board members are strongly urged to participate in new board training offered by CSBA or other organizations
R4: MUSD By-law 9012 a "Board Member Electronic Communications"
F4: 1 Board by-laws Sections 9000, 9005, 9010, and 9011 were violated by the Board members as described in this report. F4.2 By-laws changes dealing with the Board were added or updated as a result of Board member behavior Conclusion The Grand Jury found that inappropriate and disrespectful behavior by Board members has been the greatest challenge for Manteca Unified School District in many years. Disrespect for each other, for employees, and for community members has created a toxic climate. Additionally, administrators at all levels have been pressured to cut corners and ignore important policies and procedures, leading some to question their judgment. As a result, some employees are actively seeking work elsewhere. In the past Manteca Unified School District has generally served its students successfully. However, that effort may be jeopardized by the exceedingly disturbing actions described in this report. These actions must stop. If they are not stopped, the District risks further undermining its credibility with the community it serves and also risks losing some of the people who have been responsible for the District's successes. Both would severely stymie District progress. School boards have been in existence for centuries, and have a rich tradition of serving as upholders of the beliefs and values of the community they represent. Roles and responsibilities are part of that tradition. When school board members operate with respect for their appropriate roles and responsibilities, education can be strong, and great things can happen, especially for students. When Board members and administrators ignore agreed upon rules and policies, it can be as damaging as breaking the law. If trustees behave inappropriately with no regard or respect for established norms, the educational system can be seriously damaged, harming taxpayers, employees and, most importantly, students. 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
F5: MUSD By-law 9210 "Qualifications"
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: MUSD By-law 9210 "Qualifications"
F6: MUSD By-law 9222 "Removal"
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: MUSD By-law 9222 "Removal"
F7: S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . world To V---- San . BYLAW NO. 9000 (a) MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ROLE OF THE BOARD The Governing Board has been elected by the community to provide leadership and citizen oversight of the District. The Board shall ensure that the District is responsive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of the community. The Board shall work with the Superintendent to fulfill its major responsibilities, which include: 1) Setting the direction for the District through a process that involves the community parents/guardians, students, and staff and is focused on student learning and achievement. Establishing an effective and efficient organizational structure for the District by: 2)
F8: deliberations. LEGAL REFERENCE Education Code 35010 Power of governing board to adopt rules for its own governance 35160 Board authority to act in any manner not conflicting with law 35164 Actions by majority vote Government Code Financial interest in contract 1090 Disclosure of confidential information 1098 1125-1129 Incompatible activities 54950-54963 The Ralph M. Brown Act 87300-87313 Conflict of interest code Management Resources CSBA PUBLICATIONS CSBA Professional Governance Standards, 2000 Maximizing School Board Leadership: Boardsmanship, 1996 WEB SITES CSBA: http://www.csba.org Board Adopted: To the second section of the second 86 S 5000 TO BYLAW NO. 9010 (a) MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PUBLIC STATEMENTS The Governing Board of the Manteca Unified School District recognizes the responsibility of Board members in their role as community leaders to participate in public disclosure on matters of civic or community interest, include those involving the District, and their right to freely express their personal views. However, to ensure communication of a consistent, unified message regarding District issues, Board members are expected to respect the authority of the Board to choose its representatives to communicate its positions and to abide by established protocols. All public statements authorized to be made on behalf of the Board shall be made by the Board President, or if appropriate, by the Superintendent or other designated representative. When speaking for the District, the Board encourages its spokesperson to exercise restraint and tact and to communicate the message in a manner that promotes public confidence in the Board's leadership. The Board and District spokespersons shall not disclose confidential information or information received in closed session except when authorized by a majority of the Board. When speaking to community groups, members of the public, or the media, individual Board members should recognize that their statements may be perceived as reflecting the views and positions of the Board. Board members have a responsibility to identify personal viewpoints as such and not as the viewpoint of the Board. In addition, the Board encourages members who participate on social networking sites, blogs, or other discussion or informational sites to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous, and professional manner and to model good behaviors for district students and the community. Such electronic communications are subject to the same standards and protocols established for other forms of communication, and the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act may likewise apply to them. LEGAL REFERENCE Education Code 35010 Control of district; prescription and enforcement of rules Government Code California Public Records Act 6250-6270 54960 Actions to stop or prevent violation of meeting provisions 54963 Confidential information in closed session MANAGEMENT RESOURCES Websites CSBA: http://www.csba.org Board Adopted: * * . : 9 N ....................................... BYLAW NO. 9011 MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL/PRIVILEGED INFORMATION The Governing Board of Manteca Unified School District recognizes the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of information acquired as part of a Board member's official duties. Confidential/privileged information shall be released only to the extent authorized by law. Disclosure of Closed Session Information A Board member shall not disclose confidential information acquired during a closed session to a person not entitled to receive such information, unless a majority of the Board has authorized its disclosure. Confidential information means a communication made in a closed session that is specifically related to the basis for the Board to meet lawfully in closed session. The Board shall not take any action set forth in Government Code 549563(c) against any person for disclosing confidential information (as defined above) nor shall the disclosure be considered a violation of Government Code 54963 when the person is:
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: deliberations. LEGAL REFERENCE Education Code 35010 Power of governing board to adopt rules for its own governance 35160 Board authority to act in any manner not conflicting with law 35164 Actions by majority vote Government Code Financial interest in contract 1090 Disclosure of confidential information 1098 1125-1129 Incompatible activities 54950-54963 The Ralph M. Brown Act 87300-87313 Conflict of interest code Management Resources CSBA PUBLICATIONS CSBA Professional Governance Standards, 2000 Maximizing School Board Leadership: Boardsmanship, 1996 WEB SITES CSBA: http://www.csba.org Board Adopted: To the second section of the second 86 S 5000 TO BYLAW NO. 9010 (a) MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PUBLIC STATEMENTS The Governing Board of the Manteca Unified School District recognizes the responsibility of Board members in their role as community leaders to participate in public disclosure on matters of civic or community interest, include those involving the District, and their right to freely express their personal views. However, to ensure communication of a consistent, unified message regarding District issues, Board members are expected to respect the authority of the Board to choose its representatives to communicate its positions and to abide by established protocols. All public statements authorized to be made on behalf of the Board shall be made by the Board President, or if appropriate, by the Superintendent or other designated representative. When speaking for the District, the Board encourages its spokesperson to exercise restraint and tact and to communicate the message in a manner that promotes public confidence in the Board's leadership. The Board and District spokespersons shall not disclose confidential information or information received in closed session except when authorized by a majority of the Board. When speaking to community groups, members of the public, or the media, individual Board members should recognize that their statements may be perceived as reflecting the views and positions of the Board. Board members have a responsibility to identify personal viewpoints as such and not as the viewpoint of the Board. In addition, the Board encourages members who participate on social networking sites, blogs, or other
F1.1: Coercion by some trustees caused established Board policies and procedures, including safeguards, to be circumvented by some administrators
F1.2: Public statements by some trustees have caused anger and disruption in MUSD
F1.3: Some Board members interfered with employees' duties, violating Board policies and by-laws
F1.4: Behavior by some Board members has made employees fearful in the workplace
F1.5: Administrators have been spending inordinate amounts of time dealing with issues involving trustees, making it difficult for them to complete necessary District work
F2.1: Costs for legal services related to Board members' behavior has increased during the first nine months of the current fiscal year nearly 30 times what it was two years earlier
F2.2: The departure of the Weston Ranch High School principal added an unnecessary cost to the District 3.0 Fact Board and staff training In December, soon after Trustees Drain and Bronson were elected, they were given an option to attend training held by the California School Board Association (CSBA) in San Francisco. Mr. Bronson was not able to attend due to conflicts with work. Ms. Drain was scheduled to go, but when she arrived to check in at her hotel, she found it unacceptable. She returned home, and did not attend the training. The hotel has since been removed from the CSBA list of conference hotels. Other, more senior board members have not attended training for some time. On January 13, 2015, a Board study session was held with the District's attorneys. The subjects included the following: an ethics overview, role of the board, Brown Act basics, and transparency in government. Sub-topics explored the issues of the use of technology during meetings, agreement on district spokesperson, and the power of an individual board member. At the February 10, 2015, Board meeting training was an agenda item. After discussion the District voted to sponsor each trustee's attendance at one eight-hour CSBA training session per year. Mr. Bronson suggested the training be mandatory. His proposal was not included in the motion. The Grand Jury learned that no administrators have received orientation on interacting with Board members. As a result, numerous incidents occurred during the last few months that allowed policies and procedures to be circumvented because staff did not understand their responsibilities. Findings
F3.1: Only a few trustees have attended school board training in recent years preventing some trustees from having a common understanding of their role and responsibilities
F3.2: A lack of understanding by staff of the role of Board members has caused serious problems
F4.1: Board by-laws Sections 9000, 9005, 9010, and 9011 were violated by the Board members as described in this report.
F4.2: By-laws changes dealing with the Board were added or updated as a result of Board member behavior Conclusion The Grand Jury found that inappropriate and disrespectful behavior by Board members has been the greatest challenge for Manteca Unified School District in many years. Disrespect for each other, for employees, and for community members has created a toxic climate. Additionally, administrators at all levels have been pressured to cut corners and ignore important policies and procedures, leading some to question their judgment. As a result, some employees are actively seeking work elsewhere. In the past Manteca Unified School District has generally served its students successfully. However, that effort may be jeopardized by the exceedingly disturbing actions described in this report. These actions must stop. If they are not stopped, the District risks further undermining its credibility with the community it serves and also risks losing some of the people who have been responsible for the District's successes. Both would severely stymie District progress. School boards have been in existence for centuries, and have a rich tradition of serving as upholders of the beliefs and values of the community they represent. Roles and responsibilities are part of that tradition. When school board members operate with respect for their appropriate roles and responsibilities, education can be strong, and great things can happen, especially for students. When Board members and administrators ignore agreed upon rules and policies, it can be as damaging as breaking the law. If trustees behave inappropriately with no regard or respect for established norms, the educational system can be seriously damaged, harming taxpayers, employees and, most importantly, students. 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
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.