San Joaquin County 2018-2019 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

View the full annual report (PDF)

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (7)

December 31, 2019 — San Joaquin County Grand Jury Cold Cases in San Joaquin County: On the Back Burner

27 pages 30 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 30 findings

F1: 0 There is inconsistency and confusion regarding what defines a “cold case” amongst the law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County. 2.0 Counting Cold Cases in San Joaquin County Obtaining an accurate count of the current number of cold case homicides, missing persons, and sexual assaults in San Joaquin County is problematic, largely due to the overall lack of clarity and consistency in defining “cold cases.” Statements obtained through interviews and surveys of law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County confirmed the difficulty and confusion in both obtaining and maintaining accurate number counts of cold cases. For example, one agency reported they have no idea how many new cold cases they receive. In addition, the lack of a digitized system for tracking older cases has resulted in some cold cases not being counted. The Grand Jury learned that the lack of accurate numbers in counting and tracking cold cases in San Joaquin County is a contributing factor to the overall lack of priority for staffing, funding, and investigating cold cases. Table 2 below shows cold case statistics that were obtained through interviews, surveys, and budget requests from the various law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County. Table 2. Cold Case Statistics from San Joaquin County Type of Crime DA Escalon Lathrop* Lodi Manteca Ripon Sheriff Stockton Tracy Homicide 5721 0 NA NA 4 0 206 >3202 3 Missing persons with suspicious NA 0 NA NA NA 0 82 33 1 circumstances Sexual assault >2001 2 NA NA NA 0 NA NA 0 Attempted murder of a NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Police Officer Homicide with an unidentified NA 0 NA NA 0 0 12 0 0 victim * Contracts with Sheriff Department for police services 1) District Attorney’s numbers are estimates for the entire county 2) Stockton estimate from 2015. This number has increased by an unknown amount since then. 3) There are an estimated 56 additional persons missing for more than ten years that are not currently classified as cold cases but remain open files with the Missing Persons Unit of the Stockton Police Department. It should be emphasized that the accuracy of the statistics provided for each crime category in the Table 2 are impacted by several important variables, including: ▪ Homicide – lack of digitized system for tracking older cases resulting in estimates that do not include every unsolved case from decades past ▪ Missing Persons – not always considered a crime; not always considered a cold case ▪ Sexual Assault – not always considered a cold case; the recent elimination of the ten-year statute of limitations on sexual assault cases through SB 813 should impact this metric and bring needed focus to unsolved sexual assault cases Findings F2.0 There are more than 500 cold case homicides in San Joaquin County, including 12 homicide victims whose remains have never been positively identified. The exact number of cold case homicides is unknown due to the lack of a consistent written definition for “cold case” and the lack of a digitized tracking system. F2.1 The lack of accurate numbers in counting and tracking cold cases in San Joaquin County is a contributing factor to the overall lack of priority for staffing, funding, and investigating cold cases. 3.0 Increasing Numbers of Cold Cases in San Joaquin County Violent Crime in San Joaquin County Statistics concerning the number of homicides and forcible rapes in San Joaquin County during the past decade show significant fluctuations. Crime statistics in San Joaquin County are most impacted by the amount of crime within the City of Stockton. Table 3 below shows the number of homicides and rapes in both Stockton and the rest of San Joaquin County from 2010 through 2015. Table 3. Homicide and Rape Statistics in San Joaquin County Crime Location 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Homicide Stockton 49 58 71 32 49 49 308 Rest of 6 6 6 1 8 10 37 County Total 55 64 77 33 57 59 345 Rape Stockton 107 90 90 91 134 135 647 Rest of 37 28 34 24 25 45 193 County Total 144 118 124 115 159 180 840 Homicide Clearance Rates The national “clearance rate” for homicide was 64.1% as of 2015. Fifty years ago, it was more than 90%. “Clearance rate” is the term used by law enforcement to describe cases that end in arrest, or when a suspect has been identified but cannot be arrested due to death or other circumstances. Research identifies the following key contributing factors to the substantial increase in unsolved homicides in the United States: • Stranger-on-stranger homicide • Increased use of firearms in homicides • Increased involvement of gangs or drugs • Witness fear of retaliation • Witness distrust of law enforcement The nature of violent crime in America has changed over the decades. In the early 1960’s, the vast majority of homicide cases involved individuals who knew one another. By 1992, 53% of all murders occurred between strangers. The FBI collects crime clearance statistics but doesn’t provide numbers by jurisdiction. That makes it difficult to assess the clearance rates of local law enforcement agencies. Table 3 shows that the number of homicides throughout San Joaquin County from 2010 through 2015 is 345. Assuming the national average clearance rate of 64% is applied, that leaves 124 unsolved homicides for that same period. The Stockton Police Chief recently stated that 70% of the city’s homicides in 2018 were closed, which is a higher number than in previous years. While this improvement is commendable, it still leaves approximately ten of Stockton’s 33 homicides in 2018 unsolved. Losing Ground The reality in both America and in San Joaquin County is that the cumulative number of unsolved homicides is increasing each year. The primary factor in this equation is the decreased clearance rate for solving homicides. However, the lack of effective cold case investigations is also a contributing factor. The Grand Jury found that cold case homicides in San Joaquin County are rarely solved or closed. Based upon interview and survey responses, as well as online research, the following is a complete listing of the known cold case homicide closures for the law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County during the past five years: ▪ Stockton Police Department – two cases closed (both suspects deceased) ▪ Tracy Police Department – one case closed (suspect deceased) In addition, there have been no known arrests or prosecutions involving cold case investigations in San Joaquin County during the past five years. Each of the law enforcement personnel interviewed during this investigation confirmed that the cumulative number of cold case homicides is increasing each year. The San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office recently reported that their office and other law enforcement agencies continue to fall further behind each year on cold case homicide investigations. Findings F3.0 The total number of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County is increasing each year due primarily to the decreased clearance rate for solving homicides. F3.1 Cold case homicide investigations in San Joaquin County rarely result in case closure, arrest or prosecution. This is a contributing factor to the increasing number of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County. F3.2 Due to the current inconsistencies in both defining and counting cold cases involving missing persons with suspicious circumstances, and sexual assaults, there is insufficient information to clearly determine the extent to which the number of those unsolved cases may be increasing. 4.0 Staffing Cold Case Investigations in San Joaquin County A Universal Challenge Any legitimate discussion concerning law enforcement staffing must begin with acknowledging what has become a universal challenge for police agencies: hiring and retaining qualified officers. This problem has impacted the various law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County, most notably the two largest agencies: the Stockton Police Department and the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department. Reduced to only 331 sworn officers in 2013, the Stockton Police Department was greatly aided through the passage of Measure A by voters that same year. This three-quarter cent sales tax provided funding for law enforcement. The result was a stated goal to increase the Stockton Police force to 485 officers by June of 2017. Despite continued challenges in both hiring and retaining qualified officers, the number of uniformed Stockton police officers totaled 466 as of March 2019. The Stockton Police Chief indicated it was hard to reach the budgeted maximum of 485 officers due to retirements, attrition and staff leaving for other jurisdictions. The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office has also faced the same continual challenge in both hiring and retaining qualified sheriff’s deputies. The newly elected Sheriff recently confirmed both the shortage of sworn officers and the difficulty of finding qualified candidates to fill vacant positions. Even the smaller law enforcement agencies within San Joaquin County reported that their main challenge in filling vacant positions is the inability to get qualified applicants through the required background investigation. A Lesser Priority Cold cases are typically some of the most difficult and complex cases to work. They require seasoned investigators and dedicated staff that are focused solely on cold cases as their first priority. Unfortunately, that is rarely the reality in law enforcement. A national cold case survey in 2012 found that only ten percent of responding agencies had dedicated cold case investigators. This investigation revealed that there are currently only three individuals who are specifically assigned to investigate cold cases in San Joaquin County. None of these individuals is currently working on cold case investigations full-time. The current staffing of cold case investigators in San Joaquin County is as follows: ▪ Stockton Police Department – one retired detective working part-time (16-20 hours/week; maximum 960 hours/year) ▪ San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department – one full-time sergeant working less than 25% of the time on cold case investigations ▪ San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office – one full-time investigator working approximately 20%-30% of the time on cold case investigations The present level of cold case staffing in the largest law enforcement agencies in this county cannot be expected to effectively investigate and solve cold cases. In fact, it is evident that cold case investigative work is often the lesser priority in their work assignments. Statements obtained through interviews and surveys of various law enforcement personnel confirmed both the frustration in juggling competing priorities, and the futility in working cold case assignments alone. The Grand Jury learned that there are a significant number of cold case homicides with the Stockton Police Department and San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department that have not been reviewed for many years due to insufficient staffing and lack of prioritization. Assessing Options The major law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County need additional dedicated and experienced investigators for cold cases. Possible options for meeting this critical staffing need include the following: ▪ Transfer experienced staff from other assignments ▪ Hire additional qualified retirees (limited to part-time) ▪ Seek qualified volunteers Interviews with administrative and investigative staff revealed that the Stockton Police Department needs at least three more full-time detectives to effectively manage and investigate the current backlog of cold cases. The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department has consistently made unsuccessful budget requests for additional cold case staffing, requesting from two to four additional full-time deputies. The San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office also made an unsuccessful budget request to add a Cold Case Investigator and an Investigative Assistant for 2018-2019. Staffing a successful cold case investigative team may require utilizing all available options, especially considering budgetary restrictions and pension/benefit costs. Casting a vision and building momentum through collaboration and successful investigations can generate enthusiasm that may appeal to retired detectives. As an example, the City of Walnut Creek Police Department successfully solved a cold case in 2011 and was energized to the point of “pushing for a volunteer squad, staffed by retired detectives, to update reports and apply new forensic analysis.” Findings F4.0 There is insufficient staffing for cold case investigations in San Joaquin County, primarily within the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, the Stockton Police Department, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. F4.1 There are a significant number of cold case homicides with the Stockton Police Department and the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department that have not been reviewed in many years due to insufficient staffing and lack of prioritization. F4.2 Law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County continue to be challenged in hiring and retaining enough qualified officers to fill budgeted positions. This has been a contributing factor to insufficient staffing of cold case investigations. F4.3 Providing experienced staffing for cold case investigations may require transferring staff from other assignments, hiring additional qualified retirees, or seeking qualified volunteers. 5.0 Funding Cold Case Investigations in San Joaquin County Overview A 2012 national cold case study by the Rand Corporation found that 56% of cold case investigations were funded through grants or supplemental agency funds. The same study found that only 20% of cold case investigations were being funded through established line items in the agency’s budget. There are numerous factors contributing to the funding deficit for cold case investigations in America. Economic crises, critical humanitarian and justice issues, and unfunded pension liabilities are but a few of the major elements impacting today’s budget priorities. In addition, the difficulty in quantifying a return on investment with cold case funding relative to active police investigations is another obstacle when competing for limited funds. San Joaquin County The Grand Jury found that funding for cold case investigative work has been insufficient for the law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County primarily due to financial limitations and lack of priority. The interviews and surveys of law enforcement personnel consistently revealed a desire to accomplish more regarding cold case investigations. However, funding requests for additional cold case staffing, training, and technology have been routinely denied. This has been especially true for the three largest law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County: the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, the Stockton Police Department, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. For example, the Sheriff’s Department has unsuccessfully requested additional staffing for cold case investigations every year since 2011. Responses from interviews and surveys consistently indicated the need for additional cold case staffing and training as the greatest priorities. Also mentioned were needed funding for technology improvements and for utilizing private laboratories to do additional testing of DNA evidence. Funding Alternatives Grant funding for cold case investigations has periodically been available through the National Institute of Justice, an agency of the United States Department of Justice (US DOJ). The Grand Jury learned that each of the three largest law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County had attempted unsuccessfully to obtain such grants on one or more occasions in recent years. There was also a consensus amongst administrative staff that receiving grant money is helpful, but not sustainable to fund staffing year after year. However, research did reveal that the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office, Laboratory of Forensic Services, did successfully obtain a grant of $336,293 in 2017 through the NIJ “DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction Program.” Another source of funding assistance might be the funds deposited annually into County DNA Identification Fund 20737 as a result of Proposition 69. The statute does not stipulate how the funds are to be disbursed at the local level. Currently, a Proposition 69 oversight committee meets periodically to approve disbursement of collected funds for reimbursement of expenses incurred for DNA collection. The County portion of funds in 2017 was $111,381. Such funds could possibly be used in a creative way to enhance DNA analysis and assist criminal investigations. One example is the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office recently spent $97,000 to purchase a RapidHIT ID System, a revolutionary technology to process DNA analysis in about 90 minutes. In summary, all available funding options for cold case investigations should be utilized moving forward. Potential cost savings may be achieved by utilizing retired detectives working part-time, without benefits, at approximately one-third of the cost of a full-time, benefited employee.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: Each law enforcement agency in San Joaquin County develop a plan to define, prioritize, and digitally track cold case investigations no later than December 31, 2019. Prioritization will emphasize available physical evidence and utilize emerging DNA testing techniques.

R2: Each law enforcement agency in San Joaquin County expand their definition of “cold case” to include missing persons with suspicious circumstances, and sexual assault (forcible rape and attempted rape), in addition to homicide no later than December 31, 2019.

F2: Stockton estimate from 2015. This number has increased by an unknown amount since then.

Related Recommendations (2)

F3: There are an estimated 56 additional persons missing for more than ten years that are not currently classified as cold cases but remain open files with the Missing Persons Unit of the Stockton Police Department. It should be emphasized that the accuracy of the statistics provided for each crime category in the Table 2 are impacted by several important variables, including: ▪ Homicide – lack of digitized system for tracking older cases resulting in estimates that do not include every unsolved case from decades past ▪ Missing Persons – not always considered a crime; not always considered a cold case ▪ Sexual Assault – not always considered a cold case; the recent elimination of the ten-year statute of limitations on sexual assault cases through SB 813 should impact this metric and bring needed focus to unsolved sexual assault cases Findings F2.0 There are more than 500 cold case homicides in San Joaquin County, including 12 homicide victims whose remains have never been positively identified. The exact number of cold case homicides is unknown due to the lack of a consistent written definition for “cold case” and the lack of a digitized tracking system. F2.1 The lack of accurate numbers in counting and tracking cold cases in San Joaquin County is a contributing factor to the overall lack of priority for staffing, funding, and investigating cold cases. 3.0 Increasing Numbers of Cold Cases in San Joaquin County Violent Crime in San Joaquin County Statistics concerning the number of homicides and forcible rapes in San Joaquin County during the past decade show significant fluctuations. Crime statistics in San Joaquin County are most impacted by the amount of crime within the City of Stockton. Table 3 below shows the number of homicides and rapes in both Stockton and the rest of San Joaquin County from 2010 through 2015. Table 3. Homicide and Rape Statistics in San Joaquin County Crime Location 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Homicide Stockton 49 58 71 32 49 49 308 Rest of 6 6 6 1 8 10 37 County Total 55 64 77 33 57 59 345 Rape Stockton 107 90 90 91 134 135 647 Rest of 37 28 34 24 25 45 193 County Total 144 118 124 115 159 180 840 Homicide Clearance Rates The national “clearance rate” for homicide was 64.1% as of 2015. Fifty years ago, it was more than 90%. “Clearance rate” is the term used by law enforcement to describe cases that end in arrest, or when a suspect has been identified but cannot be arrested due to death or other circumstances. Research identifies the following key contributing factors to the substantial increase in unsolved homicides in the United States: • Stranger-on-stranger homicide • Increased use of firearms in homicides • Increased involvement of gangs or drugs • Witness fear of retaliation • Witness distrust of law enforcement The nature of violent crime in America has changed over the decades. In the early 1960’s, the vast majority of homicide cases involved individuals who knew one another. By 1992, 53% of all murders occurred between strangers. The FBI collects crime clearance statistics but doesn’t provide numbers by jurisdiction. That makes it difficult to assess the clearance rates of local law enforcement agencies. Table 3 shows that the number of homicides throughout San Joaquin County from 2010 through 2015 is 345. Assuming the national average clearance rate of 64% is applied, that leaves 124 unsolved homicides for that same period. The Stockton Police Chief recently stated that 70% of the city’s homicides in 2018 were closed, which is a higher number than in previous years. While this improvement is commendable, it still leaves approximately ten of Stockton’s 33 homicides in 2018 unsolved. Losing Ground The reality in both America and in San Joaquin County is that the cumulative number of unsolved homicides is increasing each year. The primary factor in this equation is the decreased clearance rate for solving homicides. However, the lack of effective cold case investigations is also a contributing factor. The Grand Jury found that cold case homicides in San Joaquin County are rarely solved or closed. Based upon interview and survey responses, as well as online research, the following is a complete listing of the known cold case homicide closures for the law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County during the past five years: ▪ Stockton Police Department – two cases closed (both suspects deceased) ▪ Tracy Police Department – one case closed (suspect deceased) In addition, there have been no known arrests or prosecutions involving cold case investigations in San Joaquin County during the past five years. Each of the law enforcement personnel interviewed during this investigation confirmed that the cumulative number of cold case homicides is increasing each year. The San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office recently reported that their office and other law enforcement agencies continue to fall further behind each year on cold case homicide investigations. Findings F3.0 The total number of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County is increasing each year due primarily to the decreased clearance rate for solving homicides. F3.1 Cold case homicide investigations in San Joaquin County rarely result in case closure, arrest or prosecution. This is a contributing factor to the increasing number of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County. F3.2 Due to the current inconsistencies in both defining and counting cold cases involving missing persons with suspicious circumstances, and sexual assaults, there is insufficient information to clearly determine the extent to which the number of those unsolved cases may be increasing. 4.0 Staffing Cold Case Investigations in San Joaquin County A Universal Challenge Any legitimate discussion concerning law enforcement staffing must begin with acknowledging what has become a universal challenge for police agencies: hiring and retaining qualified officers. This problem has impacted the various law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County, most notably the two largest agencies: the Stockton Police Department and the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department. Reduced to only 331 sworn officers in 2013, the Stockton Police Department was greatly aided through the passage of Measure A by voters that same year. This three-quarter cent sales tax provided funding for law enforcement. The result was a stated goal to increase the Stockton Police force to 485 officers by June of 2017. Despite continued challenges in both hiring and retaining qualified officers, the number of uniformed Stockton police officers totaled 466 as of March 2019. The Stockton Police Chief indicated it was hard to reach the budgeted maximum of 485 officers due to retirements, attrition and staff leaving for other jurisdictions. The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office has also faced the same continual challenge in both hiring and retaining qualified sheriff’s deputies. The newly elected Sheriff recently confirmed both the shortage of sworn officers and the difficulty of finding qualified candidates to fill vacant positions. Even the smaller law enforcement agencies within San Joaquin County reported that their main challenge in filling vacant positions is the inability to get qualified applicants through the required background investigation. A Lesser Priority Cold cases are typically some of the most difficult and complex cases to work. They require seasoned investigators and dedicated staff that are focused solely on cold cases as their first priority. Unfortunately, that is rarely the reality in law enforcement. A national cold case survey in 2012 found that only ten percent of responding agencies had dedicated cold case investigators. This investigation revealed that there are currently only three individuals who are specifically assigned to investigate cold cases in San Joaquin County. None of these individuals is currently working on cold case investigations full-time. The current staffing of cold case investigators in San Joaquin County is as follows: ▪ Stockton Police Department – one retired detective working part-time (16-20 hours/week; maximum 960 hours/year) ▪ San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department – one full-time sergeant working less than 25% of the time on cold case investigations ▪ San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office – one full-time investigator working approximately 20%-30% of the time on cold case investigations The present level of cold case staffing in the largest law enforcement agencies in this county cannot be expected to effectively investigate and solve cold cases. In fact, it is evident that cold case investigative work is often the lesser priority in their work assignments. Statements obtained through interviews and surveys of various law enforcement personnel confirmed both the frustration in juggling competing priorities, and the futility in working cold case assignments alone. The Grand Jury learned that there are a significant number of cold case homicides with the Stockton Police Department and San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department that have not been reviewed for many years due to insufficient staffing and lack of prioritization. Assessing Options The major law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County need additional dedicated and experienced investigators for cold cases. Possible options for meeting this critical staffing need include the following: ▪ Transfer experienced staff from other assignments ▪ Hire additional qualified retirees (limited to part-time) ▪ Seek qualified volunteers Interviews with administrative and investigative staff revealed that the Stockton Police Department needs at least three more full-time detectives to effectively manage and investigate the current backlog of cold cases. The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department has consistently made unsuccessful budget requests for additional cold case staffing, requesting from two to four additional full-time deputies. The San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office also made an unsuccessful budget request to add a Cold Case Investigator and an Investigative Assistant for 2018-2019. Staffing a successful cold case investigative team may require utilizing all available options, especially considering budgetary restrictions and pension/benefit costs. Casting a vision and building momentum through collaboration and successful investigations can generate enthusiasm that may appeal to retired detectives. As an example, the City of Walnut Creek Police Department successfully solved a cold case in 2011 and was energized to the point of “pushing for a volunteer squad, staffed by retired detectives, to update reports and apply new forensic analysis.” Findings F4.0 There is insufficient staffing for cold case investigations in San Joaquin County, primarily within the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, the Stockton Police Department, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. F4.1 There are a significant number of cold case homicides with the Stockton Police Department and the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department that have not been reviewed in many years due to insufficient staffing and lack of prioritization. F4.2 Law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County continue to be challenged in hiring and retaining enough qualified officers to fill budgeted positions. This has been a contributing factor to insufficient staffing of cold case investigations. F4.3 Providing experienced staffing for cold case investigations may require transferring staff from other assignments, hiring additional qualified retirees, or seeking qualified volunteers. 5.0 Funding Cold Case Investigations in San Joaquin County Overview A 2012 national cold case study by the Rand Corporation found that 56% of cold case investigations were funded through grants or supplemental agency funds. The same study found that only 20% of cold case investigations were being funded through established line items in the agency’s budget. There are numerous factors contributing to the funding deficit for cold case investigations in America. Economic crises, critical humanitarian and justice issues, and unfunded pension liabilities are but a few of the major elements impacting today’s budget priorities. In addition, the difficulty in quantifying a return on investment with cold case funding relative to active police investigations is another obstacle when competing for limited funds. San Joaquin County The Grand Jury found that funding for cold case investigative work has been insufficient for the law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County primarily due to financial limitations and lack of priority. The interviews and surveys of law enforcement personnel consistently revealed a desire to accomplish more regarding cold case investigations. However, funding requests for additional cold case staffing, training, and technology have been routinely denied. This has been especially true for the three largest law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County: the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, the Stockton Police Department, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. For example, the Sheriff’s Department has unsuccessfully requested additional staffing for cold case investigations every year since 2011. Responses from interviews and surveys consistently indicated the need for additional cold case staffing and training as the greatest priorities. Also mentioned were needed funding for technology improvements and for utilizing private laboratories to do additional testing of DNA evidence. Funding Alternatives Grant funding for cold case investigations has periodically been available through the National Institute of Justice, an agency of the United States Department of Justice (US DOJ). The Grand Jury learned that each of the three largest law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County had attempted unsuccessfully to obtain such grants on one or more occasions in recent years. There was also a consensus amongst administrative staff that receiving grant money is helpful, but not sustainable to fund staffing year after year. However, research did reveal that the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office, Laboratory of Forensic Services, did successfully obtain a grant of $336,293 in 2017 through the NIJ “DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction Program.” Another source of funding assistance might be the funds deposited annually into County DNA Identification Fund 20737 as a result of Proposition 69. The statute does not stipulate how the funds are to be disbursed at the local level. Currently, a Proposition 69 oversight committee meets periodically to approve disbursement of collected funds for reimbursement of expenses incurred for DNA collection. The County portion of funds in 2017 was $111,381. Such funds could possibly be used in a creative way to enhance DNA analysis and assist criminal investigations. One example is the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office recently spent $97,000 to purchase a RapidHIT ID System, a revolutionary technology to process DNA analysis in about 90 minutes. In summary, all available funding options for cold case investigations should be utilized moving forward. Potential cost savings may be achieved by utilizing retired detectives working part-time, without benefits, at approximately one-third of the cost of a full-time, benefited employee. Finding F5.0 There is insufficient funding for cold case investigations in San Joaquin County, primarily for the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, the Stockton Police Department, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. The lack of sufficient funding is due primarily to financial limitations and lack of priority. 6.0 Investigating Cold Cases in San Joaquin County Preparation The following elements were identified through interviews and surveys as being essential to effective preparation for cold case investigations: ▪ Training specific to cold case investigations ▪ Organized computer database for cold cases Cold case investigation is a specialized field that is presently benefiting from both rapid technological advances and emerging investigative techniques. Numerous opportunities exist for cold case and related training through such organizations as the US DOJ, the State of California Department of Justice (CA DOJ), and various other law enforcement institutes, agencies, and associations. The Grand Jury learned that present cold case investigative staff in San Joaquin County have had minimal opportunities to stay current through relevant cold case training events. It remains commonplace in law enforcement for older cold case files dating back to the early 1990’s and before to remain as paper files stored in boxes and binders. This is no different in San Joaquin County. The Grand Jury learned that such case files can range from a dozen pieces of paper to four full binders. Retrieving and reviewing such files is cumbersome and inefficient, though retention of paper files may be desirable for some cases. The lack of an organized computer database inhibits accurate and efficient tracking, evaluation, prioritization, and investigation of cold cases. The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department acknowledged this challenge in their 2018-2019 Proposed Budget request, indicating that cold cases prior to 1990 are not digitized, thus requiring any review or evaluation of the case and evidence to be done by hand. Prioritization The 2012 Rand Corporation study on cold case investigations listed the following factors as those most influential in the decision to reopen cold cases: ▪ New witness coming forward ▪ New DNA technology to test old physical evidence ▪ New evidence for DNA testing ▪ Other physical evidence ▪ New technology to test other physical evidence The Rand study concluded that “these responses strongly indicate that physical evidence is the major factor in decisions to reopen cold cases.” In their 2018-2019 Proposed Budget Request, the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office stated their desire to assist law enforcement agencies throughout the County by reviewing and triaging unsolved homicide cases. Their goal is to identify DNA evidence that has not been previously submitted for testing, and submit that evidence to the California Department of Justice crime labs for analysis. Current staffing levels and priorities prevent this level of assistance from the District Attorney’s Office. The Grand Jury learned that some investigative staff at law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County currently have no efficient or effective method of prioritizing which cold cases to investigate. Based upon interview results, the following prioritization methods are those being most utilized at present: ▪ Contact from family members of cold case victims ▪ Tips received/new information provided ▪ Random choice by the investigator ▪ Directed by supervisor Many of the current methods being utilized to prioritize cold case investigations in San Joaquin County are inconsistent with the priority of physical evidence as emphasized by the 2012 Rand Corporation study. Neither do many of the current methods for prioritization align with the method of triaging physical evidence proposed by the District Attorney’s Office. DNA Evidence (also see Appendix A) The Grand Jury learned through interviews and surveys that there are significant numbers of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County with DNA evidence that could be tested using enhanced DNA technology now available. The exact number of cases with testable DNA evidence is unclear due to the lack of effective tracking or evaluation methods. However, one estimate received by the Grand Jury indicated the number of such cases to be in the hundreds. Limitations Despite incredible advances in using DNA technology to identify persons, there are additional challenges presented to investigators of cold cases in San Joaquin County. The Grand Jury learned from multiple sources that the CA DOJ regional crime labs do excellent work; however, they are limited in the amount of staff time they can devote to evidence testing. This limitation was most apparent when involving cold cases where the chances of successful DNA testing results were less likely. Not only were the chances of approval for testing less likely for many cold cases, but the amount of time to receive a test result was often longer. Due to limited staff resources, the CA DOJ has policies in place that only allow them to analyze a minimal amount of DNA evidence based on their workloads and demands from law enforcement agencies throughout California. It is noteworthy that the Tracy Police Department’s recent closure of a cold case homicide resulted from additional DNA testing by a private, nonprofit laboratory that was reportedly utilized due to testing limitations at the CA DOJ crime laboratory. Another limitation in the investigation of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County is the significant percentage of cases involving street gangs. The Grand Jury learned that the number of cold case homicides involving street gangs is estimated to be as high as 50% in San Joaquin County. The significance of this reality does not pertain to a lesser demand for justice, but rather acknowledges that these cold cases present additional challenges, such as the lack of DNA or other physical evidence for testing, and the lack of available or willing witnesses to testify Findings F6.0 There is a need for additional training specific to cold case investigations for the law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County. F6.1 The lack of organized computer databases for cold cases is impeding the effective evaluation and investigation of cold cases in San Joaquin County. F6.2 The methods for prioritization of cold case investigations in San Joaquin County are often ineffective, with insufficient emphasis placed on available physical evidence. F6.3 The exact number of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County that have testable DNA evidence is unknown due to the lack of effective tracking and evaluation methods. F6.4 There are limitations on the amount of physical evidence that the State of California Department of Justice crime laboratories will process for cold case investigations due to staffing and prioritization. F6.5 Cold case homicides involving street gangs often present greater challenges due to the lack of testable DNA evidence and the lack of available or willing witnesses. 7.0 Solving Cold Cases in San Joaquin County Elevation Any successful path forward in solving cold cases in San Joaquin County must begin with elevating the priority of staffing and funding such investigations. The focus and priority of law enforcement on today and tomorrow must expand to include the past. By not investigating cold cases or seeking arrests and convictions, criminals are potentially being allowed to commit additional violent crimes. Innovation (also see Appendix B) Another key element to future success in solving cold cases in San Joaquin County will be the utilization of advanced technology and emerging techniques, including: ▪ STRmix DNA interpretive software ▪ Rapid DNA technology ▪ Genetic genealogy ▪ DNA phenotyping These innovative techniques have assisted in solving cold cases throughout the United States. Collaboration A final critical component in the future success of solving cold cases in San Joaquin County will be the level of collaboration between all key members involved in the investigation and prosecution of such cases. This investigation revealed that there is presently a climate of isolation and frustration in attempting to investigate cold cases without the necessary assistance and support. Responses received from surveys and interviews revealed investigative staff want help in many areas, including: discussing case strategy, interviewing witnesses in the field, processing and serving warrants, obtaining legal advice, and testing of physical evidence. This investigation confirmed the necessity of a cooperative and coordinated relationship between law enforcement agencies and the District Attorney’s Office. The 2012 Rand Corporation study on cold case investigations emphasized the importance of cooperation between police and prosecutors in improving both the efficiency and the effectiveness of cold case investigations. The study indicated the benefit of having police consult with prosecutors beginning at case screening, to offer advice on whether the case is likely to produce a conviction and what kinds of evidence will be most compelling in court. In their 2018-2019 Proposed Budget Request, the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office expressed a clear desire to assist law enforcement partner agencies throughout the County with cold case investigations. However, the Grand Jury learned that there is presently minimal contact between the District Attorney’s Office and cold case investigative staff. There are many examples from nearby counties where the District Attorney’s Office has taken a leadership role in coordinating and facilitating cold case investigations and prosecutions. A few of these counties include: ▪ Sacramento County – Cold Case Prosecution Unit ▪ Contra Costa County – Cold Case-Unsolved Homicide Unit ▪ Alameda County – Unsolved Crimes/DNA Cold Case Unit ▪ Santa Clara County – Cold Case Unit ▪ Solano County – Cold Case Unit The desire for the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office to form a Cold Case Task Force was a consistent request in both interviews and survey responses from law enforcement agencies throughout the County. Such a Cold Case Task Force is needed to provide a multitude of essential functions in cold case investigations, including: ▪ Establish a Mission Statement clearly defining “Cold Cases” ▪ Coordinate training specific to cold case investigations ▪ Provide legal assistance including case review, warrant processing, and prosecution ▪ Coordinate with CA DOJ crime laboratories for necessary testing ▪ Collaborate with other counties and law enforcement agencies for support ▪ Collaborate regarding advocacy for victim’s families and witnesses As one example of successful collaboration, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office joined with county law enforcement agencies to sign a Cold Case Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. The county crime laboratory also joined this partnership and made a commitment to handle DNA in an expedited manner. The District Attorney also asked every county law enforcement agency for access to unsolved homicide and sexual assault cases in order to assist with locating and submitting DNA evidence, interviewing witnesses, and conducting a comprehensive case evaluation. Findings F7.0 The elevation of cold case investigations as a priority is vital to the future success in investigating and solving cold cases in San Joaquin County. F7.1 The utilization of innovative technology and emerging techniques is an essential element to the future success of investigating and solving cold cases in San Joaquin County. F7.2 The level of collaboration between law enforcement agencies and the District Attorney’s Office is a critical component to success in solving and prosecuting cold cases. F7.3 There is minimal contact between the District Attorney’s Office and cold case investigative staff in San Joaquin County due to lack of staffing and priority. F7.4 There is universal support amongst law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County for the District Attorney’s Office to form a Cold Case Task Force to support cold case investigation and prosecution. 8.0 Maintaining Contact with Families of Cold Case Victims The consequences of unsolved cold cases include victims without justice and families without answers. This painful reality is one driving force behind the proposed Cold Case Accountability Act of 2020. One aspect of this proposed legislation is a requirement for law enforcement agencies to provide regular updates in writing and in person to families of cold case victims. The Grand Jury learned through interviews and survey responses that there is currently no consistent procedure or practice for law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County to maintain periodic contact with the family members of cold case victims. Most contacts with victims’ families are currently being initiated by family members, and often correspond to the victim’s birthday or the anniversary of their death. Many law enforcement personnel refrain from initiating contact with families of cold case victims due to time constraints, the lack of any progress to report, or the potential to provoke emotional trauma. Perhaps a reasonable and sensitive response is that the family should be consulted regarding their desired frequency of contact. Such contacts could be handled by nonsworn personnel in order to minimize the time impact on investigative staff. Victim Services is a program of the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office that serves victims and their survivor family members of homicide, sexual assault, and other crimes. As stated on the District Attorney’s website, “In California victims of crime have state constitutional standing and rights, guaranteeing that their voices will be heard.” For many cold case victims, their voice is still being heard through their surviving family members. Victims of Violent Crime of San Joaquin County is a nonprofit support group whose members are comprised primarily of surviving family members of unsolved murders. The group has held an annual vigil during the holiday season for the past twenty years. All of the surviving family members who gather at these vigils are ultimately seeking the same things: justice and closure. However, the Chief Executive of Victims of Violent Crime recognizes that in order for survivor family members to experience justice and closure, more cold case detectives are needed in San Joaquin County to investigate their cases. Finding F8.0 There is no consistent procedure or practice for law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County to maintain periodic contact with the family members of cold case victims.

Related Recommendations (1)

F5: 0 There is insufficient funding for cold case investigations in San Joaquin County, primarily for the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, the Stockton Police Department, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. The lack of sufficient funding is due primarily to financial limitations and lack of priority. 6.0 Investigating Cold Cases in San Joaquin County Preparation The following elements were identified through interviews and surveys as being essential to effective preparation for cold case investigations: ▪ Training specific to cold case investigations ▪ Organized computer database for cold cases Cold case investigation is a specialized field that is presently benefiting from both rapid technological advances and emerging investigative techniques. Numerous opportunities exist for cold case and related training through such organizations as the US DOJ, the State of California Department of Justice (CA DOJ), and various other law enforcement institutes, agencies, and associations. The Grand Jury learned that present cold case investigative staff in San Joaquin County have had minimal opportunities to stay current through relevant cold case training events. It remains commonplace in law enforcement for older cold case files dating back to the early 1990’s and before to remain as paper files stored in boxes and binders. This is no different in San Joaquin County. The Grand Jury learned that such case files can range from a dozen pieces of paper to four full binders. Retrieving and reviewing such files is cumbersome and inefficient, though retention of paper files may be desirable for some cases. The lack of an organized computer database inhibits accurate and efficient tracking, evaluation, prioritization, and investigation of cold cases. The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department acknowledged this challenge in their 2018-2019 Proposed Budget request, indicating that cold cases prior to 1990 are not digitized, thus requiring any review or evaluation of the case and evidence to be done by hand. Prioritization The 2012 Rand Corporation study on cold case investigations listed the following factors as those most influential in the decision to reopen cold cases: ▪ New witness coming forward ▪ New DNA technology to test old physical evidence ▪ New evidence for DNA testing ▪ Other physical evidence ▪ New technology to test other physical evidence The Rand study concluded that “these responses strongly indicate that physical evidence is the major factor in decisions to reopen cold cases.” In their 2018-2019 Proposed Budget Request, the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office stated their desire to assist law enforcement agencies throughout the County by reviewing and triaging unsolved homicide cases. Their goal is to identify DNA evidence that has not been previously submitted for testing, and submit that evidence to the California Department of Justice crime labs for analysis. Current staffing levels and priorities prevent this level of assistance from the District Attorney’s Office. The Grand Jury learned that some investigative staff at law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County currently have no efficient or effective method of prioritizing which cold cases to investigate. Based upon interview results, the following prioritization methods are those being most utilized at present: ▪ Contact from family members of cold case victims ▪ Tips received/new information provided ▪ Random choice by the investigator ▪ Directed by supervisor Many of the current methods being utilized to prioritize cold case investigations in San Joaquin County are inconsistent with the priority of physical evidence as emphasized by the 2012 Rand Corporation study. Neither do many of the current methods for prioritization align with the method of triaging physical evidence proposed by the District Attorney’s Office. DNA Evidence (also see Appendix A) The Grand Jury learned through interviews and surveys that there are significant numbers of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County with DNA evidence that could be tested using enhanced DNA technology now available. The exact number of cases with testable DNA evidence is unclear due to the lack of effective tracking or evaluation methods. However, one estimate received by the Grand Jury indicated the number of such cases to be in the hundreds. Limitations Despite incredible advances in using DNA technology to identify persons, there are additional challenges presented to investigators of cold cases in San Joaquin County. The Grand Jury learned from multiple sources that the CA DOJ regional crime labs do excellent work; however, they are limited in the amount of staff time they can devote to evidence testing. This limitation was most apparent when involving cold cases where the chances of successful DNA testing results were less likely. Not only were the chances of approval for testing less likely for many cold cases, but the amount of time to receive a test result was often longer. Due to limited staff resources, the CA DOJ has policies in place that only allow them to analyze a minimal amount of DNA evidence based on their workloads and demands from law enforcement agencies throughout California. It is noteworthy that the Tracy Police Department’s recent closure of a cold case homicide resulted from additional DNA testing by a private, nonprofit laboratory that was reportedly utilized due to testing limitations at the CA DOJ crime laboratory. Another limitation in the investigation of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County is the significant percentage of cases involving street gangs. The Grand Jury learned that the number of cold case homicides involving street gangs is estimated to be as high as 50% in San Joaquin County. The significance of this reality does not pertain to a lesser demand for justice, but rather acknowledges that these cold cases present additional challenges, such as the lack of DNA or other physical evidence for testing, and the lack of available or willing witnesses to testify Findings F6.0 There is a need for additional training specific to cold case investigations for the law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County. F6.1 The lack of organized computer databases for cold cases is impeding the effective evaluation and investigation of cold cases in San Joaquin County. F6.2 The methods for prioritization of cold case investigations in San Joaquin County are often ineffective, with insufficient emphasis placed on available physical evidence. F6.3 The exact number of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County that have testable DNA evidence is unknown due to the lack of effective tracking and evaluation methods. F6.4 There are limitations on the amount of physical evidence that the State of California Department of Justice crime laboratories will process for cold case investigations due to staffing and prioritization. F6.5 Cold case homicides involving street gangs often present greater challenges due to the lack of testable DNA evidence and the lack of available or willing witnesses. 7.0 Solving Cold Cases in San Joaquin County Elevation Any successful path forward in solving cold cases in San Joaquin County must begin with elevating the priority of staffing and funding such investigations. The focus and priority of law enforcement on today and tomorrow must expand to include the past. By not investigating cold cases or seeking arrests and convictions, criminals are potentially being allowed to commit additional violent crimes. Innovation (also see Appendix B) Another key element to future success in solving cold cases in San Joaquin County will be the utilization of advanced technology and emerging techniques, including: ▪ STRmix DNA interpretive software ▪ Rapid DNA technology ▪ Genetic genealogy ▪ DNA phenotyping These innovative techniques have assisted in solving cold cases throughout the United States. Collaboration A final critical component in the future success of solving cold cases in San Joaquin County will be the level of collaboration between all key members involved in the investigation and prosecution of such cases. This investigation revealed that there is presently a climate of isolation and frustration in attempting to investigate cold cases without the necessary assistance and support. Responses received from surveys and interviews revealed investigative staff want help in many areas, including: discussing case strategy, interviewing witnesses in the field, processing and serving warrants, obtaining legal advice, and testing of physical evidence. This investigation confirmed the necessity of a cooperative and coordinated relationship between law enforcement agencies and the District Attorney’s Office. The 2012 Rand Corporation study on cold case investigations emphasized the importance of cooperation between police and prosecutors in improving both the efficiency and the effectiveness of cold case investigations. The study indicated the benefit of having police consult with prosecutors beginning at case screening, to offer advice on whether the case is likely to produce a conviction and what kinds of evidence will be most compelling in court. In their 2018-2019 Proposed Budget Request, the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office expressed a clear desire to assist law enforcement partner agencies throughout the County with cold case investigations. However, the Grand Jury learned that there is presently minimal contact between the District Attorney’s Office and cold case investigative staff. There are many examples from nearby counties where the District Attorney’s Office has taken a leadership role in coordinating and facilitating cold case investigations and prosecutions. A few of these counties include: ▪ Sacramento County – Cold Case Prosecution Unit ▪ Contra Costa County – Cold Case-Unsolved Homicide Unit ▪ Alameda County – Unsolved Crimes/DNA Cold Case Unit ▪ Santa Clara County – Cold Case Unit ▪ Solano County – Cold Case Unit The desire for the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office to form a Cold Case Task Force was a consistent request in both interviews and survey responses from law enforcement agencies throughout the County. Such a Cold Case Task Force is needed to provide a multitude of essential functions in cold case investigations, including: ▪ Establish a Mission Statement clearly defining “Cold Cases” ▪ Coordinate training specific to cold case investigations ▪ Provide legal assistance including case review, warrant processing, and prosecution ▪ Coordinate with CA DOJ crime laboratories for necessary testing ▪ Collaborate with other counties and law enforcement agencies for support ▪ Collaborate regarding advocacy for victim’s families and witnesses As one example of successful collaboration, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office joined with county law enforcement agencies to sign a Cold Case Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. The county crime laboratory also joined this partnership and made a commitment to handle DNA in an expedited manner. The District Attorney also asked every county law enforcement agency for access to unsolved homicide and sexual assault cases in order to assist with locating and submitting DNA evidence, interviewing witnesses, and conducting a comprehensive case evaluation. Findings F7.0 The elevation of cold case investigations as a priority is vital to the future success in investigating and solving cold cases in San Joaquin County. F7.1 The utilization of innovative technology and emerging techniques is an essential element to the future success of investigating and solving cold cases in San Joaquin County. F7.2 The level of collaboration between law enforcement agencies and the District Attorney’s Office is a critical component to success in solving and prosecuting cold cases. F7.3 There is minimal contact between the District Attorney’s Office and cold case investigative staff in San Joaquin County due to lack of staffing and priority. F7.4 There is universal support amongst law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County for the District Attorney’s Office to form a Cold Case Task Force to support cold case investigation and prosecution. 8.0 Maintaining Contact with Families of Cold Case Victims The consequences of unsolved cold cases include victims without justice and families without answers. This painful reality is one driving force behind the proposed Cold Case Accountability Act of 2020. One aspect of this proposed legislation is a requirement for law enforcement agencies to provide regular updates in writing and in person to families of cold case victims. The Grand Jury learned through interviews and survey responses that there is currently no consistent procedure or practice for law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County to maintain periodic contact with the family members of cold case victims. Most contacts with victims’ families are currently being initiated by family members, and often correspond to the victim’s birthday or the anniversary of their death. Many law enforcement personnel refrain from initiating contact with families of cold case victims due to time constraints, the lack of any progress to report, or the potential to provoke emotional trauma. Perhaps a reasonable and sensitive response is that the family should be consulted regarding their desired frequency of contact. Such contacts could be handled by nonsworn personnel in order to minimize the time impact on investigative staff. Victim Services is a program of the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office that serves victims and their survivor family members of homicide, sexual assault, and other crimes. As stated on the District Attorney’s website, “In California victims of crime have state constitutional standing and rights, guaranteeing that their voices will be heard.” For many cold case victims, their voice is still being heard through their surviving family members. Victims of Violent Crime of San Joaquin County is a nonprofit support group whose members are comprised primarily of surviving family members of unsolved murders. The group has held an annual vigil during the holiday season for the past twenty years. All of the surviving family members who gather at these vigils are ultimately seeking the same things: justice and closure. However, the Chief Executive of Victims of Violent Crime recognizes that in order for survivor family members to experience justice and closure, more cold case detectives are needed in San Joaquin County to investigate their cases.

F6: 0 There is a need for additional training specific to cold case investigations for the law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County.

Related Recommendations (1)

F7: 0 The elevation of cold case investigations as a priority is vital to the future success in investigating and solving cold cases in San Joaquin County.

Related Recommendations (3)

R6: The San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office develop a plan for a Cold Case Task Force to facilitate collaboration in investigating and prosecuting cold cases for all law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County no later than December 31, 2019.

R7: The San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office establish a Cold Case Task Force for all law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County no later than March 31, 2020.

R8: Each law enforcement agency in San Joaquin County sign a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the newly formed Cold Case Task Force no later than March 31, 2020.

F8: 0 There is no consistent procedure or practice for law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County to maintain periodic contact with the family members of cold case victims.

F1.0: There is inconsistency and confusion regarding what defines a “cold case” amongst the law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County. 2.0 Counting Cold Cases in San Joaquin County Obtaining an accurate count of the current number of cold case homicides, missing persons, and sexual assaults in San Joaquin County is problematic, largely due to the overall lack of clarity and consistency in defining “cold cases.” Statements obtained through interviews and surveys of law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County confirmed the difficulty and confusion in both obtaining and maintaining accurate number counts of cold cases. For example, one agency reported they have no idea how many new cold cases they receive. In addition, the lack of a digitized system for tracking older cases has resulted in some cold cases not being counted. The Grand Jury learned that the lack of accurate numbers in counting and tracking cold cases in San Joaquin County is a contributing factor to the overall lack of priority for staffing, funding, and investigating cold cases. Table 2 below shows cold case statistics that were obtained through interviews, surveys, and budget requests from the various law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County. Table 2. Cold Case Statistics from San Joaquin County Type of Crime DA Escalon Lathrop* Lodi Manteca Ripon Sheriff Stockton Tracy Homicide 5721 0 NA NA 4 0 206 >3202 3 Missing persons with suspicious NA 0 NA NA NA 0 82 33 1 circumstances Sexual assault >2001 2 NA NA NA 0 NA NA 0 Attempted murder of a NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Police Officer Homicide with an unidentified NA 0 NA NA 0 0 12 0 0 victim * Contracts with Sheriff Department for police services 1) District Attorney’s numbers are estimates for the entire county 2) Stockton estimate from 2015. This number has increased by an unknown amount since then. 3) There are an estimated 56 additional persons missing for more than ten years that are not currently classified as cold cases but remain open files with the Missing Persons Unit of the Stockton Police Department. It should be emphasized that the accuracy of the statistics provided for each crime category in the Table 2 are impacted by several important variables, including: ▪ Homicide – lack of digitized system for tracking older cases resulting in estimates that do not include every unsolved case from decades past ▪ Missing Persons – not always considered a crime; not always considered a cold case ▪ Sexual Assault – not always considered a cold case; the recent elimination of the ten-year statute of limitations on sexual assault cases through SB 813 should impact this metric and bring needed focus to unsolved sexual assault cases Findings

F2.0: There are more than 500 cold case homicides in San Joaquin County, including 12 homicide victims whose remains have never been positively identified. The exact number of cold case homicides is unknown due to the lack of a consistent written definition for “cold case” and the lack of a digitized tracking system.

F2.1: The lack of accurate numbers in counting and tracking cold cases in San Joaquin County is a contributing factor to the overall lack of priority for staffing, funding, and investigating cold cases. 3.0 Increasing Numbers of Cold Cases in San Joaquin County Violent Crime in San Joaquin County Statistics concerning the number of homicides and forcible rapes in San Joaquin County during the past decade show significant fluctuations. Crime statistics in San Joaquin County are most impacted by the amount of crime within the City of Stockton. Table 3 below shows the number of homicides and rapes in both Stockton and the rest of San Joaquin County from 2010 through 2015. Table 3. Homicide and Rape Statistics in San Joaquin County Crime Location 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Homicide Stockton 49 58 71 32 49 49 308 Rest of 6 6 6 1 8 10 37 County Total 55 64 77 33 57 59 345 Rape Stockton 107 90 90 91 134 135 647 Rest of 37 28 34 24 25 45 193 County Total 144 118 124 115 159 180 840 Homicide Clearance Rates The national “clearance rate” for homicide was 64.1% as of 2015. Fifty years ago, it was more than 90%. “Clearance rate” is the term used by law enforcement to describe cases that end in arrest, or when a suspect has been identified but cannot be arrested due to death or other circumstances. Research identifies the following key contributing factors to the substantial increase in unsolved homicides in the United States: • Stranger-on-stranger homicide • Increased use of firearms in homicides • Increased involvement of gangs or drugs • Witness fear of retaliation • Witness distrust of law enforcement The nature of violent crime in America has changed over the decades. In the early 1960’s, the vast majority of homicide cases involved individuals who knew one another. By 1992, 53% of all murders occurred between strangers. The FBI collects crime clearance statistics but doesn’t provide numbers by jurisdiction. That makes it difficult to assess the clearance rates of local law enforcement agencies. Table 3 shows that the number of homicides throughout San Joaquin County from 2010 through 2015 is 345. Assuming the national average clearance rate of 64% is applied, that leaves 124 unsolved homicides for that same period. The Stockton Police Chief recently stated that 70% of the city’s homicides in 2018 were closed, which is a higher number than in previous years. While this improvement is commendable, it still leaves approximately ten of Stockton’s 33 homicides in 2018 unsolved. Losing Ground The reality in both America and in San Joaquin County is that the cumulative number of unsolved homicides is increasing each year. The primary factor in this equation is the decreased clearance rate for solving homicides. However, the lack of effective cold case investigations is also a contributing factor. The Grand Jury found that cold case homicides in San Joaquin County are rarely solved or closed. Based upon interview and survey responses, as well as online research, the following is a complete listing of the known cold case homicide closures for the law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County during the past five years: ▪ Stockton Police Department – two cases closed (both suspects deceased) ▪ Tracy Police Department – one case closed (suspect deceased) In addition, there have been no known arrests or prosecutions involving cold case investigations in San Joaquin County during the past five years. Each of the law enforcement personnel interviewed during this investigation confirmed that the cumulative number of cold case homicides is increasing each year. The San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office recently reported that their office and other law enforcement agencies continue to fall further behind each year on cold case homicide investigations. Findings

F3.0: The total number of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County is increasing each year due primarily to the decreased clearance rate for solving homicides.

F3.1: Cold case homicide investigations in San Joaquin County rarely result in case closure, arrest or prosecution. This is a contributing factor to the increasing number of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County.

F3.2: Due to the current inconsistencies in both defining and counting cold cases involving missing persons with suspicious circumstances, and sexual assaults, there is insufficient information to clearly determine the extent to which the number of those unsolved cases may be increasing. 4.0 Staffing Cold Case Investigations in San Joaquin County A Universal Challenge Any legitimate discussion concerning law enforcement staffing must begin with acknowledging what has become a universal challenge for police agencies: hiring and retaining qualified officers. This problem has impacted the various law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County, most notably the two largest agencies: the Stockton Police Department and the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department. Reduced to only 331 sworn officers in 2013, the Stockton Police Department was greatly aided through the passage of Measure A by voters that same year. This three-quarter cent sales tax provided funding for law enforcement. The result was a stated goal to increase the Stockton Police force to 485 officers by June of 2017. Despite continued challenges in both hiring and retaining qualified officers, the number of uniformed Stockton police officers totaled 466 as of March 2019. The Stockton Police Chief indicated it was hard to reach the budgeted maximum of 485 officers due to retirements, attrition and staff leaving for other jurisdictions. The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office has also faced the same continual challenge in both hiring and retaining qualified sheriff’s deputies. The newly elected Sheriff recently confirmed both the shortage of sworn officers and the difficulty of finding qualified candidates to fill vacant positions. Even the smaller law enforcement agencies within San Joaquin County reported that their main challenge in filling vacant positions is the inability to get qualified applicants through the required background investigation. A Lesser Priority Cold cases are typically some of the most difficult and complex cases to work. They require seasoned investigators and dedicated staff that are focused solely on cold cases as their first priority. Unfortunately, that is rarely the reality in law enforcement. A national cold case survey in 2012 found that only ten percent of responding agencies had dedicated cold case investigators. This investigation revealed that there are currently only three individuals who are specifically assigned to investigate cold cases in San Joaquin County. None of these individuals is currently working on cold case investigations full-time. The current staffing of cold case investigators in San Joaquin County is as follows: ▪ Stockton Police Department – one retired detective working part-time (16-20 hours/week; maximum 960 hours/year) ▪ San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department – one full-time sergeant working less than 25% of the time on cold case investigations ▪ San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office – one full-time investigator working approximately 20%-30% of the time on cold case investigations The present level of cold case staffing in the largest law enforcement agencies in this county cannot be expected to effectively investigate and solve cold cases. In fact, it is evident that cold case investigative work is often the lesser priority in their work assignments. Statements obtained through interviews and surveys of various law enforcement personnel confirmed both the frustration in juggling competing priorities, and the futility in working cold case assignments alone. The Grand Jury learned that there are a significant number of cold case homicides with the Stockton Police Department and San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department that have not been reviewed for many years due to insufficient staffing and lack of prioritization. Assessing Options The major law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County need additional dedicated and experienced investigators for cold cases. Possible options for meeting this critical staffing need include the following: ▪ Transfer experienced staff from other assignments ▪ Hire additional qualified retirees (limited to part-time) ▪ Seek qualified volunteers Interviews with administrative and investigative staff revealed that the Stockton Police Department needs at least three more full-time detectives to effectively manage and investigate the current backlog of cold cases. The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department has consistently made unsuccessful budget requests for additional cold case staffing, requesting from two to four additional full-time deputies. The San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office also made an unsuccessful budget request to add a Cold Case Investigator and an Investigative Assistant for 2018-2019. Staffing a successful cold case investigative team may require utilizing all available options, especially considering budgetary restrictions and pension/benefit costs. Casting a vision and building momentum through collaboration and successful investigations can generate enthusiasm that may appeal to retired detectives. As an example, the City of Walnut Creek Police Department successfully solved a cold case in 2011 and was energized to the point of “pushing for a volunteer squad, staffed by retired detectives, to update reports and apply new forensic analysis.” Findings

F4.0: There is insufficient staffing for cold case investigations in San Joaquin County, primarily within the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, the Stockton Police Department, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office.

F4.1: There are a significant number of cold case homicides with the Stockton Police Department and the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department that have not been reviewed in many years due to insufficient staffing and lack of prioritization.

F4.2: Law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County continue to be challenged in hiring and retaining enough qualified officers to fill budgeted positions. This has been a contributing factor to insufficient staffing of cold case investigations.

F4.3: Providing experienced staffing for cold case investigations may require transferring staff from other assignments, hiring additional qualified retirees, or seeking qualified volunteers. 5.0 Funding Cold Case Investigations in San Joaquin County Overview A 2012 national cold case study by the Rand Corporation found that 56% of cold case investigations were funded through grants or supplemental agency funds. The same study found that only 20% of cold case investigations were being funded through established line items in the agency’s budget. There are numerous factors contributing to the funding deficit for cold case investigations in America. Economic crises, critical humanitarian and justice issues, and unfunded pension liabilities are but a few of the major elements impacting today’s budget priorities. In addition, the difficulty in quantifying a return on investment with cold case funding relative to active police investigations is another obstacle when competing for limited funds. San Joaquin County The Grand Jury found that funding for cold case investigative work has been insufficient for the law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County primarily due to financial limitations and lack of priority. The interviews and surveys of law enforcement personnel consistently revealed a desire to accomplish more regarding cold case investigations. However, funding requests for additional cold case staffing, training, and technology have been routinely denied. This has been especially true for the three largest law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County: the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, the Stockton Police Department, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. For example, the Sheriff’s Department has unsuccessfully requested additional staffing for cold case investigations every year since 2011. Responses from interviews and surveys consistently indicated the need for additional cold case staffing and training as the greatest priorities. Also mentioned were needed funding for technology improvements and for utilizing private laboratories to do additional testing of DNA evidence. Funding Alternatives Grant funding for cold case investigations has periodically been available through the National Institute of Justice, an agency of the United States Department of Justice (US DOJ). The Grand Jury learned that each of the three largest law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County had attempted unsuccessfully to obtain such grants on one or more occasions in recent years. There was also a consensus amongst administrative staff that receiving grant money is helpful, but not sustainable to fund staffing year after year. However, research did reveal that the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office, Laboratory of Forensic Services, did successfully obtain a grant of $336,293 in 2017 through the NIJ “DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction Program.” Another source of funding assistance might be the funds deposited annually into County DNA Identification Fund 20737 as a result of Proposition 69. The statute does not stipulate how the funds are to be disbursed at the local level. Currently, a Proposition 69 oversight committee meets periodically to approve disbursement of collected funds for reimbursement of expenses incurred for DNA collection. The County portion of funds in 2017 was $111,381. Such funds could possibly be used in a creative way to enhance DNA analysis and assist criminal investigations. One example is the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office recently spent $97,000 to purchase a RapidHIT ID System, a revolutionary technology to process DNA analysis in about 90 minutes. In summary, all available funding options for cold case investigations should be utilized moving forward. Potential cost savings may be achieved by utilizing retired detectives working part-time, without benefits, at approximately one-third of the cost of a full-time, benefited employee. Finding

F5.0: There is insufficient funding for cold case investigations in San Joaquin County, primarily for the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, the Stockton Police Department, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. The lack of sufficient funding is due primarily to financial limitations and lack of priority. 6.0 Investigating Cold Cases in San Joaquin County Preparation The following elements were identified through interviews and surveys as being essential to effective preparation for cold case investigations: ▪ Training specific to cold case investigations ▪ Organized computer database for cold cases Cold case investigation is a specialized field that is presently benefiting from both rapid technological advances and emerging investigative techniques. Numerous opportunities exist for cold case and related training through such organizations as the US DOJ, the State of California Department of Justice (CA DOJ), and various other law enforcement institutes, agencies, and associations. The Grand Jury learned that present cold case investigative staff in San Joaquin County have had minimal opportunities to stay current through relevant cold case training events. It remains commonplace in law enforcement for older cold case files dating back to the early 1990’s and before to remain as paper files stored in boxes and binders. This is no different in San Joaquin County. The Grand Jury learned that such case files can range from a dozen pieces of paper to four full binders. Retrieving and reviewing such files is cumbersome and inefficient, though retention of paper files may be desirable for some cases. The lack of an organized computer database inhibits accurate and efficient tracking, evaluation, prioritization, and investigation of cold cases. The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department acknowledged this challenge in their 2018-2019 Proposed Budget request, indicating that cold cases prior to 1990 are not digitized, thus requiring any review or evaluation of the case and evidence to be done by hand. Prioritization The 2012 Rand Corporation study on cold case investigations listed the following factors as those most influential in the decision to reopen cold cases: ▪ New witness coming forward ▪ New DNA technology to test old physical evidence ▪ New evidence for DNA testing ▪ Other physical evidence ▪ New technology to test other physical evidence The Rand study concluded that “these responses strongly indicate that physical evidence is the major factor in decisions to reopen cold cases.” In their 2018-2019 Proposed Budget Request, the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office stated their desire to assist law enforcement agencies throughout the County by reviewing and triaging unsolved homicide cases. Their goal is to identify DNA evidence that has not been previously submitted for testing, and submit that evidence to the California Department of Justice crime labs for analysis. Current staffing levels and priorities prevent this level of assistance from the District Attorney’s Office. The Grand Jury learned that some investigative staff at law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County currently have no efficient or effective method of prioritizing which cold cases to investigate. Based upon interview results, the following prioritization methods are those being most utilized at present: ▪ Contact from family members of cold case victims ▪ Tips received/new information provided ▪ Random choice by the investigator ▪ Directed by supervisor Many of the current methods being utilized to prioritize cold case investigations in San Joaquin County are inconsistent with the priority of physical evidence as emphasized by the 2012 Rand Corporation study. Neither do many of the current methods for prioritization align with the method of triaging physical evidence proposed by the District Attorney’s Office. DNA Evidence (also see Appendix A) The Grand Jury learned through interviews and surveys that there are significant numbers of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County with DNA evidence that could be tested using enhanced DNA technology now available. The exact number of cases with testable DNA evidence is unclear due to the lack of effective tracking or evaluation methods. However, one estimate received by the Grand Jury indicated the number of such cases to be in the hundreds. Limitations Despite incredible advances in using DNA technology to identify persons, there are additional challenges presented to investigators of cold cases in San Joaquin County. The Grand Jury learned from multiple sources that the CA DOJ regional crime labs do excellent work; however, they are limited in the amount of staff time they can devote to evidence testing. This limitation was most apparent when involving cold cases where the chances of successful DNA testing results were less likely. Not only were the chances of approval for testing less likely for many cold cases, but the amount of time to receive a test result was often longer. Due to limited staff resources, the CA DOJ has policies in place that only allow them to analyze a minimal amount of DNA evidence based on their workloads and demands from law enforcement agencies throughout California. It is noteworthy that the Tracy Police Department’s recent closure of a cold case homicide resulted from additional DNA testing by a private, nonprofit laboratory that was reportedly utilized due to testing limitations at the CA DOJ crime laboratory. Another limitation in the investigation of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County is the significant percentage of cases involving street gangs. The Grand Jury learned that the number of cold case homicides involving street gangs is estimated to be as high as 50% in San Joaquin County. The significance of this reality does not pertain to a lesser demand for justice, but rather acknowledges that these cold cases present additional challenges, such as the lack of DNA or other physical evidence for testing, and the lack of available or willing witnesses to testify Findings

F6.0: There is a need for additional training specific to cold case investigations for the law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County.

F6.1: The lack of organized computer databases for cold cases is impeding the effective evaluation and investigation of cold cases in San Joaquin County.

F6.2: The methods for prioritization of cold case investigations in San Joaquin County are often ineffective, with insufficient emphasis placed on available physical evidence.

F6.3: The exact number of cold case homicides in San Joaquin County that have testable DNA evidence is unknown due to the lack of effective tracking and evaluation methods.

F6.4: There are limitations on the amount of physical evidence that the State of California Department of Justice crime laboratories will process for cold case investigations due to staffing and prioritization.

F6.5: Cold case homicides involving street gangs often present greater challenges due to the lack of testable DNA evidence and the lack of available or willing witnesses. 7.0 Solving Cold Cases in San Joaquin County Elevation Any successful path forward in solving cold cases in San Joaquin County must begin with elevating the priority of staffing and funding such investigations. The focus and priority of law enforcement on today and tomorrow must expand to include the past. By not investigating cold cases or seeking arrests and convictions, criminals are potentially being allowed to commit additional violent crimes. Innovation (also see Appendix B) Another key element to future success in solving cold cases in San Joaquin County will be the utilization of advanced technology and emerging techniques, including: ▪ STRmix DNA interpretive software ▪ Rapid DNA technology ▪ Genetic genealogy ▪ DNA phenotyping These innovative techniques have assisted in solving cold cases throughout the United States. Collaboration A final critical component in the future success of solving cold cases in San Joaquin County will be the level of collaboration between all key members involved in the investigation and prosecution of such cases. This investigation revealed that there is presently a climate of isolation and frustration in attempting to investigate cold cases without the necessary assistance and support. Responses received from surveys and interviews revealed investigative staff want help in many areas, including: discussing case strategy, interviewing witnesses in the field, processing and serving warrants, obtaining legal advice, and testing of physical evidence. This investigation confirmed the necessity of a cooperative and coordinated relationship between law enforcement agencies and the District Attorney’s Office. The 2012 Rand Corporation study on cold case investigations emphasized the importance of cooperation between police and prosecutors in improving both the efficiency and the effectiveness of cold case investigations. The study indicated the benefit of having police consult with prosecutors beginning at case screening, to offer advice on whether the case is likely to produce a conviction and what kinds of evidence will be most compelling in court. In their 2018-2019 Proposed Budget Request, the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office expressed a clear desire to assist law enforcement partner agencies throughout the County with cold case investigations. However, the Grand Jury learned that there is presently minimal contact between the District Attorney’s Office and cold case investigative staff. There are many examples from nearby counties where the District Attorney’s Office has taken a leadership role in coordinating and facilitating cold case investigations and prosecutions. A few of these counties include: ▪ Sacramento County – Cold Case Prosecution Unit ▪ Contra Costa County – Cold Case-Unsolved Homicide Unit ▪ Alameda County – Unsolved Crimes/DNA Cold Case Unit ▪ Santa Clara County – Cold Case Unit ▪ Solano County – Cold Case Unit The desire for the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office to form a Cold Case Task Force was a consistent request in both interviews and survey responses from law enforcement agencies throughout the County. Such a Cold Case Task Force is needed to provide a multitude of essential functions in cold case investigations, including: ▪ Establish a Mission Statement clearly defining “Cold Cases” ▪ Coordinate training specific to cold case investigations ▪ Provide legal assistance including case review, warrant processing, and prosecution ▪ Coordinate with CA DOJ crime laboratories for necessary testing ▪ Collaborate with other counties and law enforcement agencies for support ▪ Collaborate regarding advocacy for victim’s families and witnesses As one example of successful collaboration, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office joined with county law enforcement agencies to sign a Cold Case Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. The county crime laboratory also joined this partnership and made a commitment to handle DNA in an expedited manner. The District Attorney also asked every county law enforcement agency for access to unsolved homicide and sexual assault cases in order to assist with locating and submitting DNA evidence, interviewing witnesses, and conducting a comprehensive case evaluation. Findings

F7.0: The elevation of cold case investigations as a priority is vital to the future success in investigating and solving cold cases in San Joaquin County.

F7.1: The utilization of innovative technology and emerging techniques is an essential element to the future success of investigating and solving cold cases in San Joaquin County.

F7.2: The level of collaboration between law enforcement agencies and the District Attorney’s Office is a critical component to success in solving and prosecuting cold cases.

F7.3: There is minimal contact between the District Attorney’s Office and cold case investigative staff in San Joaquin County due to lack of staffing and priority.

F7.4: There is universal support amongst law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County for the District Attorney’s Office to form a Cold Case Task Force to support cold case investigation and prosecution. 8.0 Maintaining Contact with Families of Cold Case Victims The consequences of unsolved cold cases include victims without justice and families without answers. This painful reality is one driving force behind the proposed Cold Case Accountability Act of 2020. One aspect of this proposed legislation is a requirement for law enforcement agencies to provide regular updates in writing and in person to families of cold case victims. The Grand Jury learned through interviews and survey responses that there is currently no consistent procedure or practice for law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County to maintain periodic contact with the family members of cold case victims. Most contacts with victims’ families are currently being initiated by family members, and often correspond to the victim’s birthday or the anniversary of their death. Many law enforcement personnel refrain from initiating contact with families of cold case victims due to time constraints, the lack of any progress to report, or the potential to provoke emotional trauma. Perhaps a reasonable and sensitive response is that the family should be consulted regarding their desired frequency of contact. Such contacts could be handled by nonsworn personnel in order to minimize the time impact on investigative staff. Victim Services is a program of the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office that serves victims and their survivor family members of homicide, sexual assault, and other crimes. As stated on the District Attorney’s website, “In California victims of crime have state constitutional standing and rights, guaranteeing that their voices will be heard.” For many cold case victims, their voice is still being heard through their surviving family members. Victims of Violent Crime of San Joaquin County is a nonprofit support group whose members are comprised primarily of surviving family members of unsolved murders. The group has held an annual vigil during the holiday season for the past twenty years. All of the surviving family members who gather at these vigils are ultimately seeking the same things: justice and closure. However, the Chief Executive of Victims of Violent Crime recognizes that in order for survivor family members to experience justice and closure, more cold case detectives are needed in San Joaquin County to investigate their cases. Finding

F8.0: There is no consistent procedure or practice for law enforcement agencies in San Joaquin County to maintain periodic contact with the family members of cold case victims.

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R9: The newly formed Cold Case Task Force partner with the regional CA-DOJ crime laboratories to facilitate the timely and necessary testing of all DNA evidence for cold case investigations no later than March 31, 2020.

R10: Each law enforcement agency in San Joaquin County develop a procedure and practice for maintaining periodic contact with family members of cold case victims no later than March 31, 2020.

June 10, 2019 — San Joaquin County Grand Jury French Camp McKinley Fire District a District in Disarray

15 pages 20 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 20 findings

F1: 1 The District’s Policy Manual requires significant customization in order to adequately meet the needs of the District.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: 1 The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors customize and approve its Policy Manual to reflect the needs of the District by December 31, 2019.

F2: 2 By not following their grievance procedures, the District’s Fire Chief and Board left their employees without recourse to resolve problems other than litigation. F2.3 The District’s leadership failed to address grievances and complaints of a toxic work environment, requiring the District to settle three employment-related lawsuits totaling over $400,000. F2.4 The District’s failure to conduct an annual grievance audit may have resulted in unnecessary financial liability. Recommendations R2.1 The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop a clear and concise grievance policy and form by December 31, 2019. R2.2 The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors revise the District Policy Manual to require that an annual grievance audit be sent to the Board of Directors no later than February each calendar year by March 1, 2020. R2.3 By December 31, 2019, the French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop a policy that requires the Board receive a copy of all internal investigative reports within 10 days of completion. 3.0 Board Oversight Roles and Responsibilities Special Districts in California are local government agencies that provide essential services to millions of residents. Each District provides a specific type of service. The Fire Protection District Law of 1987 is the statutory authority for fire protection districts. Some of the provisions of the law include: • Every district shall be governed by a legislative body known as a board of directors. • Claims against a district shall be audited, allowed, and paid by order of the district board. French Camp McKinley Fire District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors whose primary responsibilities include providing financial oversight and formulating and overseeing strategic policy direction. The District Policy Manual lists 15 responsibilities of Board members including: • Developing a list of qualifications, job description, and evaluation process for the Fire Chief • Hiring and supervising the Fire Chief • Developing goals and measurable objectives for the District and the Fire Chief • Monitoring progress towards reaching established goals • Developing policies which ensure that District business is conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, statutes, regulations, and codes The Grand Jury found that some members of the Board of Directors do not fully understand their roles and responsibilities as outlined in the District Policy Manual. Evaluating the Fire Chief Including the current Interim Fire Chief, the District has had four Fire Chiefs in the past nine years. The Board has failed to set goals and expectations or provide feedback for the Fire Chief. Some Board members said that in the past, they took the word of the Fire Chief that all was well within the District, and admitted they had no objectives by which to measure performance. Inadequate Financial Reporting California Government Code section 53891(a) requires that special districts furnish the State Controller with a report of all financial transactions that took place during the prior fiscal year. These reports are to be filed within seven months after the close of each fiscal year. California Government Code section 26909(a)(1) also requires that an audit for every special district be filed with the County Auditor-Controller annually. The audit must be filed within 12 months of the end of the special district’s fiscal year. While the French Camp McKinley Fire District is current with the State Controller filings, the most recent annual audit filed with the County Auditor-Controller is for fiscal year 2014-2015. Annual audits are critical because they can identify financial improprieties and enable the Board to take appropriate action. Some Board members were unaware that the District is delinquent in filing these audits with the County. Financial Misconduct Alleged financial misconduct by District employees was identified by the Interim Fire Chief and confirmed by the County Auditor-Controller’s office. The misconduct may cost the District over $100,000 and went undetected by the Board of Directors Finance Subcommittee. Findings F3.1 Board responsibilities are not clearly understood by all board members, which has contributed to ineffective leadership of French Camp McKinley Fire District. F3.2 Without a formalized annual review process, the Board is unable to measure the Fire Chief’s performance. F3.3 Board members have not held the Fire Chief accountable for failing to communicate critical personnel issues, which has led to significant employee turnover and expensive investigations and lawsuits. F3.4 The Board is failing in their fiduciary responsibilities as evidenced by the District’s delinquency in filing annual audits, the lack of policies providing financial controls, and inadequate financial oversight. Recommendations R3.1 French Camp McKinley Board members perform an annual review of the Fire Chief no later than July of each calendar year, beginning July 2020. R3.2 French Camp McKinley Board members file annual audits with the County Auditor for 2015- 2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018, with copies sent to the Grand Jury by December 31, 2019. R3.3 French Camp McKinley Board members adopt and follow the financial guidance provided in the document “San Joaquin County Best Practices for Accounting and Reporting for Locally- Governed Special Districts” by December 31, 2019. 4.0 The Future of French Camp McKinley Fire District The map illustrating the boundaries of the District shows a small island surrounded by larger fire districts. The map can be deceiving in that it does not reflect the large number of facilities and people under the protection of the District. Furthermore, it does not convey the potential for accidents involving hazardous materials, given the traffic generated by the Union Pacific Intermodal station and the Pilot Flying J Truck Stop. The District provides fire services to the Pilot Flying J facility, while Lathrop Manteca Fire District is mandated to provide hazardous materials cleanup. Consolidation Consolidation of French Camp McKinley Fire District has been a topic of discussion for more than 30 years. The last Municipal Services Review (MSR) for all County fire districts, performed in 2011 by LAFCO, determined the French Camp McKinley Fire District should “explore other organizational structures” in order to achieve greater operational efficiencies. The MSR recommended the District either: a. Contract with the City of Stockton, or b. Consolidate with a neighboring fire district. More recently, the Manteca Bulletin has called for re-evaluation of the efficiency and viability of smaller independent fire districts. In an article published June 25, 2018, “Sounding the Alarm for Fire Service Consolidations,” the editor speculated that citizens would be better served through consolidations among the small surrounding districts. The newspaper revisited the issue on January 22, 2019, in an article titled, “Time to Rethink Fire Service for Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon & French Camp.” The Manteca Bulletin’s proposals for consolidation are not based on French Camp McKinley’s internal deficiencies, but on economies of scale, population growth patterns, financial viability, and improved levels of fire protection service. Considering the absence of steady leadership, excessive turnover of personnel, and financial instability, the ability of the District to adequately protect some of the County’s critical assets and facilities that serve its constituents is questionable. Findings F4.1 Considering the history of failed leadership from French Camp McKinley’s Board of Directors, excessive turnover of the District’s Fire Chiefs, profound personnel problems, lawsuits, and investigations, the ability of French Camp McKinley Fire District to effectively provide fire protection services to its constituents, including the critical County facilities within its jurisdiction is questionable. F4.2 The District’s Board has failed to follow-up on repeated recommendations to explore consolidation. Recommendations R4.1 The Board of Directors of French Camp McKinley Fire District initiate the process, including an analysis, for consolidating with another fire district by October 31, 2019. R4.2 The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors conduct an independent review to ascertain whether French Camp McKinley Fire District is the most viable option for providing fire protection services for critical County facilities by March 31, 2020. Conclusion French Camp McKinley Fire District has been struggling on multiple fronts for the last decade and is currently in disarray. Continual turnover of the Fire Chief position and failed oversight by the District’s Board of Directors has exposed the District to expensive investigations and litigation. Although the Interim Fire Chief has made progress in his short tenure at the District, the process required to transform the District into a fully functional, efficient Fire District will take many years at best. The constituents of this District, and the hard-working firefighters that serve them, deserve better. 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 90 days of receipt of the report. The French Camp McKinley Fire District Board of Directors shall respond to all Findings and Recommendations except R4.2. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to Recommendation R4.2 Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Linda L. Lofthus, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 180 E Weber Ave, Suite 1306J Stockton, California 95202 Also, please email a copy of the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at grandjury@sjcourts.org

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: 1 The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop a clear and concise grievance policy and form by December 31, 2019.

F3: 1 Board responsibilities are not clearly understood by all board members, which has contributed to ineffective leadership of French Camp McKinley Fire District.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: 1 French Camp McKinley Board members perform an annual review of the Fire Chief no later than July of each calendar year, beginning July 2020.

F4: 1 Considering the history of failed leadership from French Camp McKinley’s Board of Directors, excessive turnover of the District’s Fire Chiefs, profound personnel problems, lawsuits, and investigations, the ability of French Camp McKinley Fire District to effectively provide fire protection services to its constituents, including the critical County facilities within its jurisdiction is questionable.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: 1 The Board of Directors of French Camp McKinley Fire District initiate the process, including an analysis, for consolidating with another fire district by October 31, 2019.

F1.1: The District’s Policy Manual requires significant customization in order to adequately meet the needs of the District.

F1.2: The District does not review and regularly update the Policy Manual, placing the District at risk for financial liability.

F1.3: The lack of access to an electronic Policy Manual makes it more difficult for staff and Board members to receive, review, and implement policy updates.

F1.4: Not having procurement policies and procedures for disposing of surplus equipment, the District risks excess spending without accountability, and financial loss when the sale of surplus is not maximized.

F1.5: Not requiring the Board to approve policy updates leaves them without the ability to provide appropriate policy oversight for the District.

F1.6: Without clearly defined testing procedures, firefighters are deprived of the opportunity for promotions based upon their training, experience, and qualifications.

F1.7: Public safety may be compromised when department promotions are not based on the results of objective testing procedures.

F2.1: Public safety may be put at risk when testing procedures allow less qualified candidates to be promoted into positions that require them to make critical decisions based on qualifications, training, and experience. F 2.2 By not following their grievance procedures, the District’s Fire Chief and Board left their employees without recourse to resolve problems other than litigation.

F2.3: The District’s leadership failed to address grievances and complaints of a toxic work environment, requiring the District to settle three employment-related lawsuits totaling over $400,000.

F2.4: The District’s failure to conduct an annual grievance audit may have resulted in unnecessary financial liability.

F3.1: Board responsibilities are not clearly understood by all board members, which has contributed to ineffective leadership of French Camp McKinley Fire District.

F3.2: Without a formalized annual review process, the Board is unable to measure the Fire Chief’s performance.

F3.3: Board members have not held the Fire Chief accountable for failing to communicate critical personnel issues, which has led to significant employee turnover and expensive investigations and lawsuits.

F3.4: The Board is failing in their fiduciary responsibilities as evidenced by the District’s delinquency in filing annual audits, the lack of policies providing financial controls, and inadequate financial oversight.

F4.1: Considering the history of failed leadership from French Camp McKinley’s Board of Directors, excessive turnover of the District’s Fire Chiefs, profound personnel problems, lawsuits, and investigations, the ability of French Camp McKinley Fire District to effectively provide fire protection services to its constituents, including the critical County facilities within its jurisdiction is questionable.

F4.2: The District’s Board has failed to follow-up on repeated recommendations to explore consolidation.

June 10, 2019 — San Joaquin County Grand Jury Micke Grove Zoo: Honoring the Past, Securing the Future

18 pages 20 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 20 findings

F1: 1 The lack of a Policy and Procedures Manual for Micke Grove Zoo creates inefficiencies and potential liabilities for the Parks and Recreation Division and San Joaquin County.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: 1 The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division develop a written Policy and Procedures Manual for all Micke Grove Zoo operations by June 30, 2020. Inspections/Permits Micke Grove Zoo is required to undergo several annual inspections. The United States Department of Agriculture conducts an annual inspection to ensure proper animal care and that Animal Welfare Act rules regulating captive wild animals are being followed. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife also inspects annually to determine compliance with regulations pertaining to enclosures, fencing, and other basic maintenance. No major deficiencies were noted during the inspections conducted by these respective agencies during 2018. The Zoo Manager is responsible for ensuring all required standards are met, while the Zoo Curator is responsible for ensuring all required permits are current. Budget Adequate funding to maintain Micke Grove Zoo continues to be a challenge. Over the past 10 years the budget for San Joaquin County has increased by 39%, while the Parks and Recreation Division budget has declined 16%. Day to day operational costs, deferred maintenance costs, and capital improvement costs all compete with the many service demands that are deemed a higher priority by the County. According to the Taussig Report, “…zoos of this form and size simply are not profitable. They rely heavily on donations, sponsorships, and foundation funding to remain operational.” Funding for the Zoo has historically been provided by the net operations of the Zoo, the General Fund, and fundraising by MGZS. Beginning in 2009, the County began using various trust funds to help balance the budget. Those trust funds are now near depletion and can no longer be relied on for financial support. That leaves the burden of funding the Zoo to the County and MGZS. Contributing to the funding burden is the lack of a detailed and comprehensive budget for the Zoo. Currently, the Parks and Recreation Division has no means to track individual line item costs for the Zoo. Without a detailed budget, it is impossible to manage the Zoo effectively and determine the true cost of operating the Zoo. A well-crafted budget will allow for goal setting and financial accountability. It will also allow for adjustments to unforeseen changes in revenue or expenses.

F2: 1: Despite budget challenges, San Joaquin County leadership is committed to the continued operation and improvement of Micke Grove Zoo. Public Feedback On October 25, 2016, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors requested that the General Services Department provide a “zoo action plan” that included details on “what residents want” at Micke Grove Zoo. General Services presented their “Micke Grove Zoo Survey Results” to the Board of Supervisors on July 24, 2018. The public survey responses were generally favorable and supportive of Micke Grove Zoo. Positive comments were received regarding the beautiful location, the exotic animals, and the Zoo being a great place for small children. Perhaps most helpful to a zoo seeking to increase its popularity and support were the critical responses and requested improvements for Micke Grove Zoo, including: • Zoo needs updating • Add new and more variety of animals • Add interactive experiences, including opportunities to feed animals • Reopen the concession stand • Have staff present to answer questions • More special events • Create a VIP members program with privileges As County leadership moves forward in determining the kind of zoo that residents want and the County can afford, the critical feedback received through the public survey will help guide the process to ensure public support and success.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: 1 The San Joaquin County General Services Department complete and present to the Board of Supervisors an analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo, including what they envision the Zoo to be in five, ten, and twenty years by June 30, 2020.

F3: 1 San Joaquin County’s ability to identify and secure multiple funding sources will be critical to fulfilling the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo. Micke Grove Zoological Society Since its inception in 1978, MGZS has been instrumental in raising millions of dollars to fund capital improvements and new animal exhibits. However, the ability of MGZS to raise funds for Micke Grove Zoo has substantially diminished over the past decade. The decline in fundraising resulted from numerous factors, including: economic recession, County budget cutbacks and departmental reorganizations, abandonment of the 2008 Zoo Master Plan, failure to complete the East End Project, and the transfer of all educational program responsibilities from the County to MGZS. While placing blame on the County for lack of commitment and priority for the Zoo, MGZS also acknowledges their responsibility in being unable raise funds to pay for new exhibits. The end result has been a strained and dysfunctional relationship between the County and MGZS that lacks necessary collaboration and no longer complies with the requirements of the 1999 operating agreement between the two entities. That agreement specifically gives MGZS the responsibility to “carry-out plans to initiate, sponsor and promote activities that will raise money to encourage the prosperity and development of the Zoo.” The Taussig report made clear that “Zoos rely heavily on donations, sponsorships, and foundation funding to remain operational.” The report also stated that “…third party non-profit organizations affiliated with the benchmarked zoos provide a high-level of support by assisting with operational demands and sourcing and administering corporate sponsorships and fundraising events.” The report further concluded that the fundraising efforts for Micke Grove Zoo “…have yielded limited results in recent years” and that the County should renegotiate their operating agreement with MGZS. A review of tax documents from 2010-2016 for both MGZS and the San Joaquin County Historical Society (see Appendix A) reveals an obvious disparity in fundraising results between the two non- profit organizations. If MGZS is to remain the designated organization responsible for raising funds for the future Micke Grove Zoo, then collaboration with the Historical Society would prove beneficial in improving fundraising efforts moving forward. Financing the vision for the future Micke Grove Zoo requires a third-party non-profit or foundation capable of raising significant funds. The County and MGZS need to determine if MGZS will be that essential fundraising organization or whether a separate charitable foundation, similar to the Happy Hollow Zoo Foundation in San Jose, should be established. It is the County’s responsibility to ensure compliance with their operating agreement with MGZS and to renegotiate that agreement as necessary. Findings F3.2 A non-profit organization or foundation capable of raising significant funds is essential to fulfilling the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo. F3.3 The recent fundraising results from the Micke Grove Zoological Society are insufficient to support the necessary improvements for Micke Grove Zoo.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: 1 The San Joaquin County General Services Department determine the role and responsibility of the Micke Grove Zoological Society for fundraising to support the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo, and renegotiate their operating agreement accordingly by June 30, 2020. Corporate Sponsorships Perhaps the most promising of all long-term funding sources for Micke Grove Zoo is the potential for corporate sponsorship. The proximity of the Zoo to the increasingly successful Lodi wine industry offers an opportunity for significant support and possible naming rights. The marketing potential in this relationship is presently being tapped for the MGZS fundraising event “Wild About Wine” being held in June 2019. It should be emphasized that the potential for obtaining corporate sponsorships is greatly enhanced by accreditation and the development of a clear vision and plan for the future Zoo. State Funding Proposition 68 was approved by California voters in June 2018 and is intended to “…expand access and infrastructure in State and local park systems”. The County should explore this and other available options for State funding. Grants Additional funding through public and private grants may be available and should be pursued. The Taussig report stated that, “Coordination and outreach with San Joaquin County’s Department of Community Development is vital to accessing additional sources of grant funding.” The report also emphasized that “…accreditation improves access to grant programs.” Tax Measure The viability of obtaining voter approval of a sales tax measure to improve Micke Grove Zoo is questionable at this time. The Fresno Zoo was successful in the passage of Measure Z, a .1% sales tax measure approved by two-thirds of voters in 2004. Ironically, a billboard advertising the Fresno Zoo was recently sighted in San Joaquin County.

F1.1: The lack of a Policy and Procedures Manual for Micke Grove Zoo creates inefficiencies and potential liabilities for the Parks and Recreation Division and San Joaquin County.

F1.2: The lack of a detailed and comprehensive budget for Micke Grove Zoo makes proper financial management difficult.

F1.3: Micke Grove Zoo staff and operations have been negatively impacted by departmental reorganizations, turnover in administrators and staff, layoffs of part-time employees, understaffing, and lack of cross-training.

F1.4: The lack of a preventive maintenance schedule and record of repairs has resulted in increased costs and staff time in maintaining Micke Grove Zoo.

F1.5: The inability of MGZS to operate the concession stand and gift shop, as well as provide necessary fundraising support, demonstrates noncompliance with the 1999 operating agreement with San Joaquin County.

F1.6: The inability of San Joaquin County to ensure compliance with its 1999 operating agreement with MGZS has been financially detrimental to Micke Grove Zoo and its visitors.

F2.1: : Despite budget challenges, San Joaquin County leadership is committed to the continued operation and improvement of Micke Grove Zoo. Public Feedback On October 25, 2016, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors requested that the General Services Department provide a “zoo action plan” that included details on “what residents want” at Micke Grove Zoo. General Services presented their “Micke Grove Zoo Survey Results” to the Board of Supervisors on July 24, 2018. The public survey responses were generally favorable and supportive of Micke Grove Zoo. Positive comments were received regarding the beautiful location, the exotic animals, and the Zoo being a great place for small children. Perhaps most helpful to a zoo seeking to increase its popularity and support were the critical responses and requested improvements for Micke Grove Zoo, including: • Zoo needs updating • Add new and more variety of animals • Add interactive experiences, including opportunities to feed animals • Reopen the concession stand • Have staff present to answer questions • More special events • Create a VIP members program with privileges As County leadership moves forward in determining the kind of zoo that residents want and the County can afford, the critical feedback received through the public survey will help guide the process to ensure public support and success. Finding

F2.2: : The residents of San Joaquin County value Micke Grove Zoo and desire to see it improved. Master Plan After Micke Grove Zoo lost AZA accreditation in 2006 due to its outdated exhibits, an ambitious and expensive Master Plan was developed and unveiled in 2008. Due to the corresponding and prolonged economic recession, only a portion of the planned improvements were actually built. The 2008 Master Plan is currently viewed by County leaders as cost-prohibitive and no longer conforming to evolving AZA standards. For most of the past decade, Micke Grove Zoo has continued to operate without a defined plan or vision. County leaders now acknowledge that a strategic plan to improve the Zoo is essential and indicate they are currently working towards that goal. It is noted that one of Micke Grove Zoo’s stated “Guiding Principles” is “Ensuring a Secure Future Through Balanced Development.” The recent Taussig Report included a recommendation that the County “…evaluate its strategic options for Micke Grove Zoo” as to their intention “…to renovate and revitalize the Zoo.” Prior to developing a master plan for physically improving Micke Grove Zoo, the County must decide what kind of zoo is both desirable and affordable moving forward. Decisions regarding the variety of animals (e.g. exotic and/or native species), the number of animals, the level of public engagement with animals, and the incorporation of educational opportunities, are just a few of the critical factors that will influence the configuration and operation of the Zoo into the future. The following statement is currently found on the Zoo’s website: “Micke Grove Zoo is focused on providing quality care to a diverse collection of exotic and native species that will provide you an opportunity to connect with nature in a way found nowhere else in the area.” The website also defines it as “a small Zoo…committed to housing and displaying animals appropriate for the size and scope of our facility.” Such statements will need to be reevaluated to determine if they will continue to accurately reflect the vision and purpose of the Zoo. A cost analysis of all needed infrastructure improvements must be done in conjunction with a new master plan for the Zoo. Additionally, County management and Zoo staff generally agree that the unfinished East End Project, including the snow leopard exhibit, is the necessary starting point for any renovation of the Zoo. County leadership is admittedly inexperienced in zoo management. As such, the guidance and expertise of industry professionals in both determining and designing the future of Micke Grove Zoo is essential. Additional guidance might also be obtained through other zoos. The nearby Sacramento Zoo drafted a new Master Plan in 2017 and may be able to provide valuable assistance. Findings

F2.3: Developing a vision and plan for the future of Micke Grove Zoo is essential to generating the financial support necessary to make that vision a reality.

F2.4: San Joaquin County leadership must obtain the guidance and expertise of industry professionals in both determining and designing the master plan for Micke Grove Zoo in order to ensure its successful future.

F2.5: Owning and operating a zoological facility today where animal care standards are subject to intense scrutiny and criticism may necessitate certification from a recognized professional association. Such certification is further justified through numerous additional benefits.

F2.6: Regaining accreditation through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) may not be practical or affordable for Micke Grove Zoo due to the stringent requirements and constantly evolving standards.

F2.7: Accreditation through the Zoological Association of America (ZAA) offers many of the same benefits as AZA, but may allow more flexibility and affordability as the County works to improve Micke Grove Zoo.

F3.1: San Joaquin County’s ability to identify and secure multiple funding sources will be critical to fulfilling the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo. Micke Grove Zoological Society Since its inception in 1978, MGZS has been instrumental in raising millions of dollars to fund capital improvements and new animal exhibits. However, the ability of MGZS to raise funds for Micke Grove Zoo has substantially diminished over the past decade. The decline in fundraising resulted from numerous factors, including: economic recession, County budget cutbacks and departmental reorganizations, abandonment of the 2008 Zoo Master Plan, failure to complete the East End Project, and the transfer of all educational program responsibilities from the County to MGZS. While placing blame on the County for lack of commitment and priority for the Zoo, MGZS also acknowledges their responsibility in being unable raise funds to pay for new exhibits. The end result has been a strained and dysfunctional relationship between the County and MGZS that lacks necessary collaboration and no longer complies with the requirements of the 1999 operating agreement between the two entities. That agreement specifically gives MGZS the responsibility to “carry-out plans to initiate, sponsor and promote activities that will raise money to encourage the prosperity and development of the Zoo.” The Taussig report made clear that “Zoos rely heavily on donations, sponsorships, and foundation funding to remain operational.” The report also stated that “…third party non-profit organizations affiliated with the benchmarked zoos provide a high-level of support by assisting with operational demands and sourcing and administering corporate sponsorships and fundraising events.” The report further concluded that the fundraising efforts for Micke Grove Zoo “…have yielded limited results in recent years” and that the County should renegotiate their operating agreement with MGZS. A review of tax documents from 2010-2016 for both MGZS and the San Joaquin County Historical Society (see Appendix A) reveals an obvious disparity in fundraising results between the two non- profit organizations. If MGZS is to remain the designated organization responsible for raising funds for the future Micke Grove Zoo, then collaboration with the Historical Society would prove beneficial in improving fundraising efforts moving forward. Financing the vision for the future Micke Grove Zoo requires a third-party non-profit or foundation capable of raising significant funds. The County and MGZS need to determine if MGZS will be that essential fundraising organization or whether a separate charitable foundation, similar to the Happy Hollow Zoo Foundation in San Jose, should be established. It is the County’s responsibility to ensure compliance with their operating agreement with MGZS and to renegotiate that agreement as necessary. Findings

F3.2: A non-profit organization or foundation capable of raising significant funds is essential to fulfilling the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo.

F3.3: The recent fundraising results from the Micke Grove Zoological Society are insufficient to support the necessary improvements for Micke Grove Zoo.

F3.4: The opportunities for San Joaquin County to obtain funding support for Micke Grove Zoo through corporate sponsorships and grants are hindered by lack of accreditation and a new Master Plan for the Zoo.

October 31, 2018 — San Joaquin County Grand Jury Tracy City Council: Restore the Public Trust

16 pages 17 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 17 findings

F1: 1 The Tracy City Council’s failure to agree on an Ethics Policy is reflective of the Council’s inability to agree on the fundamentals of how to work together as an effective governing body.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: 1 The Tracy City Council create and adopt an Ethics Policy that governs the behavior of its elected officials, appointed officials, and senior staff by October 31, 2019.

F2: 1 The petty bickering between Tracy City Council members during Council meetings has diminished their ability to effectively conduct the public’s business and has undermined the public’s trust in the Council.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: 1 Tracy City Council members publicly agree to set aside their personal differences and conduct the public’s business in an efficient and respectful manner, by October 31, 2019. 3.0 Council Vacancy Appointment Process Following the elections of 2012, 2014, and 2016, vacancies on the Tracy City Council occurred when one Council member was either elected or appointed to another political position. California Government Code Section 36512 statutorily grants authority to the elected officials to appoint a replacement within 60-days or call for a special election to fill the vacated seat. However, it does not define what type of appointment process should be used. It is left up to the elected officials to determine what works best for their community at the time of the vacancy. In each case, the Tracy Council chose to fill the vacancy through an appointment process, instead of calling a special election. While a special election places the selection in the hands of the voters, the San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters currently estimates that a special election in Tracy would cost $393,891. The appointment process utilized to fill vacant Council seats after the 2012 and 2014 elections resulted in contentious debates and a split Council vote of 2/2. Only after facing the possibility of an expensive special election did one of the Council members reluctantly change their vote. In each instance, a 3/2 voting bloc materialized, with the compromising Council member on the short end. The current appointment process adopted by Council as Resolution 2014-180, and amended by Resolution 2017-001, opens the application field to any eligible Tracy citizen supported by the signatures of at least 20 registered voters. After public interviews of each of the applicants, each of the Council members votes for two applicants (one vote if there are only two applicants). Voting continues as the field is narrowed by the majority of Council votes. The current appointment process was used after the 2016 election and resulted in less contentiousness. However, another 3/2 voting bloc quickly emerged, followed by the termination of the City Manager. The current process is not responsive to the will of Tracy voters and has contributed to Council alliances, engendering a 3/2 voting bloc based on loyalty to those Council members supportive of the appointee’s selection. Furthermore, after serving out their terms, each of the appointed Council members campaigned to retain their Council seat and each did not receive sufficient voter support. Table 2 summarizes the results for the past four elections. Table 3 shows the timeline for the Tracy City Council. Table 2. Tracy City Council Election Results 2012 – 2018 2018 2016 Mayor Mayor Name Votes Percentage Name Votes Percentage Robert Rickman* 13,433 52.1% Robert Rickman* 15,009 55.4% Nancy Young 12,356 47.9% Michael Maciel 12,023 44.4% Council Council Name Votes Percentage Name Votes Percentage Dan Arriola* 10,100 22.9% Nancy Young* 11,176 26.2% Veronica Vargas* 8,371 19.0% Rhodesia Ransom* 10,613 24.9% Dotty Nygard 8,256 18.7% Mary Mitracos 8,006 18.8% Juana Dement 6,952 15.8% Anne Marie Fuller 6,936 16.3% Catalina Olvera 5,516 12.5% Amer Hammudi 5,777 13.6% Amer Hammudi 4,923 11.2% 2014 2012 Mayor Mayor Name Votes Percentage Name Votes Percentage Michael Maciel* 6,977 58.4% Brent Ives* 19,300 95.00% Ray Morelos 4,906 41.0% Council Council Name Votes Percentage Name Votes Percentage Robert Rickman* 7,639 38.4% Nancy Young* 9,563 26.90% Veronica Vargas* 5,473 27.5% Michael Maciel* 9,046 25.50% Charles Manne 4,516 22.7% Ray Morelos 6,355 17.90% Robert Tanner 2,220 11.1% Charles Manne 5,698 16.10% Roger Birdsall 4,680 13.20% *Elected Table 3. Tracy City Council Timeline 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Mayor Brent Ives Brent Ives Mike Maciel Robert Robert Rickman Rickman Council Bob Elliott Charles Veronica Vargas Veronica Member Manne* Vargas Council Steve Nancy Young Nancy Young Member Abercrombie Council Mike Maciel Mike Maciel Mary Rhodesia Ransom Member Mitracos* Council Robert Rickman Robert Juana Dan Arriola Member Rickman Dement* *Appointed

F3: 1 The appointment process used by the Tracy City Council to fill Council vacancies has fostered loyalty, allegiance, and personal obligation by appointed Council members and has resulted in consistent voting blocs and facilitated divisiveness amongst the Council members.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: 1 The Tracy City Council adopt a resolution for filling Council vacancies that is more responsive to the voice of the voters by appointing the next highest vote-getter from the previous election by December 31, 2019. 4.0 Impact of Executive Staff Separations City Administrators In September 2017, Tracy’s highly regarded City Manager was fired by the City Council after a very contentious 3/2 vote. No explanation was given for the surprise termination. The next person in line for the position, the Assistant City Manager, was bypassed and the City’s Fire Chief was appointed to the position of Interim City Manager. Within two weeks, the newly appointed Interim City Manager forced the resignation of the Assistant City Manager, again without explanation. Chief of Police In August 2018, Tracy’s popular Police Chief was abruptly relieved of duty, and again, no explanation was given. Citizens’ outrage boiled over in the form of protests, letters to the local newspaper, and a series of emotional public pleas for transparency and accountability voiced during Council meetings. Public discord was matched by Council dissension with two members expressing their deep concerns for hidden politics at play. Council members sat silent as the Council Chamber overflowed with Tracy citizens and police officers seeking explanations and assurances from their elected officials. The sudden and unexplained departure of the City’s Police Chief was noteworthy enough to draw the attention of most regional newspapers, including the Stockton Record, San Jose Mercury News, and San Francisco Chronicle. Major network affiliates ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox sent field reporters to cover the crowded Council proceedings. The abrupt departure of the Tracy Police Chief came as a shock to the department’s officers and triggered rampant rumors amongst staff and citizens. Many publicly speculated the loss was simply one more casualty of power politics. The Tracy Police Officers Association issued a public statement expressing they were “extremely disappointed” in the decision and that the Chief “had the full support of their membership.” On August 24, 2018, the Tracy Press editorial board entreated the Council to “End the silence, inform the citizens”. The same editorial referenced the unexplained departures of the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and the Director of Parks and Recreation. It noted the continued silence served to spawn uninformed speculation and rumors and ended by pressing the Council “to conduct the public’s business in public.” Counting the Costs This series of unexplained leadership departures created significant turmoil for City of Tracy employees. Leadership positions were hastily filled with temporary appointments that included an Interim City Manager, Interim Assistant City Manager, Acting Human Resources Director, Acting Fire Chief, and Interim Chief of Police. Filling these positions proved difficult. The turmoil in City Hall damaged the City’s reputation as a desirable employer and made candidates reluctant to apply for open positions. It took the City over 19 months to hire a new City Manager. The Chief of Police continues to be interim until a permanent replacement is hired. In addition to the human toll, the various separations inflicted significant financial impact on the City. Severance payments to the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and Police Chief cost the City more than $400,000. Filling these three openings required hiring an executive search firm, costing about $30,000 per position. Overall, these three separations resulted in the City of Tracy paying out approximately $500,000. Added to hard costs, are the less quantifiable costs of lost productivity from shuffling staff, fear of job loss, and general anxiety of a working environment in turmoil. City Attorney The essential role and function of the Tracy City Attorney as legal advisor to the City Council has also been negatively affected by the familiar 3/2 controlling majority on the Council. While the City Attorney serves at the pleasure of, and is appointed by, the City Council, it is imperative that the function of the City Attorney not be impaired by fear or intimidation from Council alliances.

F4: 1 The rapid succession of executive staff terminations and forced resignations created an unstable work environment for the City of Tracy’s staff as department leadership was dismantled. The instability created an unnecessarily stressful work environment which was compounded by fear of job loss.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: 1. The Tracy City Council amend the Tracy City Municipal Code to require a supermajority vote of four (4) members of the City Council to remove the City Manager or City Attorney, by December 31, 2019. 5.0 Council Intrusion in City Operations Tracy practices a Council-Manager form of government in which the City Manager serves as the Chief Executive Officer for the City’s operations and acts as advisor to the Council. Tracy’s Municipal Code section 2.08.060 specifies the duties and powers of the City Manager, including: “It shall be the duty of the City Manager and he or she shall have the power to control, order, and give directions to all heads of departments and to subordinate officers and employees of the City through their department heads, to transfer employees from one department to another, and to consolidate or combine offices, positions, departments, or units under his or her direction.” To ensure boundaries of authority, Tracy’s Municipal Code section 2.08.080 is explicit in its separation of duties within its Council-Manager form of government: “The Council and its members shall deal with the administrative services only through the City Manager, except for the purpose of inquiry, and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager.” The Grand Jury uncovered a sweeping pattern of over-reach by individual Council members during the past two years, including: • • • Department heads were contacted by Council members and given directives that violated City policy. Staff members received direct requests to perform tasks contrary to established procedures. Department heads and staff members were berated in public meetings and accused of “dragging their feet”. Under the Council-Manager construct, the Council sets the strategic direction of the City and proposes policies to support their objectives. The City Manager directs staff members to research and analyze the impact of the Council’s proposals and then present the impartial results of their analyses. With the City Manager acting as a firewall between Council and staff, studies and reports are based on best practices and data from the field. However, in the absence of a buffer between staff members and the Council, and in a fearful work environment, the objectivity of reports is at risk. The City of Tracy employs highly-educated, experienced, competent professionals with expertise in public administration, urban planning, economic development, and other job-related fields. Many live in Tracy, volunteer in Tracy, and are raising their families “inside the Triangle.” The stakes are high when their careers depend on pleasing the personal agendas of elected officials. It has become standard operating procedure to “keep your head down” and avoid upsetting the City Council. The Council Chamber has often become an “echo chamber” in which staff recommendations and reports are more apt to reflect the preferences of individual Council members or the Council majority, rather than proven best practices. The “echo chamber” has served to muffle the full measure and benefit of City staff’s professional experience, education, and expertise.

F5: 1 The Tracy City Council has failed to follow their policy by intruding into the responsibilities of City staff. This has negatively impacted staff morale and the effective operations of City business.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: 1 The Tracy City Council develop and implement a written protocol for sanctions or censure of Council members who violate the Tracy Municipal Code by failing to work through the City Manager to conduct City business, by December 31, 2019

F1.1: The Tracy City Council’s failure to agree on an Ethics Policy is reflective of the Council’s inability to agree on the fundamentals of how to work together as an effective governing body.

F1.2: The Tracy City Council’s failure to prioritize the establishment of an Ethics Policy conveys a message to Tracy residents that ethical behavior by the City Council is not of paramount importance.

F1.3: The adoption of an Ethics Policy will provide the Tracy City Council with a tool to hold fellow members accountable for their actions.

F2.1: The petty bickering between Tracy City Council members during Council meetings has diminished their ability to effectively conduct the public’s business and has undermined the public’s trust in the Council.

F2.2: The lack of an Ethics Policy restricts the ability of Tracy City Council members to hold one another accountable for violating established ethical standards.

F2.3: The discord amongst Tracy City Council members is obvious to viewers of Council meetings, although the Council members themselves seemingly fail to recognize this reality.

F2.4: Unethical conduct during the 2018 election campaign further damaged Council members’ ability to work together.

F3.1: The appointment process used by the Tracy City Council to fill Council vacancies has fostered loyalty, allegiance, and personal obligation by appointed Council members and has resulted in consistent voting blocs and facilitated divisiveness amongst the Council members.

F3.2: The appointment process used by the Tracy City Council to fill Council vacancies does not take into account the will of the voters and has not been endorsed by Tracy’s electorate.

F4.1: The rapid succession of executive staff terminations and forced resignations created an unstable work environment for the City of Tracy’s staff as department leadership was dismantled. The instability created an unnecessarily stressful work environment which was compounded by fear of job loss.

F4.2: The Tracy City Council’s lack of transparency further eroded the public trust and caused many to speculate that power politics was the catalyst for unexplained departures of the City’s professional leadership team.

F4.3: The City of Tracy’s reputation as a desirable employer was damaged by the series of unexplained terminations and forced resignations. This unstable environment made recruiting for open positions substantially more difficult.

Onty of SAN County's "Most Wanted" – Delinquent Property Taxes

10 pages 12 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: 3, F2.1, F2.2 and Recommendations: R1.1, R1.2, R1.3, R.2.1, R2.2 San Joaquin County Assessor-Recorder-Clerk respond within 60 days to Findings: F2.1, F2.2, F3.1, F3.2, F3.3, F3.4 and Recommendations: R2.1, R2.2, R2.3, R3.1, R3.2, R3.3 Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable David P. Warner, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 222 East Weber Avenue, Room 303 Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at grandjury@sjcourts.org

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: 1 Beginning Tax Year 2013-2014, the Tax Collector conduct two tax sales each year.

F2: 1 There is no regular, scheduled communication between the Tax Collector's office and the Assessor-Recorder's office regarding foreclosed and/or abandoned properties which contributes to the inaccuracy of affected records.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: 1 By December 31, 2013, the Assessor-Recorder and the Tax Collector develop, revise and/or refine departmental policies and procedures that will facilitate meaningful, timely and accurate communications between and among all parties to ensure the accuracy of all records shared by both offices.

F3: 1 There is no time frame established for processing changes of ownership to expedite tax collection.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: 1 The Assessor-Recorder establish defined timelines for the processing of regular changes of property ownership by December 31, 2013 and conduct training for all staff on methods to achieve established timelines.

F1.1: By conducting a tax auction of defaulted properties only once each year, the San Joaquin County Treasurer-Tax Collector decreases the number of opportunities for the County to realize a more rapid recovery of revenue from defaulted property taxes.

F1.2: The San Joaquin County Treasurer-Tax Collector uses only face-to-face auctions as a means to conduct property sales thereby limiting the number of participants in tax auctions.

F1.3: The San Joaquin County Treasurer-Tax Collector has insufficient staff to manage an ever- increasing volume of delinquent property tax demands.

F2.1: There is no regular, scheduled communication between the Tax Collector’s office and the Assessor-Recorder’s office regarding foreclosed and/or abandoned properties which contributes to the inaccuracy of affected records.

F2.2: The use of two different computer programs within the tax valuation/collection structure hinders the daily exchange of critical information among departments charged with overseeing public assets.

F3.1: There is no time frame established for processing changes of ownership to expedite tax collection.

F3.2: The back-log of documents requiring processing is mounting due to staff shortages.

F3.3: The computer technology currently used by the Assessor-Recorder’s Office is insufficient to keep pace with the demand on processing time, especially of agricultural properties.

F3.4: While not totally obsolete, the aging 18 year-old computer hardware system in use at the Assessor-Recorder’s Office does not provide for the most efficient use of staff time or effort.

San Joaquin County Grand Jury San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation: Budget Challenges and Matters of Trust

21 pages 18 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 18 findings

F2: 3 The Park Endowment Trust and the Micke Grove Trust represent an invaluable opportunity to provide an ongoing source of funding for new park initiatives and capital expenditures, if those trust funds are not depleted on an annual basis.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: 1 Starting with the 2020-2021 proposed budget, the Parks and Recreation Division discontinue the use of both the Micke Grove Trust and the Park Endowment Trust to fund operation and maintenance of the parks.

F3: 1 The Grand Jury found it difficult to determine Wells Fargo’s effectiveness in managing the William G. Micke Estate Trust because the biennial reports filed with the court do not contain performance information.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: 1 By December 31, 2019, the Board of Supervisors require Wells Fargo to submit an annual performance report for the William G. Micke Estate Trust. This report shall include the total return compared to an industry standard benchmark with a similar risk profile. 4.0 Parks and Recreation Benchmarking Assessment Report In 2018, the General Services Department commissioned David Taussig and Associates to conduct the Parks and Recreation Benchmarking and Assessment Report (Taussig report). The purpose of the report was “to evaluate how San Joaquin County compares to other counties based on a wide range of quantitative and qualitative information regarding parks, recreation, facilities, employees and finances.” This report generated a number of Key Findings, Common Themes, and Recommendations. The issues most pertinent to this investigation are: • The Parks and Recreation Division does more with less, in comparison to the benchmarked counties • Existing funding sources are unable to keep up with rising costs of services and maintenance • A lack of long-term funding options for operations and maintenance • The Parks and Recreation Division’s general fund contribution per capita is the lowest among the benchmarked counties • Staffing cuts would be inappropriate, and in fact, additional staffing would allow the Division to clear any backlogged tasks and prioritize work with high visibility to the community Taussig identified three “benchmark” counties geographically close to San Joaquin County that have similar characteristics in terms of median household income, median property value, and land area. The three benchmark counties are Stanislaus, Placer, and Yolo. Table 2 below lists the per capita contributions from the General Fund of each county to their respective parks budget. This shows how much money each county contributes to the park budget per person living in the county. Table 2. Comparison of the Per Capita Contribution from the General Fund to the Parks Departments in the Benchmark Counties County San Joaquin Stanislaus Placer Yolo General Fund Contribution Per $3.19 $5.30 $5.02 $4.73 Capita San Joaquin County’s contribution is 33% lower than the next lowest county. The report further identified that “the Division has approximately 6.61 full-time employees per Regional Park, which is low relative to the benchmarks. Stanislaus and Placer County have, for comparison, approximately 8.40 and 11.00 full-time employees per regional park.”

F1.1: The Parks and Recreation Division budget has not kept pace with inflation, nor has it benefited from substantial growth in the overall County budget, thereby hindering the Division’s ability to maintain and improve the parks.

F1.2: The reduction in County contributions through Net County Costs has further exacerbated the Parks and Recreation budget challenges.

F1.3: The Board of Supervisors and the Parks and Recreation Division have continued to supplement the budget with monies from the Parks Trust Funds rather than making the difficult decisions required to balance the Parks and Recreation budget.

F1.4: The continued borrowing of money to balance the Parks and Recreation budget is an unsustainable practice that has decimated the Parks Trust Funds.

F1.5: Despite direction by the Board of Supervisors to create a program to reduce reliance on trust funds and provide a balanced budget by 2014-2015, the Parks and Recreation Division continues to rely on trust funds to balance its annual budget.

F1.6: Despite recognition by members of the Board of Supervisors that the trust funds should be paid back once the economy recovered, no effort has yet been made to repay the “borrowed” money.

F1.7: Although the Parks and Recreation Division recognized the chronic overestimation of revenues and reduced the revenue estimates in their 2018-2019 proposed budget by nearly $360,000, data from the prior two years indicate that the revenue estimates should have been reduced by an additional $100,000.

F2.1: Contrary to the original intent of the Park Endowment Trust, the Parks and Recreation Division has proposed, and the Board of Supervisors has approved, the use of principal for operations and maintenance in the park system each year since 2010-2011.

F2.2: Prior to its near depletion, the Park Endowment Trust was an invaluable resource, providing the Parks and Recreation Division an ongoing source of seed money for capital development projects and major equipment purchases. Micke Grove Trust The Micke Grove Trust was established on January 14, 1986 “for the deposit of the monies from the William G. Micke Estate Trust.” It was further ordered “that no money shall be expended for any reason whatsoever from the Micke Grove Trust Account without the prior authorization by the Board of Supervisors.” Figure 6 below shows the deposits, expenditures, transfers, and the year- end balance for the Micke Grove Trust between the 2009-2010 and 2017-2018 fiscal years. $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 Deposits Transfers to General Fund Year-End Balance Figure 6. Deposits, Transfers to General Fund, and Year-End Balance for the Micke Grove Trust Based on the financial information and legal briefs reviewed by the Grand Jury, the County provided all monies required for the maintenance and operation of Micke Grove Park prior to the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Evidence was found that there were periodic requests by the County for funds from the William G. Micke Estate Trust to pay for equipment and capital improvements. Internal Revenue Service regulation changes in 2008 began requiring the William G. Micke Estate Trust to annually distribute approximately 5% of the Fair Market Value to the County. Between 2009 and 2012, these required distributions from the William G. Micke Estate Trust were deposited into the Parks Donation Trust. Beginning in 2013, the required distributions were deposited into the Micke Grove Trust. During 2013-2014, the required distribution, along with the prior balance, was transferred from the Micke Grove Trust into the General Fund to supplement the Parks and Recreation budget for ongoing operations of Micke Grove. This practice continues. Between 2013- 2014 and 2017-2018, nearly $1,700,000 was transferred from the Micke Grove Trust into the General Fund to supplement the Parks and Recreation budget. The balance of the Micke Grove Trust at the end of fiscal year 2017-2018 was $1,000. Park Donation Trust The Park Donation Trust was established on March 11, 1980 to account for donations made for specific park improvements. Figure 7 below shows the deposits, withdrawals, and year-end balance for the Park Donation Trust. $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $- William G. Micke Estate Deposit Private Donations Total Withdrawals Year-End Balance Figure 6. Deposits, Withdrawals and Year-End Balance for the Park Donation Trust At the end of 2011-2012, the Park Donation Trust had a balance of nearly $1,400,000. During the past decade, almost $2,500,000 has been transferred out, leaving a balance of less than $7,000 at the end of 2017-2018. Finding

F2.3: The Park Endowment Trust and the Micke Grove Trust represent an invaluable opportunity to provide an ongoing source of funding for new park initiatives and capital expenditures, if those trust funds are not depleted on an annual basis.

F2.4: The Parks Special Projects Trust Fund is an excellent addition to the Parks Trust Funds that, with proper management, will provide a valuable source of funding and operational support for special projects for years to come. 3.0 Non-County Managed Trusts The William G. Micke Estate Trust (the “Trust”) is managed by the trust division of Wells Fargo Bank (the “Trustee”). As stated in the Petition for Instructions (San Joaquin County Superior Court Case #29176), the County of San Joaquin is the beneficiary and the Board of Supervisors is responsible for overseeing the management of the Trust. The Board of Supervisors must also ensure that the monies distributed from the Trust are used in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Trust. As Trustee, Wells Fargo is responsible for prudently investing the assets in the Trust. Per California Probate Code 16047(a), “A trustee shall invest and manage trust assets as a prudent investor would, by considering the purposes, terms, distribution requirements, and other circumstances of the trust. In satisfying this standard, the trustee shall exercise reasonable care, skill, and caution.” Wells Fargo receives an annual management fee of approximately 1% for managing the Trust. At the end of 2016, the Trust consisted of a leased orchard and vineyard, securities, and cash. At that time, the value of the land was over 82% of the total value of the Trust, but the return on the land leases was only about 2% of the land’s value. Wells Fargo, with the approval of the San Joaquin County Superior Court and the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, sold the orchard in 2017 and the vineyard in 2018. The Trust is now entirely in securities and cash. Between 2009 and 2017, the William G. Micke Estate Trust distributed nearly $3,100,000 to the County. At the end of 2017, the balance of the Trust was almost $6,600,000. In order to receive their full management fee, Wells Fargo is required to file a biennial accounting report with the San Joaquin County Superior Court. These reports are legal filings and include a listing of each transaction made by Wells Fargo over the prior two years. However, the reports do not contain a clear and understandable summary of the total return on the investments in the Trust or a performance comparison to appropriate benchmarks. Finding

F3.1: The Grand Jury found it difficult to determine Wells Fargo’s effectiveness in managing the William G. Micke Estate Trust because the biennial reports filed with the court do not contain performance information.

F4.1: Despite a strong recommendation in the Taussig report that staffing cuts would be inappropriate, the Parks and Recreations Division has continued to eliminate positions.

F4.2: While “doing more with less” is admirable, it is apparent that the Parks and Recreation Division is at the point of “doing less with less,” especially considering the additional staffing cuts in 2018-2019 and the rising costs of services and maintenance.

F4.3: The very low per capita contribution from the County is a major factor in the Parks and Recreation Division’s inability to balance the budget.

F5.1: Departmental reorganizations and turnover have resulted in the loss of historical knowledge amongst the Parks and Recreation leadership and staff.

San Joaquin County Grand Jury It's Time to Come Together Consolidate the Eight

14 pages 3 findings 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: 2 District policies and procedures were not always followed. The Shared Services Agreement helped bring stability to the District.

F2: 1 There were operational improvements with Mokelumne Rural Fire District after the Shared

F3: 1 of the rural fire districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: 1 No later than November 1, 2015 LAFCo and the county's rural fire districts are to coordinate a series of meetings to consider the operational benefits of consolidation. The districts should include, but are not limited to, the following: Waterloo-Morada Fire District . Mokelumne Rural Fire District . French Camp-McKinley Rural Fire District 0 Montezuma Fire Protection District . Linden-Peters Fire District . Clements Rural Fire District 0 Woodridge Fire District . Liberty Fire Distict 0