San Joaquin County Grand Jury
2020-2021
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (8)
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
1 SB 929. Not all elements of SB 929 compliance are present on the district website, negatively
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
1 By March 31, 2022, comply with SB 929. Provide proof of exemption when relevant.
F2:
1 districts, making it difficult for the public to find information about those districts. There is no comprehensive central directory from which the public can access information
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
1 (SJ-IS) to create a webpage on the LAFCO website that lists all independent special districts within the boundaries of the county and provide a link to a standard summary page for each district. By March 31, 2022, on the summary webpage for each district, LAFCO provide at least the
F3:
1 There is no easy access from the county website to the websites of independent special districts, making it difficult for the public to find information about those districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
1 (SJ-IS) to create a webpage on the LAFCO website that lists all independent special districts within the boundaries of the county and provide a link to a standard summary page for each district. By March 31, 2022, on the summary webpage for each district, LAFCO provide at least the
F4:
1 easily accessible to the public. The brief financial summaries derived from the audits by the Auditor-Controller's Office are
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
1 special district audits to be submitted in an electronic form. By December 31, 2021, make all electronic independent special district audits going forward
F5:
1 quality services that can be shared with independent special districts. The county's robust implementation of its cyber strategy would be difficult for most
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
1 available services, benefits, costs, and sample MOUs, and distribute to all independent special districts. By March 31, 2022, the San Joaquin County Information Systems Division, in conjunction
F1.1:
SB 929. Not all elements of SB 929 compliance are present on the district website, negatively
F1.2:
impacting public transparency. Imprecise links to the State Controller's Office website for financial transactions and board
F1.3:
compensation make the website harder to use. The financial transactions on the State Controller's Office website do not provide an easily
F1.4:
understood picture of the district's finances. The San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller's Office has audits and financial summaries for
F1.5:
most districts that provide a more complete picture of the finances.
F1.6:
The district could achieve higher levels of functionality and security on its website by leveraging the IS services of the county or other entity that has focused software for special districts.
F2.1:
districts, making it difficult for the public to find information about those districts. There is no comprehensive central directory from which the public can access information
F2.2:
on their independent special districts, making such information difficult to find. The public would benefit from the addition of the following to the LAFCO website
F2.3:
District website link; Link to latest Municipal Service Review; Link to latest Sphere of Influence study; Link to the district map (usually found on the county GIS); • Date of agency formation; and Links to information about each Independent Special District as available from county departments.
F3.1:
There is no easy access from the county website to the websites of independent special districts, making it difficult for the public to find information about those districts.
F3.2:
County departments have information on independent special districts that is difficult for the public to access.
F4.1:
easily accessible to the public. The brief financial summaries derived from the audits by the Auditor-Controller's Office are
F4.2:
not easily accessible to the public. The Auditor-Controller's Office financial summaries provide a clearer picture of a district's
F4.3:
finances than that which is found on the State Controller's Office site.
F5.1:
quality services that can be shared with independent special districts. The county's robust implementation of its cyber strategy would be difficult for most
F5.2:
independent special districts to duplicate.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
27 findings
F1:
1 Superintendent turnover in Stockton Unified School District is as high as anywhere in California, making it impossible to institute lasting, positive change.
F2:
2.1 The Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees did not follow Bylaw 9124, failing to initiate a Request for Proposal when hiring the current board attorney on February 24, 2020. Taking this shortcut created confusion and mistrust among the Stockton Unified Board, the staff, and the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
1 By September 30, 2021, the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees publicly and officially affirm their commitment to follow their agreed-upon “Process for Recruitment and Selection of an Interim Superintendent” and the “Process for Recruitment and Selection of Permanent Superintendent” when hiring future superintendents. 2.2 Hiring a Board Attorney: SUSD Bylaws and the Brown Act Ignored On February 24, 2020, a special board meeting was held at 2:00 pm. It is unusual for an SUSD board meeting to be held at that time of day, because it is difficult for many constituents to attend during the normal working day. This limited community members’ access to this important meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to approve a contract with the law firm Burke, Williams & Sorensen to represent the board. It is unusual for a school district to employ an attorney to serve only a board of trustees rather than the entire district. The agenda (Item 1.5) regarding the hiring of the law firm did not include the contract or the funding source. The trustees returned from a closed session to find copies of the contract at their places on the dais. There was a motion to postpone the item until the agreement could be posted for public viewing at the next regularly scheduled board meeting. The motion failed by a vote of four to three. The motion to approve the agreement with Burke, Williams and Sorenson, LLP was then passed, also by a vote of four to three. The SUSD Board Bylaw 9124 states Retaining Legal Counsel When the district is seeking legal advice or representation, the Superintendent or designee shall initiate a Request for Proposals (RFP) to advertise and solicit proposals for legal services. In evaluating the proposals, the Board and Superintendent shall consider the firm's or attorney's background, experience, and reputation in education law; experience advising or representing school districts in California; fees; and experience of attorneys at the firm who will provide legal services. The Board and Superintendent shall annually evaluate the performance of the firm and/or attorneys providing legal services in such areas as efficiency and adequacy of advice; results obtained for the district; reasonableness of fees; and responsiveness to and interactions with the Board, administration, and community. Upon a successful 14 evaluation, the Board may renew the agreement with legal counsel without initiating an RFP. (SUSD Board Bylaw 9214) This was not the first time in recent years that the board decided to hire new attorneys. SUSD board bylaws recommend that legal services are periodically reviewed to determine whether the services are meeting the needs of the district. The attorney for the district with the law firm of Dannis Woliver Kelley had served SUSD for 15 years. This attorney handled matters for the district, not just the board of trustees. The Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP firm was chosen to replace this longtime SUSD attorney. The approved public process was used to hire this firm. A request for proposal (RFP) was developed, following district bylaws. Proposals were accepted from five law firms. Interviews were conducted, followed by reviews and ratings of the proposals, using a scoring rubric developed by a board subcommittee. The vote to hire Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP was approved unanimously. This process was quite different from the one used to hire the designated board attorney in the February 24, 2020 special meeting. There was no RFP, no acceptance of multiple proposals, no interviews, and no scoring rubric. The contract was approved at a public meeting as required by law, however, according to public statements by some board members, they had not been informed of the details, and had not seen the contract before the special meeting. “1.5 (A): Approval of Agreement with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP” was all that was placed on the agenda. There was no contract to review. Until the special meeting, the name, and qualifications of the attorney for the board were known only to some of the board members. The Grand Jury is concerned that some, but not all, of the board members, appeared to have known in advance about the plan to hire an attorney with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP to provide legal services, strictly for the board and not for the whole district. This time the vote was not unanimous. It was four to three, and a motion to postpone failed by the same margin. The board members in the minority were upset and believed there was a Brown Act violation. The attorney with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP was present at the meeting before being confirmed and began work immediately. Formal complaints from the community and some trustees were made, alleging the Ralph M. Brown Act had been violated. The board took up the matter again, two months later, to “cure and correct" what the Grand Jury believes was a valid complaint. At the April 28, 2020, meeting the board voted four to three to reaffirm the hiring of the board attorney.
F3:
1 The current Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustee leadership stifles expression and input from members in the minority, not allowing open and free discussion regarding board meeting agenda items. This undermines the democratic process and limits the representation of the trustees’ constituents.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
1 By November 1, 2021, the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees complete additional intensive governance training, facilitated by a qualified external body such as the California School Board Association. 2.0 Best Hiring Practices Ignored by Trustees 2.1 Hiring a Superintendent: Agreed-upon Process Disregarded At the May 12, 2020, special board meeting, in anticipation of the superintendent’s June 15th departure, SUSD trustees voted unanimously to use a formal process for selecting a permanent, or if necessary, interim superintendent. This process was similar to that used to select previous superintendents. The following is excerpted from the meeting agenda: Proposed Process for Recruitment and Selection of Interim Superintendent (if needed) to start on June 16, 2020: • The Board will meet in Closed Session at the end of this meeting to consider candidates for Interim Superintendent. • The Board may invite candidates for an interview with the Board. • If necessary, the Board will extend an offer to a candidate for Interim Superintendent if a permanent Superintendent has not been selected by June 16, 2020, or if the selected candidate is unable to commence by June 16, 2020. (The above process was used to select the Interim Superintendent, Brian Biedermann, who served from June 2020 until February 2021.) Proposed Process for Recruitment and Selection of Permanent Superintendent: • Select date for commencement of advertisement of open position and recruitment for Superintendent. • Appointment of ad hoc advisory Board committee to oversee the advertisement process. • Development of ad hoc advisory Board committees at May 12, 2020 Board meeting to obtain feedback from various stakeholder groups: o Family Feedback Committee o Community Feedback Committee o Staff Feedback Committee o Student Feedback Committee • The Feedback committees will meet with stakeholders to share their hopes for the next Superintendent. 12 • The Board will meet in Closed Session to review applications, review stakeholder feedback, and invite candidates to interview. • The Board will announce decision of new Superintendent. These processes for recruiting and selecting a permanent superintendent were adopted unanimously by the board on May 12, 2020. At no time since then has a recruitment and selection process, like the one described above, been used. On July 1, 2020, Mr. John Ramirez, Jr. was contracted by Stockton Unified School District to provide consultant services for SUSD for one year. The contract called for him to “provide support and mentoring for the Interim Superintendent, the Interim Deputy Superintendent, Executive Cabinet, Board of Education, Educational Services, Human Resources Administration, and Budget Management.” He also provided consulting services to an independent charter school, Vision Quest & Career Pathway, before starting this consulting contract. Vision Quest & Career Pathway operated as an independent charter school for formerly incarcerated adults. On January 7, 2020, the charter was approved by the Stockton Unified School Board. After four months Vision Quest & Career Pathway charter school closed. Mr. Ramirez continued to provide consultant services for the district until February 2, 2021. On January 26, 2021, the interim superintendent, Brian Biedermann, gave notice that he was stepping down from the superintendency, citing health issues. The board then named Mr. Ramirez acting superintendent, ending his consultant contract. This lasted until February 9, 2021, when he was elevated to interim superintendent. He remained in that position until May 25, 2021, when the Board voted five to two to make him the permanent superintendent. He is the sixth permanent superintendent in the last 16 years. All the previous, permanent superintendents were selected after using a thorough process, led by search firms. In those cases, in-depth background checks were conducted,
R3:
1 By September 30, 2021, a student representative be seated on the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees.
R4:
1 By September 3, 2021, the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees publicly review the California School Board Association Professional Governance Standards. Each trustee publicly agree to adhere to them.
F4:
1 Lack of adherence to California School Board Association Professional Governance Standards among Stockton Unified School District Trustees results in confusion and inefficiencies.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
1 By November 1, 2021, the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees complete additional intensive governance training, facilitated by a qualified external body such as the California School Board Association. 2.0 Best Hiring Practices Ignored by Trustees 2.1 Hiring a Superintendent: Agreed-upon Process Disregarded At the May 12, 2020, special board meeting, in anticipation of the superintendent’s June 15th departure, SUSD trustees voted unanimously to use a formal process for selecting a permanent, or if necessary, interim superintendent. This process was similar to that used to select previous superintendents. The following is excerpted from the meeting agenda: Proposed Process for Recruitment and Selection of Interim Superintendent (if needed) to start on June 16, 2020: • The Board will meet in Closed Session at the end of this meeting to consider candidates for Interim Superintendent. • The Board may invite candidates for an interview with the Board. • If necessary, the Board will extend an offer to a candidate for Interim Superintendent if a permanent Superintendent has not been selected by June 16, 2020, or if the selected candidate is unable to commence by June 16, 2020. (The above process was used to select the Interim Superintendent, Brian Biedermann, who served from June 2020 until February 2021.) Proposed Process for Recruitment and Selection of Permanent Superintendent: • Select date for commencement of advertisement of open position and recruitment for Superintendent. • Appointment of ad hoc advisory Board committee to oversee the advertisement process. • Development of ad hoc advisory Board committees at May 12, 2020 Board meeting to obtain feedback from various stakeholder groups: o Family Feedback Committee o Community Feedback Committee o Staff Feedback Committee o Student Feedback Committee • The Feedback committees will meet with stakeholders to share their hopes for the next Superintendent. 12 • The Board will meet in Closed Session to review applications, review stakeholder feedback, and invite candidates to interview. • The Board will announce decision of new Superintendent. These processes for recruiting and selecting a permanent superintendent were adopted unanimously by the board on May 12, 2020. At no time since then has a recruitment and selection process, like the one described above, been used. On July 1, 2020, Mr. John Ramirez, Jr. was contracted by Stockton Unified School District to provide consultant services for SUSD for one year. The contract called for him to “provide support and mentoring for the Interim Superintendent, the Interim Deputy Superintendent, Executive Cabinet, Board of Education, Educational Services, Human Resources Administration, and Budget Management.” He also provided consulting services to an independent charter school, Vision Quest & Career Pathway, before starting this consulting contract. Vision Quest & Career Pathway operated as an independent charter school for formerly incarcerated adults. On January 7, 2020, the charter was approved by the Stockton Unified School Board. After four months Vision Quest & Career Pathway charter school closed. Mr. Ramirez continued to provide consultant services for the district until February 2, 2021. On January 26, 2021, the interim superintendent, Brian Biedermann, gave notice that he was stepping down from the superintendency, citing health issues. The board then named Mr. Ramirez acting superintendent, ending his consultant contract. This lasted until February 9, 2021, when he was elevated to interim superintendent. He remained in that position until May 25, 2021, when the Board voted five to two to make him the permanent superintendent. He is the sixth permanent superintendent in the last 16 years. All the previous, permanent superintendents were selected after using a thorough process, led by search firms. In those cases, in-depth background checks were conducted,
R4:
1 By September 3, 2021, the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees publicly review the California School Board Association Professional Governance Standards. Each trustee publicly agree to adhere to them.
F5:
1 The complaints among the Stockton Unified School District Trustees are not an appropriate means of addressing board dissension, because none of the complaints correctly cite violations of law or policy. These complaints waste district time and money.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
1 As of August 1, 2021, discontinue accepting and investigating all trustee complaints against each other.
F6:
1 The board meetings lack transparency and sufficient access, making it difficult for members of the community to be informed about what is happening in the district.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
1 By August 3, 2021, all Stockton Unified School District board meetings be held in person and open to the public.
F1.1:
Superintendent turnover in Stockton Unified School District is as high as anywhere in California, making it impossible to institute lasting, positive change.
F1.2:
A major contributing factor to Stockton Unified School District’s high superintendent turnover is a history of school board dysfunction.
F1.3:
High superintendent turnover in Stockton Unified School District discourages employees, causing low morale. 11
F1.4:
When superintendents leave before the term of their contract, they are paid for the remainder. This diverts funds that could be used for educational materials and services.
F2.1:
The Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees did not follow the “Process for Recruitment and Selection of an Interim Superintendent” nor the “Process for Recruitment and Selection of a Permanent Superintendent,” when hiring the current superintendent, John Ramirez, Jr. Taking this shortcut produced confusion and mistrust among the board, the staff, and the public.
F3.1:
The current Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustee leadership stifles expression and input from members in the minority, not allowing open and free discussion regarding board meeting agenda items. This undermines the democratic process and limits the representation of the trustees’ constituents.
F3.2:
The current Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees does not adhere to the agreed-upon SUSD Governance Norms. This negatively impacts the function of the board and the district’s efforts to make educational progress.
F3.3:
The absence of a student representative on the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees prevents students from having a voice in the governance of the district.
F3.4:
Censuring of Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees, based on personal disagreements, is an abuse of district time and resources.
F3.5:
The current Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees does not follow the Professional Governance Standards recommended by the California School Board Association.
F4.1:
Lack of adherence to California School Board Association Professional Governance Standards among Stockton Unified School District Trustees results in confusion and inefficiencies.
F4.2:
Stockton Unified School District Trustees have been found to direct staff, bypassing the superintendent, causing confusion, and contributing to low morale.
F4.3:
Stockton Unified School District Trustees have been found to direct superintendents and other administrators to terminate specific administrative employees which could violate normal employment law and procedures.
F4.4:
Disregard for, or misunderstanding of, the Ralph M. Brown Act among Stockton Unified School District Trustees results in violations of the act and reduced governance transparency.
F5.1:
The complaints among the Stockton Unified School District Trustees are not an appropriate means of addressing board dissension, because none of the complaints correctly cite violations of law or policy. These complaints waste district time and money.
F5.2:
Frivolous complaints by Stockton Unified School District Trustees against each other harm relationships on the board, making it difficult, if not impossible, for there to be cohesiveness among the board of trustees.
F5.3:
Investigations of frivolous complaints made by Stockton Unified School District Trustees against each other waste time and money which could be better used for students.
F6.1:
The board meetings lack transparency and sufficient access, making it difficult for members of the community to be informed about what is happening in the district.
F6.2:
Incomplete or unpublished board minutes undermine public engagement and trust.
F6.3:
The dissolution of the board subcommittees reduced public engagement and board transparency.
F6.4:
All public comments submitted to board meetings are not easily accessible which reduces transparency and public engagement. 26
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
We won’t take disagreements personally …
R12:
We agree to look upon history as lessons learned; focus on the present and the future. (See
Findings & Recommendations
41 findings
F1:
1 The city manager and the assistant city manager positions were filled without the benefit of an established recruitment process. This caused community-wide turmoil while they struggled to learn the job.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
1 By March 1, 2022, San Joaquin County train all Public Health Services, Emergency Medical Services Agency, and Office of Emergency Services staff on the overall coordination and application of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Operations Plan, including its Emergency Support Function Annexes, and thereafter provide refresher training on an annual basis.
F2:
2.1 The Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees did not follow Bylaw 9124, failing to initiate a Request for Proposal when hiring the current board attorney on February 24, 2020. Taking this shortcut created confusion and mistrust among the Stockton Unified Board, the staff, and the public.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
1 By March 1, 2022, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors approve an organizational structure wherein the Public Health Officer reports directly to the Director of Health Care Services Agency. 3.0 Lack of Understanding and Use of County Disaster Workers Under State Law, Title 1, Sections 3100-3109 of California Government Code, all government employees are declared Disaster Service Workers (DSW) who can be called upon to perform their regular duties or work in another department during a declared emergency. Throughout this investigation it became evident that there was not a clear understanding of how Department Heads could retain Disaster Service Workers assigned to them. The written policy in San Joaquin County does not explicitly state the procedure for how and when employees are recalled to their home departments. During emergency situations, departments place a request for staff with the Human Resources Department (HR) who then coordinates that effort countywide. Issues included a shortage of personnel, departments not making a timely request for personnel, and staff members being prematurely recalled back to their original departments. Some Department Heads believed that employees assigned to their department to deal with the pandemic were assigned until released; not until recalled. Department Heads recalled their employees when they felt it was necessary, regardless of pressing needs of the borrowing department. Several departments had personnel recalled prematurely, which left the emergency response departments short-staffed. As a result, Department Heads had to go through the process of getting a staff request approved by the CAO and placed on the BOS agenda. In some instances, this took several months. To obtain urgently needed workers, Department Heads were required to find alternative methods, such as requesting part-time staff, which did not require Board of Supervisor approval.
R5:
1 By March 31, 2022, the San Joaquin County Information Systems Division create a catalog of available services, benefits, costs, and sample MOUs, and distribute to all independent special districts.
F4:
1 The lack of understanding of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Operations Plan delayed a collaborative and coordinated response necessary to meet the requirements outlined in the Public Health Emergency Preparedness agreement.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
1 By March 1, 2022, San Joaquin County train all Public Health Services, Emergency Medical Services Agency, and Office of Emergency Services staff on the overall coordination and application of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Operations Plan, including its Emergency Support Function Annexes, and thereafter provide refresher training on an annual basis.
R4:
1 By March 1, 2022, Health Care Services complete an operational audit to affirm that the requirements outlined within the Public Health Emergency Preparedness agreement are being met.
F1.1:
A lack of full understanding and application of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Operations Plan, and its Emergency Support Function Annexes, delayed a collaborative and coordinated response.
F1.2:
The most critical departments operate independently of one another during the declaration of a Local Disaster or Public Health Emergency, making it difficult to coordinate and collaborate their response.
F1.3:
When Public Health Services took over management of the COVID-19 response, communication and coordination between departments failed, which delayed the process of curtailing the spread of the COVID-19 Virus.
F1.4:
The financial transactions on the State Controller’s Office website do not provide an easily understood picture of the district’s finances.
F1.5:
The San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller’s Office has audits and financial summaries for most districts that provide a more complete picture of the finances. 43
F1.6:
The district could achieve higher levels of functionality and security on its website by leveraging the IS services of the county or other entity that has focused software for special districts.
F2.1:
Requiring the Public Health Officer to report directly to the Director of Public Health Services impeded the Public Health Officer’s ability to fulfill the statutory requirements of responding to the Public Health Emergency.
F2.2:
There is no comprehensive central directory from which the public can access information on their independent special districts, making such information difficult to find.
F2.3:
The public would benefit from the addition of the following to the LAFCO website • District website link; • Link to latest Municipal Service Review; • Link to latest Sphere of Influence study; • Link to the district map (usually found on the county GIS); • Date of agency formation; and • Links to information about each Independent Special District as available from county departments.
F3.1:
San Joaquin County does not have a clear policy or procedure that stipulates how Disaster Service Workers are deployed to emergency departments, and how they are recalled to their home departments. This caused personnel shortages and delayed the County’s emergency response. 27
F3.2:
Not all County employees receive training about their Disaster Service Workers responsibilities, causing confusion when an emergency is declared.
F3.3:
The city council’s approval of loans between restricted funds, without receiving any information or documents on the repayment requirements or fiscal impacts, created an unclear picture of the actual fund balances in the various accounts.
F3.4:
Censuring of Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees, based on personal disagreements, is an abuse of district time and resources.
F3.5:
The current Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees does not follow the Professional Governance Standards recommended by the California School Board Association.
F4.1:
The lack of understanding of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Operations Plan delayed a collaborative and coordinated response necessary to meet the requirements outlined in the Public Health Emergency Preparedness agreement.
F4.2:
The brief financial summaries derived from the audits by the Auditor-Controller’s Office are not easily accessible to the public.
F4.3:
The Auditor-Controller’s Office financial summaries provide a clearer picture of a district’s finances than that which is found on the State Controller’s Office site.
F4.4:
Disregard for, or misunderstanding of, the Ralph M. Brown Act among Stockton Unified School District Trustees results in violations of the act and reduced governance transparency.
F5.1:
The county has a modern, professionally run Information Systems Division with many quality services that can be shared with independent special districts.
F5.2:
The county’s robust implementation of its cyber strategy would be difficult for most independent special districts to duplicate.
F5.3:
Investigations of frivolous complaints made by Stockton Unified School District Trustees against each other waste time and money which could be better used for students. 117
F6.1:
The board meetings lack transparency and sufficient access, making it difficult for members of the community to be informed about what is happening in the district.
F6.2:
Incomplete or unpublished board minutes undermine public engagement and trust.
F6.3:
The dissolution of the board subcommittees reduced public engagement and board transparency.
F6.4:
All public comments submitted to board meetings are not easily accessible which reduces transparency and public engagement.
F1.2.1:
Some managers were not capable of providing necessary training for staff, particularly within the finance department, which resulted in poor decision making.
F1.2.2:
The city has no policy for employee training or professional development; therefore, employees lack the necessary skills to maintain efficient operations.
F1.3.1:
City council approved the reorganization without the benefit of a detailed position control schedule, causing confusion and failure of the reorganization plan.
F1.4.1:
The City of Manteca has a history of unfair promotional practices which caused low morale and the loss of employees.
F1.4.2:
Employees were ill-prepared for promotions, leading to inexperienced and unqualified employees being promoted.
F1.5.1:
The city has no succession plan to fill management positions with qualified candidates. Without a transitional process, there was a delay in the preparation and completion of important reports, including the annual audit.
F1.6.1:
The policy for placing an employee on administrative leave, also called suspension, is ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation, leading to unfair practices.
F1.6.2:
Investigations conducted by outside law firms are expensive and costly to taxpayers. 88
F163:
San Joaquin County Grand Jury Follow-up Reports Introduction Introduction Each year Grand Juries investigate and prepare reports with findings and recommendations directed to local governments and other public entities. California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that the agencies provide written responses to all findings and recommendations to the Superior Court. Section 933.05 requires that for each finding, the responding person or entity must indicate one of the following: 1) the respondent agrees with the finding, or 2) the respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation. For each recommendation, the responding party must provide one of the following responses: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 1. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. 2. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. 3. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. This section of the Grand Jury’s Final Report contains the responses to the prior year’s report, as well as the follow-up to several reports from earlier Grand Juries. The findings and recommendations, as well as the agencies’ responses, are provided verbatim. In addition to reviewing the responses to ensure that they met the criteria specified above, the Grand Jury also determined whether additional follow-up is needed. If an agency’s response is not clear or complete, or if it includes a future date for implementation of the recommendation, the Grand Jury may choose to conduct a follow-up review. If a future date is indicated, the Grand Jury will verify whether or not it is completed at the time indicated by the agency. When an agency responds that they do not intend to implement the recommendation of a Grand Jury, the Grand Jury may choose to take no further action or to conduct a new investigation. Follow-up to the 2018 - 2019 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation: Budget Challenges and Matters of Trust (2018-2019 Case #0118) San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation: Budget Challenges and Matters of Trust Case #0118 Preface This report contains a continuation of the responses to the 2018-2019 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding the San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Department. The first follow-up report was presented in the 2019-2020 Grand Jury report. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury reviewed the responses and made new recommendations. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury follow-up conclusions are presented after the agency responses to each recommendation. Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agency responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/ 167 Summary The 2018-2019 Grand Jury investigated the need for the Board of Supervisors and the Parks and Recreation Division to manage the Park System within a structurally balanced and sustainable budget. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury reviewed the responses from the Board of Supervisors. They determined the Board of Supervisors developed a balanced and sustainable budget for the 2020-2021 fiscal year which was funded by generated revenues and only supplemented by endowment trusts. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury recommended the Board of Supervisors obtain, from Wells Fargo, an annual performance report for the William G. Micke Estate Trust. They also recommended the creation of an annually updated Living Document to be included in all future budget packets which will maintain trust administration continuity. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined that the outstanding recommendations were implemented. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the 2019-2020 responses to the 2018-2019 report, #0118, San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation: Budget Challenges and Matters of Trust, and documented the mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the responses to the recommendations to determine if • the agency responses were complete and comprehensible; • the agency implemented the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • confirmation, including written documentation and interviews, was necessary. Summary of Responses and 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusions Respondent 2019-2020 Rec # Response 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion County of San Joaquin R1 Implemented No further action taken R2 Implemented No further action taken R3 Implemented No further action taken Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 Parks and Recreation Budget and Trust Usage 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree 168 The Parks and Recreation Division utilizes ongoing programs offered from other county divisions that include repairs, maintenance, and improvement to the parks and the costs associated have not historically been reflected in the Parks and Recreation budget. In 2018-2019 this cost was estimated to be approximately $800,000. In addition, the 2019- 2020 budget narrative includes a description of an estimated $905,000, specifically for parks facility improvement projects through the Public Improvement Program and general Fund. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: The reduction in County contributions through Net County Costs has further exacerbated the Parks and Recreation budget challenges. Agency Response: Disagree Beginning in FY 2011-2012, General Fund contributions for the Parks and Recreation Division have been reduced a total of four (4) years and increased five (5) years. During the same time, the Division’s revenues have increased three (3) years and decreased six (6) years. Fiscal Year General Fund Revenue 2011-2012 $3,776,537 $1,601,963 2012-2013* $ 426,409 $4,348,326 2013-2014 $2,113,634 $2,844,191 2014-2015 $1,715,820 $3,098,370 2015-2016 $1,769,986 $2,873,854 2016-2017 $2,572,711 $2,685,957 2017-2018 $2,377,440 $2,696,076 2018-2019 $2,295,359 $2,291,884 2019-2020 $3,804,296 $2,251,452 (adjusted) * The 2012-2013 Revenue includes operating transfers in the amount of $1,630,758 that should have been processed in 2011-2012. In addition to General Fund support for the Parks and Recreation Division, the following table identifies the additional General Fund support that has been provided through the Capital Projects Division during the same timeframe, totaling $6,108,181: Fiscal Year General Fund 2011-2012 $ 578,479 2012-2013 $ 404,398 2013-2014 $ 838,707 2014-2015 $ 490,126 2015-2016 $1,349,316 169 2016-2017 $ 232,608 2017-2018 $1,013,721 2018-2019 $1,200,826 Total $6,108,181 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree The 2018-2019 budget reflects the difficult decisions that were made, which eliminated three vacant Park Worker positions and significantly reduced the Division’s reliance on part-time temporary (extra help) positions. The Parks and Recreation Division continues to maintain a balanced budget. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree The Parks and Recreation Division did not borrow money from the trust funds. Over the past three fiscal years, there has been a significant decrease in the utilization of the Parks Trust Funds. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree The County Parks are supported by revenue from trust accounts established for their maintenance and operation. The Micke Grove Trust Fund receives approximately $300,000 each year for the operation and maintenance of the Micke Grove Park. The Park Donation Trust funds have been utilized in accordance with the donor’s intent. The funds in the Subdivision Trust have been used in accordance with the parameters set forth in County Ordinance 3675, which requires the dedication of land or the imposition of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes. The approved Parks and Recreation Division budget for 2019-2020 only utilizes trust funds specifically designated for maintenance and operations and is a balanced budget. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree As previously stated, the Parks and Recreation Division did not borrow money from the trust funds. The Board of Supervisors, upon the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Division, created the Park Endowment Trust. However, the prior acts of the Board of Supervisors cannot deprive its successors of future discretionary policy choices. Thus, although ongoing operations were not included as an intended purpose for use of trust funds at the time that the Park Endowment Trust was created, the Board of Supervisors retained discretion to approve all expenditures of trust funds and has since done so. Additional County General Fund support is provided to the Parks and Recreation Division budget through investments in facilities included within the capital projects budget, totaling $6,108,181 from 2011-2012 to 2018-2019, as reflected previously in the table for Agency Response to F1.2. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree 2018-2019 Year-End actuals indicate that the revenue should have been reduced by an additional $65,000, not $100,000. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: By March 31, 2020, the Parks and Recreation Division complete a comprehensive analysis of the County parks system that includes the tradeoffs required to operate the system under a structurally balanced budget. Agency Response: Has been implemented The Parks and Recreation Division operates within a structurally balanced budget. In 2018-2019, the Division reduced its use of trust funds by $75,940. The amount budgeted was $669,500, and end of year actuals were $593,560. Trust fund usage continues to be reduced annually and has been reduced by approximately 53% since FY 2016-2017. Fiscal Year Trust Fund Usage 2016-2017 $1,034,395 2017-2018 $ 794,787 2018-2019 $ 593,560 2019-2020* $ 485,078 * Includes an adjustment of $137,078 to the 2019-2020 proposed budget. The additional funds are being utilized through the Parks Special Projects Fund in accordance with its adopted Policy and Procedures. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: The Parks and Recreation Division develop and present to the Board of Supervisors a structurally balanced and sustainable budget beginning in 2020-2021 that includes realistic estimates for revenue. Agency Response: Has been implemented The 2019-2020 budget has further reduced the usage of trust fund revenue by $108,482 as compared to the 2018-2019 actual amount of $593,560 and has reduced revenue estimates by $69,993 from the 2018-2019 budget. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2.0 County Managed Trusts 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree The Board of Supervisors, upon the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Division, created the Park Endowment Trust. However, the prior acts of the Board of Supervisors cannot deprive its successors of future discretionary policy choices. Thus, although ongoing he Park Endowment Trust was created, the Board of Supervisors retained discretion to approve all expenditures of trust funds and has since done so. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree The Parks and Recreation Division agrees that trust funds are an invaluable resource. As previously stated, the County General Fund also provided $6,108,181 of additional funding to the Parks and Recreation Division through investments in capital projects during the previous eight years. 2018-2019 Grand Jury 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. Agency Response: Requires Further Analysis The San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller’s Office is currently conducting an audit of County trust funds, including the Parks and Recreation Division’s trust funds. The Auditor-Controller’s report is expected to be available during mid-year 2019-2020. Parks and Recreation will need to review the results of the report to appropriately respond to the finding. 172 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Response: The agency’s position is that the purpose of the Micke Grove Trust is to provide operating funds when needed. Additionally, the Park Endowment Trust will be reduced to $50,000 in the 2020-2021 budget. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.2: The Parks and Recreation Division allow the principal of the Micke Grove Trust and the Park Endowment Trust funds to grow and utilize only the interest to support new park initiatives or capital expenditures. Agency Response: R2.1 & R2.2 requires further analysis and timeframe for further determination within twelve months Board Resolution R-18-37 established the Micke Grove Trust Account in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Last Will of William G. Micke to operate and maintain the Micke Grove Park. Annual revenues are utilized in accordance with the adopted resolution. The Fiscal Year 2019-2020 budget utilizes $485,578 from multiple trust accounts. Reducing this amount by an additional $330,000 in 2020-2021 requires further analysis. 2019-2020 2019-2020 Trust Estimated Deposits Utilization Micke Grove Trust $ 300,000 $ 230,000 Park Activity Trust $ 7,500 $ 6,000 Park Endowment Trust $ 235,000 $ 100,000 Fish & Wildlife $ 7,500 $ 7,500 Park Donation Trust $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Special Projects $ 512,500 $ 137,078* Total $ 1,067,500 $ 485,578 * An increase of $137,078 from the 2019-2020 proposed budget. The additional funding is from the Parks Special Projects Fund, in accordance with its adopted Policy and Procedures. Additionally in 2019-2020, the Auditor-Controller’s Office will be completing an audit of Parks and Recreation Division Trust Funds, and the report will be presented to the Division with its findings and recommendations. 173 2019-2020 Grand Jury Response: The agency’s position is that the purpose of the Micke Grove Trust is to provide operating funds when needed. Additionally, the Park Endowment Trust will be reduced to $50,000 in the 2020-2021 budget. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 3.0 Non-County Managed Trusts 2018-2019 Grand Jury 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. Agency Response: Requires further analysis and timeframe for further determination within twelve months. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: Requires further analysis and timeframe for further determination within twelve months. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Finding, and Recommendation The Board of Supervisors requested more time for Wells Fargo to submit the annual performance report for the William G. Micke Estate Trust. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1: The Wells Fargo annual performance report is critical to determine the effectiveness in managing the William G. Micke Estate Trust. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: The Board of Supervisors require Wells Fargo to submit an annual performance report for the William G. Micke Estate Trust by September 30, 2020. This report shall include the total return compared to an industry standard benchmark with a similar risk profile. Agency Response: Has Been Implemented On December 3, 2019, during the Micke Grove Trust annual review, San Joaquin County requested Wells Fargo provide an annual industry standard benchmark report. On October 1, 2020, Wells Fargo provided San Joaquin County a total portfolio performance report with benchmarks for the reporting period of 01/01/1996 through 08/31/2020. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the Micke Grove Trust report, delivered by Wells Fargo to San Joaquin County, and determined it provided the requested portfolio performance information and benchmark data. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 174 4.0 Parks and Recreation Benchmarking Assessment Report 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree The Taussig report states, “there may be room to improve employee efficiencies through increased staffing efforts or a realignment of employee roles.” The Parks and Recreation Division has not continued to eliminate positions. The last elimination was during the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year. The 2019-2020 budget does not eliminate any positions, and the Division has retained a number of Zoo part-time staff during both 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. During midyear 2018-2019, the Parks and Recreation Division secured Board approval to reclassify an administrative support staff position to a Park Worker position in an effort to create a more efficient division. Other efficiencies include cross training staff in all of the departments; parks, zoo, and administration, expanding the online reservations system, improving the volunteer program, and the creation of a marketing program with annual events. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree While the 2018-2019 budget eliminated three vacant full-time positions, the 2019-2020 budget does not eliminate any positions. As part of the 2018-2019 mid-year budget review process, the Board of Supervisor increased the Parks and Recreation Division appropriations for utilities by $50,000 and the motor pool allocation by $39,679 increasing General Fund contributions by $76,679. The approved 2019-2020 budget included additional increases of $18,173 and $4,445 respectively from the General Fund. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree The Parks and Recreation Division operates within a balanced budget. The Taussig Report used Stanislaus, Placer, and Yolo counties for benchmarking purposes in 2018- 2019 in which the low per capital statistic is being used. The report also compared Net County Cost contributions as a percentage of the overall budgets and reported that San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Placer Counties fall within 1% of each other. The report warns that no parks and recreation departments are alike, and such differences in sources of funding, organizational structure, and policy objectives are to be expected. The report also states that when examining the statistics, it is important to consider each in context. Each is a component of a greater whole and its isolation may prove to be an ineffective comparative tool. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R4.1: By March 31, 2020, the Parks and Recreation Division provide the Board of Supervisors with a plan for addressing the findings in the Taussig report, including: (1) appropriate staffing levels, (2) rising costs of services and maintenance, and (3) long-term funding options. Agency Response: During the 2019-2020 budget hearing portions of this request have already been addressed with an increase in allocations to offset the increases in services and maintenance. Although the Taussig report states that the Parks and Recreation Division has 6.61 FTE’s per regional park, which is lower than the benchmarked counties, the Taussig report also states that San Joaquin’s regional park acreage is less than the benchmarked counties which are likely due to the urbanized nature of the County. The County utilizes the Alternative Workforce Program, which in 2018-2019 averaged 584 hours worked per month or the equivalent of 3.3 FTE’s, which would bring the FTE’s to 9.9 and align such statistic with the benchmarked counties. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R4.2: In the 2020-2021 proposed budget, the Parks and Recreation Division present options to the Board of Supervisors for bringing the per capita contribution more in line with the contributions from the benchmarked counties. Agency Response: Requires further analysis and timeframe for further determination within twelve months. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 5.0 Loss of Historical Knowledge 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F5.1: Departmental reorganizations and turnover have resulted in the loss of historical knowledge amongst the Parks and Recreation leadership and staff. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.1: By June 30, 2020, the Parks and Recreation Administrator gather together into a living document the necessary information to accurately document requirements of the trust funds, the stipulations related to grants awarded for each park, the requirements for managing any property donated to the County parks system, and 176 any other historical information that may be required by future Parks and Recreation Division administrators and employees. Agency Response: The Parks and Recreation Division will create a living document that will include trust fund information, recommendations from the Auditor Controllers audit, grant information and requirements, and bequeathment requirements. This document will be updated by the Division on an annual basis. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Finding, and Recommendation The living document (including trust fund information, recommendations from the Auditor Controller’s audit, grant information and requirements, and bequeathment requirements) will be completed by June 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2: The living document is an important part of the ongoing operation of the department. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R2: By June 30, 2020, the Parks and Recreation Division prepare and complete the living document which will include trust fund information, recommendations from the Auditor Controller’s audit, grant information and requirements, and bequeathment requirements. Agency Response: Has Been Implemented The Parks and Recreation Division created a living document with updated trust fund information for inclusion in the 2019-2020 budget process. The Auditor-Controller's Office did not make recommendations beyond those included in the 2018-2019 Grand Jury report. There was no grant or bequeathment information to report at the time. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the Living Document with updated trust fund information and determined the requirements and stipulations of the trust funds were met. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.2: The Parks and Recreation Administrator present this information to the Board of Supervisors during the 2020-2021 budget hearings to ensure the board has a clear understanding of this information when making budget decisions. Agency Response: The Parks and Recreation Division will create a living document that will include trust fund, information, and recommendations from the Auditor Controllers audit, grant information and requirements, and bequeathment requirements. This 177 document will be updated by the Division on an annual basis and provided to the Board as part of the Division’s budget process. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Finding, and Recommendation The living document needs to be available to the Board of Supervisors as part of the 2020-2021 budget process. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3: The living document information will be included with the Department’s budget packet for 2020-2021. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: The Parks and Recreation Division include the living document in the Department’s budget packet for 2020-2021. Agency Response: Has Been Implemented The Parks and Recreation Division created a living document that included updated trust fund information, grant information and requirements (if any), and bequeathment requirements (if any). This living document was included as part of the 2019-2020 budget process and updated during the 2020-2021 budget process. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined the Living Document was included in the development of the 2020-2021 budget. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code 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). Follow-up to the 2018 - 2019 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report Micke Grove Zoo: Honoring the Past, Securing the Future (2018-2019 Case #0218) Micke Grove Zoo: Honoring the Past, Securing the Future Case #0218 Preface This report contains a continuation of the responses to the 2018-2019 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding Micke Grove Zoo. The first follow-up report was presented in the 2019-2020 Grand Jury report. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury reviewed the responses and made new recommendations. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury follow-up conclusions are presented after the agency responses to each recommendation. Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/. Summary The 2018-2019 Grand Jury found the Micke Grove Zoo suffered from inadequate funding and outdated facilities for years. Recommendations were made to update and improve the Zoo in the hopes it will continue to be a viable amenity for residents. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury found 179 some of the recommendations had been fulfilled while more time was needed to complete others. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury confirmed the San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year master plan to the County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors accepted the plan with its seven overarching objectives, including specific strategies and tactics. The plan serves as a foundation to advance the Zoo’s mission to allow it to be a place of enjoyment for the residents of San Joaquin County. The single outstanding recommendation regarding the process of seeking accreditation is still under evaluation. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the agency responses to the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 reports, #0218, Micke Grove Zoo: Honoring the Past, Securing the Future, and documented the mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the responses to the recommendations to determine if • the agency responses were complete and comprehensible; • the agency implemented the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • confirmation, including written documentation and interviews, was necessary. Glossary • AZA: Association of Zoos and Aquariums • County: San Joaquin County • MGZS: Micke Grove Zoological Society • Taussig Report: Parks and Recreation Benchmarking and Assessment Report (June 2018) • ZAA: Zoological Association of America • Zoo: Micke Grove Zoo 180 Summary of Responses and 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusions 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion 2019-2020 Respondent Rec # Response Rec# Due Date Conclusion San Joaquin Implemented No further action County Board R1 of Supervisors Will not be No further action R2 implemented Implemented No further action R3 Implemented No further action R4 Will be R1 December 31, 2021 Requires further R5 implemented action Will not be No further action R6 implemented Implemented No further action R7 Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 Micke Grove Zoo Today 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. The Micke Grove Zoo has some Policies and Procedures in place and which are housed in various shared folders on the County server. However, due to the organizational manner in which such files are kept, such files would not be considered a manual at this time. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: To be implemented. During Fiscal Year 2018-2019, the Parks Administrator and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager (Zoo Manager) began gathering written Policy and Procedure documents to begin a Zoo Policy and Procedure Manual. The Zoo Curator who has been the “keeper” of the documents began adding them to a centralized electronic shared folder entitled Zoo Policies. As documents are gathered the Zoo Manager and staff are reading through them to ensure the validity, 181 appropriateness, and applicability of each and determining if they need to be rewritten, deleted, or in some instances, created. The Policy and Procedures Manual for the Micke Grove Zoo has a completion date of June 30, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is creating a written Policy and Procedures Manual for all Micke Grove Zoo operations. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1: The written Policy and Procedures Manual for all Micke Grove Zoo operations is needed. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By June 30, 2020, the San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division complete a written Policy and Procedures Manual for all Micke Grove Zoo operations. Agency Response: Has been implemented During Fiscal Year 2018-2019, the Parks Administrator and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager (Zoo Manager) began gathering written Policy and Procedure documents to begin a Zoo Policy and Procedure Manual. The Zoo Curator, who has been the “keeper” of the documents, began adding them to a centralized electronic shared folder entitled Zoo Policies. A Policy and Procedures Manual for the Micke Grove Zoo has been completed. Ongoing updates and edits may be performed by the Parks Administrator as deemed necessary. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury confirmed that the electronic Policy and Procedures Manual has been developed and is current. No further action is needed. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: The lack of a detailed and comprehensive budget for Micke Grove Zoo makes proper financial management difficult. Agency Response: Disagree. The Micke Grove Zoo has specific line items on the Parks and Recreation Division budget, and actual charges are tracked through an access database. The use of project costing on timesheets and material purchased allows for reports to be maintained for Zoo specific items. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division develop a detailed and comprehensive budget for the Zoo that includes assumptions for every income and expense line item by December 31, 2019. Agency Response: Has been implemented. Starting in Fiscal Year 2017-2018 and during the Fiscal Year 2018-2019, a Zoo specific budget worksheet was created including Zoo specific revenue and expenses. The information is derived from the Parks and Recreation Division budget. The Zoo budget worksheet will be updated annually after final budgets are approved. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree. As part of ongoing efficiencies at the Micke Grove Zoo, animals which were on display at the Oak Grove Nature Center have been relocated to the Micke Grove Zoo saving husbandry and travel time. Animals that are part of the MGZS Educational program are now being cared for by the MGZS staff. These two items have saved approximately 24 hours per week of staff time, which are better served within the Zoo. All veterinary care is contracted with UC Davis Medical Teaching Hospital, which provides one day of on-site field services, emergency and after-hours’ services, pharmaceuticals and telephone support as needed. The Parks Administrator and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager (Zoo Manager) began the process of cross- training employees and have consistently employed two-part time zookeeper aides to compensate for a full-time employee’s extended absence. The number of allocated full- time positions at the Zoo remains at eight. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.3: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division complete necessary cross-training for all current Zoo staff members and hire at least one additional full-time Zookeeper by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. Cross-training of all employees began in January 2019 using a top-down method. All staff will be required to train in all aspects of animal husbandry by June 30, 2020. The Zoo Manager, Zoo Curator, and Senior Animal Care Specialist began cross-training on animal medical care, veterinary services, and animal diets in March 2019, with a completion date of December 2019. The Grand Jury mistakenly reported that the Zoo employs only four full-time Animal Care Specialists (referred to as Zoo Keepers in the report) Currently the Zoo is allocated eight (8) full-time positions, one (1) Zoo Manager, one (1) Zoo Curator, and five (5) Animal Care Specialists and (1) Senior Animal Care Specialist. At this time, one Animal Care Specialist is on extended medical leave and whose job duties have been allocated to two- part time temporary Animal Care Aides. Previously the Zoo Curator and Zoo Manager did not materially participate in animal husbandry, and recent cross-training has improved Zoo efficiencies. Parks and Recreation will not be requesting a fifth Animal Care Specialist allocation as the Zoo already has five (5) but will hire a replacement full-time Animal Care Specialist if the current employee is unable to return to work. The Parks and Recreation Benchmarking and Assessments Report, commonly referred to as the Taussig report, recommends expanding the use of volunteers at Micke Grove Zoo. The Zoo Manager, along with the MGZS education staff, have begun revamping the volunteer program, and also aim to look into the possibility of creating an intern program. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 183 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. Facilities Management, Park Workers, Zoo Manager, and Parks Administrator walk the Zoo on a monthly basis, and have created a list of Zoo specific repairs. The items on the list are prioritized and tracked through to completion. In Fiscal Year 2018-2019, a new full-time Park Worker was allocated to spend three whole days within the Zoo and dedicates time/resources toward performing the necessary maintenance as identified within the Zoo repair list. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.4: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division develop a preventive maintenance schedule and accurate repair record for Micke Grove Zoo by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: Has been implemented. Beginning in January 2019, the Parks Administrator, Zoo Manager, General Services Assistant Director and Facility Maintenance and Construction Superintendent began a monthly walkthrough at the Zoo to discuss, address, and plan scheduled maintenance and repair issues. To date, the process consists of utilizing an excel worksheet with items coded as high, medium, and low priorities. Items are then tracked to completion. Although this process pertains to known issues, all new or emergent items are prioritized and submitted thought the facility maintenance program already in place. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 184 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.5: The San Joaquin County General Services Department renegotiate their operating agreement with MGZS to update and clarify assigned roles and responsibilities by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Parks Administrator will create an operating agreement with the MGZS that will include assigned roles and responsibilities by June 30, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is in the process of reviewing its operating agreement with MGZS. They requested a deadline extension to December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2: A new agreement with MGZS is an important part of the zoo’s ongoing operations. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R2: By December 31, 2020, the San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation General Services Department execute an operating agreement with MGZS that will include assigned roles and responsibilities. Agency Response: Will not be implemented On July 21, 2020, the MGZS voted to terminate the 1999 Operating Agreement with a final termination date of September 4, 2020. Litigation is now pending between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. No new operating agreement exists between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. The current and ongoing lawsuit between the Micke Grove Zoological Society and San Joaquin County makes it unlikely that an operating agreement will be executed. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined no further action is needed. 2.0 A Vision for Tomorrow 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: Despite budget challenges, San Joaquin County leadership is committed to the continued operation and improvement of Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.2: The residents of San Joaquin County value Micke Grove Zoo and desire to see it improved. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.4: San Joaquin County leadership must obtain the guidance and expertise of the industry professionals in both determining and designing the master plan for Micke Grove Zoo in order to ensure its successful future. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: To be partially implemented. The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, and the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator will 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 years by June 30, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is completing an analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo. They requested a deadline extension December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3: The analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo is an important part of its ongoing operations. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: The San Joaquin County General Services Department complete an analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo, including what they envision the Zoo to be in five years. Present the analysis to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator, and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager are preparing a five-year strategic plan to be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Due to the Micke Grove Zoological Society's termination of the existing agreement, rejection of the interim agreement and ongoing litigation the presentation of the five-year strategic 186 plan will be delayed until March 31, 2021. The presentation will include the vision for the Micke Grove Zoo in the next five years. San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan to the Board of Supervisors which was accepted by the Board on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.2: The San Joaquin County General Services Department develop and present to the Board of Supervisors a professionally designed Master Plan for Micke Grove Zoo, which includes development goals for the next five, ten, and twenty years by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented. The Parks and Recreation Division will develop and present to the Board of Supervisors a Master Plan for the Micke Grove Zoo for the next five years by December 31, 2020. Beginning with a five-year strategic plan will allow the Department to implement strategies and goals set through the strategic plan. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is preparing a professionally designed Master Plan for Micke Grove Zoo which includes strategies and goals for the next five years. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F4: The five-year plan is a critical component of the ongoing operations of the zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R4: The San Joaquin County General Services Department complete a professionally designed Master Plan for Micke Grove Zoo that includes strategies and goals for the next five years. Present the Master Plan to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator, and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager are preparing a five-year strategic plan to be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Due to the Micke Grove Zoological Society's termination of the existing agreement, rejection of the interim agreement and ongoing litigation the presentation of the five year strategic plan will be delayed until March 31, 2021. This presentation will include the vision for the Micke Grove Zoo for the next five years 187 San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.3: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division examine the requirements and affordability for obtaining accreditation from available accrediting associations, and pursue appropriate accreditation as part of the County's Master Plan to improve Micke Grove Zoo by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Park and Recreation Division will examine and analyze the requirements, affordability, and suitability of accreditation for Micke Grove Zoo by December 31, 2020. Pursuing accreditation is a rigorous process including husbandry, recordkeeping, veterinary care, animal diet, staff knowledge, and facility site inspections. 188 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is in the process of examining the requirements, affordability and suitability of obtaining accreditation from available accrediting associations as part of the County's Master Plan to improve Micke Grove Zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F5: It is important that Micke Grove Zoo have appropriate accreditation. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R5: The San Joaquin County General Services Department pursue appropriate accreditation. Present a written description of the findings to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator, and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager are preparing a five-year strategic plan to be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Due to the Micke Grove Zoological Society's termination of the existing agreement, rejection of the interim agreement and ongoing litigation the presentation of the five year strategic plan will be delayed until March 31, 2021. This presentation will include the vision for the Micke Grove Zoo for the next five years, including the pursuit of an accreditation if deemed appropriate. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The plan’s vision centers on seven objectives, one of which is to examine the requirements, affordability and suitability of obtaining accreditation from available accrediting associations. Currently Micke Grove Zoo does not have accreditation. The General Services Department is investigating the feasibility and value of zoo accreditation. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F1: Micke Grove Zoo still does not have zoo accreditation. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: The San Joaquin County General Services Department present its findings regarding zoo accreditation, including a timeline, to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2021. 3.0 Funding the Vision 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. This requires the further analysis regarding the future vision of the Micke Grove Zoo. 189 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 3.2: A non-profit organization or foundation capable of raising significant funds is essential to fulfilling the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. This requires the further analysis regarding the future vision of the Micke Grove Zoo. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F3.3: The recent fundraising results from the MGZS are insufficient to support the necessary improvements for the Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Agree. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1: The San Joaquin County General Services Department determine the role and responsibility of the MGZS for fundraising to support the future vision for the Micke Grove Zoo, and renegotiate their operating agreement accordingly by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Parks Administrator and the Director of General Services along with the MGZS will create a new operating agreement with the MGZS that will assign roles and responsibilities and determine the MGZS’S fundraising expectations to support the future vision for the Micke Grove Zoo by June 30, 2020 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The Parks Administrator and the Director of General Services along with the MGZS committed to create a new operating agreement with the MGZS that will assign roles, responsibilities, and determine the MGZS’s fundraising expectations. They requested a deadline extension to December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F6: A new operating agreement that assigns roles, responsibilities, and determines fundraising expectations is important for the future of Micke Grove Zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R6: By December 31, 2020, the Parks Administrator and the Director of General Services, along with the MGZS, execute a new operating agreement with the MGZS. The agreement will assign roles, responsibilities, and determine the MGZS’s fundraising expectations to support the future vision for the Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Will not be implemented On July 21, 2020, the MGZS voted to terminate the 1999 Operating Agreement with a final termination date of September 4, 2020. Litigation is now pending between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. No new operating agreement exists between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, and the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator will complete and present to the Board of Supervisors an analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo, including what 190 they envision the Zoo to be in five years by March 31, 2021. The presentation will include a framework for identifying a non-profit strategic partner. San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan, including a framework to identify a non-profit strategic partner, to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. In the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Micke Grove Zoo received grant funding for $500,000 from the State, and additional funding through Proposition 68 by working collaboratively with the United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.2: The San Joaquin County General Services Department evaluate all available funding sources for the improvement of Micke Grove Zoo and report their findings to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Department will evaluate available funding sources to improve Micke Grove Zoo and report the finding to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The San Joaquin County General Services Department committed to evaluate all available funding sources to improve Micke Grove Zoo and report their findings to the Board of Supervisors. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F7: It is important to know the available funding sources for the improvement of Micke Grove Zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R7: The San Joaquin County General Services Department evaluate all available funding sources for the improvement of Micke Grove Zoo and report their findings to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, and the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator will 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 years by March 31, 2021. The presentation will include an evaluation of additional funding sources. San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan, including strategies to improve its revenue stream, to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 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 San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to the finding and recommendation from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Xapuri B. Villapudua, 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. Follow-up to the 2019 - 2020 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report Tracy City Council: Restore the Public Trust (2018-2019 Case #0418) Tracy City Council: Restore the Public Trust Case #0418 Preface This report contains a continuation of the responses to the 2018-2019 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding Tracy City Council. The first follow-up report was presented in the 2019-2020 Grand Jury’s report. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agency’s response to the recommendation. Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/ 193 Summary The Tracy City Council was the subject of multiple complaints that warranted the attention of the Grand Jury. For several years, the Tracy City Council developed a reputation for its inability to work together as a collegial legislative body. The 2017-2018 Grand Jury recommended the Tracy City Council adopt an Ethics Policy that governs the behaviors of their elected officials. Along with the Council’s public discord, a pattern of power politics surfaced resulting in consistent three to two voting blocs. This led to the terminations or forced resignations of the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and the Chief of Police. The unexplained departures of the City’s administrative leaders created an unstable work environment at City Hall. The Tracy City Council addressed the 2018-19 Grand Jury findings and recommendations and adopted a Code of Conduct. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury followed-up on the recommendation that the Tracy City Council adopt an amendment to the Municipal Code requiring a supermajority vote of four members of the City Council to remove the City Manager or City Attorney. On July 20, 2020, the Tracy City Council ratified this amendment. This completes the last outstanding 2018-2019 Grand Jury recommendation. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the 2019-2020 responses to the original 2018-2019 report, #0418, Tracy City Council: Restore the Public Trust. There was one outstanding recommendation. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury evaluated the response to that recommendation to determine if • the agency’s response was complete and comprehensible; and • the agency implemented the recommendation within the stated deadline. Summary of Response and 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion 2019-2020 Respondent Rec # Response Rec# Due Date Conclusion Tracy City R1 Implemented No further action Council Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 Ethics Policy 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 194 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. The City will endeavor to draft and adopt an Ethics Policy by October 31, 2019. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Follow-up Response: The Tracy City Council approved and adopted the Tracy City Council Code of Conduct at their meeting on October 15, 2019. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: The Tracy City Council develop a “Rules of Behavior” document to be distributed to each Council member and posted in the Council Chambers and the closed meeting rooms by October 31, 2019. Agency Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. Rules regarding expectations for City Council's behavior and norms would be included in the City's Ethics Policy. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Follow-up Response: The Tracy City Council approved and adopted the Tracy City Council Code of Conduct at their meeting on October 15, 2019. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2.0 City Council Conduct 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 195 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City disagrees partially with this finding; individual Council members did recognize the discord amongst the Council body. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.4: Unethical conduct during the 2018 election campaign further damaged Council members’ ability to work together. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. The anticipated adoption of an Ethics Policy will serve as an opportunity for the Council as a body to proclaim its commitment to work together collaboratively. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Follow-up Response: The Tracy City Council approved and adopted the Tracy City Council Code of Conduct at their meeting on October 15, 2019. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 3.0 Council Vacancy Appointment Process 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City disagrees partially with this finding; it is unclear that the appointment process resulted in consistent voting blocs and facilitated divisiveness. However, alternative appointment methods could be explored in the future. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City disagrees partially with this finding; the appointment process provides an opportunity for Council members, as elected officials themselves, to take into the will of the voters during the appointment process. 196 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: This recommendation requires further analysis and discussion. Staff will develop and present alternative Council vacancy selection processes for consideration. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Follow-up Response: At their meeting on December 3, 2019, the Tracy City Council adopted Resolution 2019-250 for filling council vacancies. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 4.0 Impact of Executive Staff Separations 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding; the rapid succession of executive staff terminations and forced resignations may have contributed to an unstable working environment for the City of Tracy staff as department leadership dismantled. The instability may have contributed to an unnecessarily stressful work environment which was compounded by fear of job loss. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City disagrees partially with this finding; the City of Tracy's reputation as a desirable employer may have been damaged by the series of unexplained terminations and forced resignations. This unstable environment may have made recruiting for open positions more difficult. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: This recommendation requires further analysis and discussion. Staff will evaluate the proposed ordinance amendment. 197 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1: It remains important that Tracy City Council approve and adopt the amended Tracy City Municipal Code which requires a supermajority vote of four (4) members 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: At the next meeting, or no later than September 30, 2020, the Tracy City Council approve and adopt the amended Municipal Code which requires a supermajority vote of four (4) members of the City Council to remove the City Manager or City Attorney. At their July 20, 2020 meeting, the Tracy City Council adopted ordinance 1295 amending the Tracy Municipal Code section 2.08.080 to require a supermajority vote of four members of the City Council to remove the City Manager or City Attorney. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 5.0 Council Intrusion in City Operations 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F5.2: Individual Council members have intimidated staff by giving orders that are in direct opposition to departmental procedures. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F5.3: The professional recommendations of City of Tracy staff may be tempered by the potential consequences of disapproving Council members due to fear of potential job loss. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: This recommendation requires further analysis and discussion. Staff will present options for accountability measures to be included in the Ethics Policy. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Follow-up Response: The Tracy City Council approved and adopted the Tracy City Council Code of Conduct at their meeting on October 15, 2019. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code 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). Follow-up to the 2018 - 2019 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Report French Camp McKinley Fire District: A District in Disarray (2018-2019 Case #0518) French Camp McKinley Fire District: A District in Disarray Case #0518 Preface This report contains a continuation of the agency responses to the 2018-2019 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding the French Camp McKinley Fire District. The first follow-up report was presented in the 2019-2020 Grand Jury report. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury reviewed the responses and made new recommendations. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury follow-up conclusions are presented after the agency responses to each recommendation. Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/. Summary The 2018-2019 Grand Jury found a number of issues with the French Camp McKinley Fire District, including high employee turnover, a lack of policies and procedures, and ineffective Board oversight. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury report noted some recommendations were resolved leaving others still in progress. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the responses to the outstanding recommendations and concluded that the policy manual was updated and the recommended financial audits for the District were completed for fiscal years (FY) 2015 through 2019. The audit reports were filed with the San Joaquin County Office of the Auditor-Controller. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the 2019-2020 responses to the 2018-2019 report, #0518 French Camp McKinley Fire District: A District in Disarray. The responses were reviewed to determine if • the agency responses were complete and comprehensible; • the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • confirmation, including written documentation and interviews, was necessary. Glossary • Board of Directors or Board: French Camp McKinley Board of Directors • District: French Camp McKinley Fire District • Policy Manual: French Camp McKinley Fire District Fire Services Manual • San Joaquin County Best Practices for Accounting and Reporting for Locally-Governed Special Districts: A manual developed by the County Auditor-Controller to aid the Boards of special districts in managing their finances 202 Summary of Responses and 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion Respondent 2019-2020 Rec # Response 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion French Camp McKinley Fire R1 Implemented No further action taken District Board R2 Implemented No further action taken R3 Implemented No further action taken R4 Implemented No further action taken R5 Implemented No further action taken R6 Implemented No further action taken R7 Implemented No further action taken Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 5.0 Procedures, Policies, and Documentation 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: The District’s Policy Manual requires significant customization in order to adequately meet the needs of the District. Agency Response: With the implementation of Program Management Charters, the process of monitoring and updated the Policies and Procedures has been adopted. Additionally, the term" significantly" over states the issue. The policies and procedures need cleaning up to reflect some of the District's internal organization administrative and organizational practices. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: The District does not review and regularly update the Policy Manual, placing the District at risk for financial liability. Agency Response: "As Needed" describes the model FRC utilizes as listed in the "Chiefs Preface" page of the Policies Manual (See R1.1). The conclusion drawn from the Grand Jury survey of other agencies indicated there is not one universal method or model for policies and procedures revision/updating that applies for all agencies. 203 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Electronic access to the policy manual is available for via Lexipol online now that Administrative staff has completed the online webinar training. Authorized personnel and member have always had access to the Policy Manual and additional information via the District's secured internet access. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: A policy has been drafted for the Directors approval. The policy includes a status tracking process to accurately inventory and maintained district property and equipment. Additionally, this increased oversite will occur via Program / Project Managers, in consultation with the Fire Chief and the BOD. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.5: Not requiring the Board to approve policy updates leaves them without the ability to provide appropriate policy oversight for the District. Agency Response: The Fire Chief is responsible for the execution of "day-to-day" operational oversite of fire and life safety activities, i.e. emergency responses, fire prevention, etc. The Board of the Directors' oversite exist in the form of checks and balances relative to outcomes based on expected goals to ensure that sound fiscal policy exists, and that practices and controls are in place so that the district employees are accountability to the communities it serves. The Fire Chief and Board of Directors shared responsibility exist in the form of approval of the annual budget, establishing financial goals, reviewing district finances, developing capital improvement plans, being involved in setting the direction of the district and, most importantly, working in the best interests of the community and the constituents the district serves. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.6: Without clearly defined testing procedures, firefighters are deprived of the opportunity for promotions based upon their training, experience, and qualifications. Agency Response: Policy 1000: Recruiting and Retention and Policy 1004: Promotions and Transfers. The present leadership is committed to fair and transparent promotional practices based upon training, experience, and qualifications. Entry Level Examinations • Employment opportunity posting with qualifications and study reference; • Written examination, constructed by an outside testing firm based on modern / latest fire service knowledge and training; • Interview Panel with Internal French Camp Members and external Fire Service Members; • Comprehensive background check by an experienced investigator; • Interview with the Fire Chief; • Medical examination. Promotional Examinations: • Based on the promotional position being tested; a list of qualifications and study reference for the written examination will be sent to members and or open posting for external candidates; • In conjunction with an outside testing firm the written examination will be constructed; • Abilities Assessment and or Interview Panel with internal French Camp Members and or external Fire Service Members; demonstration of the Candidate's ability to perform duties and responsibilities for the position being tested; Comprehensive background check by an experienced investigator, an interview with the Fire Chief; • Medical examination; if necessary. Fire Chief Hirinq: • Discretion of the Board of Director's; • Consideration given to the Individual's experience, and qualifications and training. Administrative Staff: • Discretion of the Board of Director's; in consultation with the Fire Chief. • Consideration given to the Individual's experience, and qualifications and training. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.7: Public safety may be compromised when department promotions are not based on the results of objective testing procedures. Agency Response: Refer to FRC Response 1.6. [See the response to F1.6 above.] 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: Implementing an artificial time frame before a complete assessment of the district processes, practices and needs would not be beneficial to the District or it's 205 members. An assessment of the Policy Manual was underway prior to the Grand Jury investigation and continues today. Additionally, we are re-evaluating all computer based records management, staffing and training platforms in order to streamline and optimize Fire Department business processes. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency disagreed with the timeframe. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1: The customization of the Policy Manual is important to adequately meet the needs of the District. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By September 30, 2020, the French Camp McKinley Board of Directors approve the newly customized Policy Manual which reflects the needs of the District and deliver a copy to the Grand Jury. Agency Response: Implemented The Policy Manual has been revised and reviewed by Fire personnel. Online access is available for members at any time. The current version is on the CD disc included. Updates are made as needed to the policy manual. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop and follow a written policy to systematically review and update their Policy Manual on a regular schedule by December 31, 2019. Agency Response: SEE AP 1.1 [See the response to R1.1 above] 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency disagreed with the timeframe. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2: A policy to systematically review and update their Policy Manual is important to ensure the policies reflect latest practices and procedures. 206 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R2: By September 30, 2020, the French Camp McKinley Board of Directors approve the written policy to systematically review and update their Policy Manual on a regular schedule. Agency Response: Implemented The Policy Manual has been updated according to Policy 204 “District Directives.” Updates occur as needed to reflect the addition of new policie; the revision of existing policies, or the removal of legacy policies. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.3: The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors post its updated Policy Manual and all updates electronically by December 31, 2019. Agency Response: [None Given] 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency stated the Policy Manual is posted electronically but not available for public viewing until approved by the Board. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3: To ensure transparency, it is important that the policy be posted for the public to review. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: By September 30, 2020, the French Camp McKinley Board of Directors post for public viewing its updated Policy Manual and all updates. Agency Response: Implemented Completed. The Policy Manual revision is available via the District’s Lexipol online account at http:/www.lexipol.com/. Updates are made as policies and or operational changes take occur. A copy of the Policy Manual resides in each firehouse. Once COVID restrictions are lifted, interested community members may view the Manual by appointment. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.4: The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop policies for purchasing and disposing of equipment by December 31, 2019. Agency Response: [None Given] 207 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The policy Inventories, Transfer, and Disposal of District-Owned Property Policy 701 was provided to the Grand Jury. The agency did not provide a policy for purchasing equipment. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F4: A policy for purchasing equipment is important for transparency and consistency. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R4: By September 30, 2020, the French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop a policy for purchasing equipment. Agency Response: Implemented Policy 701 Inventories, Transfer, and Disposal of District-Owned Property states “It is the policy of the French Camp-McKinley Fire District to accurately inventory and maintained all district property and equipment Policy 201 – Program Management states “It is the policy of the French Camp McKinley Rural Fire Protection District to manage resources in a responsible and transparent manner by dividing Fire Department functional tasks into specific programs and assigning program managers to each.” The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.5: The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop policies for testing and promotions that maintain the integrity of test scores by December 31, 2019. Agency Response: [None given] 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations Subsequent discussion with Agency staff included a reference to Policy 1000: Recruiting and Retention and Policy 1004: Promotions and Transfers. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F5: A policy for testing and promotions is important for transparency and consistency. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R5: By September 30, 2020, the French Camp McKinley Board of Directors upload the Policy regarding recruitment and retention to a public website. Agency Response: Implemented Policy 1000 “Recruitment and Selection” outlines the new hiring process and the promotional process 208 The District committed to fair and transparent employment practices based upon individual training, experience, and qualifications. The Following outlines the general processes utilized Entry Level Examinations • Employment opportunity posting with qualifications and study reference. • Written examination conducted by a profession testing organization based on contemporary / latest fire service knowledge and training. • Interview Panel with Internal French Camp Members and external Fire Service Members. • Interview with Fire Chief and or Board Members. • Comprehensive background check by an experienced investigator. • Medical examination. Promotional Examinations: • Based on the promotional position being tested; a list of qualifications and study reference for the written examination will be provided to candidate and or open posting for external candidates. • In conjunction with a profession testing organization a job specific written examination will be constructed. • An assessment and or interview panel with French Camp Members and or external Fire Service Members; Candidate’s must demonstration the ability to perform duties and responsibilities for the position being tested. • Comprehensive background check by an experienced investigator for external candidates, and an interview with the Fire Chief. • Medical Examination; if necessary. Chief Officers Hiring: • Discretion of the Board of Directors’ • Consideration given to the individual’s experience, and qualifications and training. Administrative Staff: • Discretion of the Board of Director’s; in consultation with the Fire Chief. • Consideration given to the individual’s experience, and qualifications and training. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 209 6.0 Personnel Issues 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: "Less Qualified" member have not been placed into positions that would create a risk to the public. A new leadership team is being assembled, which is committed to conduct transparent testing. Current and future hiring and promotions practices will follow commonly utilized fire service practices to ensure the best candidates are hired and promoted based upon their training, experience, and qualifications. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The "excessive" number of grievances resulted from previous leadership team(s) not following the established policies; the policies themselves are adequate. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Refer to FRC Response 2.2. [See the response to F2.2 above.] 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.4: The District’s failure to conduct an annual grievance audit may have resulted in unnecessary financial liability. Agency Response: Refer to FRC Response 2.2. [See the response to F2.2 above.] 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop a clear and concise grievance policy and form by December 31, 2019. Agency Response: The Board and the Interim Fire Chief have reviewed the policy and are working to implement a process to address member's concerns in a transparent and timely manner. Fire Administration policy adherence and execution are required to resolving any grievance 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The Personnel Complaints Policy 1028 and Employee Complaint/Resolution Form are completed. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 210 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: The Board concurs. Ongoing communication between the Board of Directors and the Fire Chief should eliminate any grievance related surprises. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency stated that the upcoming District Policy Manual covers this topic. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F6: It is important for transparency and consistency that the new Policy Manual provide guidance regarding the ongoing communication between the Board of Directors and the Fire Chief about processing grievances. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R6: By September 30, 2020, the French Camp McKinley Board of Directors post for public viewing its updated Policy Manual with guidance for the ongoing communication between the Board of Directors and the Fire Chief about processing grievances. Agency Response: Implemented Policy “1039 Grievance Procedure” has been updated to reflect that an annual grievance audit is completed and reviewed by Board of Directors per Subsection 1039.7. The Board of Directors completed a review 2019 (no grievance filed). The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: Currently the Interim Fire Chief advises the Board of Directors monthly on the status of all grievances. The Board also receives a summary of any investigative report upon it's conclusion or with their monthly meeting packet. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 7.0 Board Oversight 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F3.1: Board responsibilities are not clearly understood by all board members, which has contributed to ineffective leadership of French Camp McKinley Fire District. Agency Response: The lack of clear communication by previous fire leadership and onboarding of new directors contributed to the perception that role and responsibilities of some members are not clearly understood. 211 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F3.2: Without a formalized annual review process, the Board is unable to measure the Fire Chief’s performance. Agency Response: The Board concurs. A review process is in place and has been utilized to determine goals and objectives and compensation. An evaluation of the past Chief was underway when his occupational leave occurred. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The previous leadership's lack of honesty and transparency, coupled with the creation of a culture of intimidation of members, concealed serious personnel issues from the board. Upon becoming aware of the seriousness of several personnel issues, the Board initiated action to hold the responsible members accountable. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: A lack of honesty and transparency lead the board to infer the required filings were taking place. (See Plan of Action 3.2). [See response to R3.2 below.] 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: The Board concurs. A review of the chief performance is generally coupled with annual budget and planning sessions or hire date. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: The District is working with a Certified Public Account to reconcile 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 records. 212 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency requested more time. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F7: It is important for public trust that the District have correct and audited financial records. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R7: By December 31, 2020, 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. Agency Response: Not Completed Robert W Johnson Accountancy Corporation has been hired to audit the District’s financial record for the following fiscal years: FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, FY 2019-20. The review is expected to be completed by the end of 2020. The audits from fiscal years 2015 through 2019 have been completed and copies are on file with the San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The Board concurs. The Board and the Interim Fire Chief have received a copy of the "San Joaquin County Best Practices for Accounting and Reporting for Locally Governed Special Districts. Additionally, the Board and Staff plans to utilize the California Special District Association vast training resources which includes online webinars to conference to assist special district. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 8.0 The Future of French Camp McKinley Fire District 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The Board of Director's position is to continue as the French Camp McKinley Fire District. The Board's decision is based on providing fire and life safety to the residents and business communities of French Camp and Mountain House Community Service District. Refer to Attachment 1. "The Office of the County administrator August 1 3, 2019 recommendation to the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors: “Approval of Response to the 2018-2019 Civil Grand Jury Report Regarding the French Camp McKinley Fire District." 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F4.2: The District’s Board has failed to follow-up on repeated recommendations to explore consolidation. Agency Response: This is not accurate. The board will respectfully consider any mutually beneficial agreements and or consolidation. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: Refer to Responses 4.1 and 4.2. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: Not Applicable: Refer to Attachment 1. "The Office of the County administrator August 13, 2019 recommendation to the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors: "Approval of Response to the 2018-2019 Civil Grand Jury Report Regarding the French Camp McKinley Fire District.” San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors’ Response: The recommendation has been implemented. An internal review of FCMFD fire protection services was performed by the County Administrator’s Office. The results of the review determined: • There were no indications of performance deficiencies in FCMFD fire protection services provided to County facilities; • Overall, County departments were pleased with the service received from FCMFD; and, • The FCMFD response times and performance have been consistent with comparable fire agencies and therefore FCMFD is a viable option for the delivery of fire protection services to the County’s French Camp facilities. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code 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). . Follow-up to the 2019 - 2020 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report Homelessness in San Joaquin County Building on a Foundation: Collaboration and Communication (2019-2020 Case #0119) Homelessness in San Joaquin County Building on a Foundation: Collaboration and Communication Case #0119 Preface This report contains the responses to the 2019-2020 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding Homelessness in San Joaquin County. This report focuses on the 2019-2020 Grand Jury findings and recommendations, as well as the agency responses, which are presented verbatim in this report. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agency response to each recommendation. Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agency responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/. Summary The 2019-2020 Grand Jury investigation into homelessness was initiated in response to a citizen complaint. The investigation focused on how San Joaquin County and the seven cities within the county addressed homelessness. The Grand Jury found San Joaquin County and the seven cities have made efforts in addressing homelessness but more needed to be done. The 2019- 2020 Grand Jury recommendations included • Develop easy-to-read websites which would lead to a more-informed public on the topic of homelessness; • Petition the court to extend the Homeless Court; • Add four more deputies to the Community Car Program; and • The cities of Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon, and Escalon adopt the San Joaquin Continuum of Care and the Program Administrator as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury found that the 2019-2020 Grand Jury had done admirable work in understanding homelessness as an issue in San Joaquin County, including the various systems and agencies that seek to make homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring. San Joaquin County is making great strides pursuing solutions to homelessness in the region including cities posting plain language websites for ease of public understanding and participation in the Continuum of Care. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury found resolution to all of the recommendations on dealing with homelessness in San Joaquin County. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current 2020-2021 Grand Jury studied the original 2019-2020 report, #0119, Homelessness in San Joaquin County, Building on a Foundation: Collaboration and Communication, and documented the mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations. These responses were then reviewed to determine if • the agency responses were complete and comprehensible; • the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • confirmation, including written documentation and interviews, was necessary. Glossary • HUD: U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department; a federal department that, as part of its mission, among other things administers homelessness grants. • LEAD: Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion; a program that redirects individuals from criminal justice system involvement into community-based social, health, and behavioral services. The San Joaquin LEAD team consists of representatives from the Stockton Police Department, San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office, County Behavior Health Services, Community Medical Center, and the Public Defender’s Office. 218 • Plain Language: Writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or intended audience (Plain Writing Act of 2020, October 13, 2010). • SJCoC: San Joaquin Continuum of Care; a local program required by HUD to provide leadership and effective stewardship of resources, as well as to facilitate community planning, design, and implementation of programs critical to ending homelessness in San Joaquin County. • Stockton PD: Stockton Police Department. Summary of Responses and 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusions 2020-2021 Grand Jury Respondent 2019-2020 Rec # Response Conclusion Board of Supervisors R1.1 No further action To be implemented R1.3 Requires further analysis No further action R2.1 Will not be implemented No further action Sheriff’s Office R1.2 Implemented No further action District Attorney’s Office R1.1 Will not be implemented No further action City of Stockton R3.1 Implemented No further action City of Tracy R3.1 Implemented No further action R3.2 Implemented No further action R3.3 Implemented No further action City of Manteca R3.1 Implemented No further action R3.2 Implemented No further action R3.3 Will not be implemented No further action City of Lathrop R3.1 Implemented No further action R3.2 Implemented No further action R3.3 Implemented No further action Ripon City Council R3.1 Implemented No further action R3.2 Implemented No further action R3.3 Implemented No further action City of Escalon R3.1 Implemented No further action R3.2 To be implemented No further action R3.3 To be implemented No further action 219 Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors: 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: None of the four Designated Lead Departments has provided a plain language website that describes their efforts in addressing and limiting the impact of homelessness, leaving many San Joaquin residents with the false impression that the County and is doing little or nothing to address homelessness. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.3: Holding Homelessness Court only in Stockton denies access to many individuals and is inconsistent with the intent of the Quality of Life Policy, which is to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: Partially Agree San Joaquin County acknowledges that access to transportation can be a struggle for many experiencing homelessness. San Joaquin County also acknowledges that Homelessness Court is an additional non-mandated service which goes above and beyond those typically offered by the Superior Courts, and which is being offered in the most geographically central city in the County where the majority of the region's homeless individuals typically congregate. The Quality of Life Policy seeks to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County in part through exercising authority and discretion in the application of all laws enacted to protect the health, safety and welfare of all County residents. The Policy does not contemplate any directive or suggestion to provide Homelessness Court or other services for the homeless equally in every city of the County. San Joaquin Superior Court is a judicial branch of the State of California and not the organization of San Joaquin County. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.4: The four Designated Lead Departments are successfully prioritizing homelessness and implementing the Quality of Life Policy to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: By March 1, 2021, the San Joaquin Board of Supervisors develop and publish an easy-to-find, plain language website that includes a description of efforts made to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: This recommendation will be implemented but not by March 1, 2021. Plans to consolidate and refine the presentation of homelessness information on the San Joaquin County website are under discussion. Multiple factors which are difficult or 220 impossible to predict, including the ongoing implementation of homelessness data collection strategies, next point in time count (PIT) scheduled for January 2021 and the impacts of COVID-19, the County will make its best effort for completion of this initiative by end of calendar year 2021. Due to COVID restrictions, the planned January 2021 Point In Time Count and finalization of communication plans on homelessness was postponed. There is not a clear timeline to develop and publish the county website. The County has relegated the provision of resources to the Continuum of Care and has a link on their website www.sanjoaquincoc.org. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.3: By March 1, 2021, County Board of Supervisors petition the court to expand the Homelessness Court to the Branch Courts, as recommended in the Homelessness Task Force 2015-2016 Annual Report (November 16, 2016). Agency Response: This recommendation requires Further Analysis San Joaquin County acknowledges that expanding services such as Homelessness Court for those experiencing homelessness can effectively address and limit the impacts of homelessness in the community. San Joaquin County also acknowledges the limited resources available to provide these services. The referenced Homelessness Task Force report (November 16, 2016) includes a policy recommendation from the Task Force Law and Justice Sub-committee to "expand Homeless Court to the Circuit Courts within San Joaquin County." The Task Force report does not discuss potential operational challenges to the Superior Courts in expanding this service, nor does it offer solutions to the likely cost increases associated with such an expansion. Additionally, the Task Force report fails to acknowledge that Homelessness Court is currently offered only at the offices of homeless services provider St. Mary's Dining Room, a location which the Grand Jury report cites as ideal due to it being "a familiar and safe environment to the local homeless community." This would indicate that Homelessness Court is not offered at the Stockton Courthouse by design. It is unclear how expanding Homelessness Court in the outlying courts would be accepted by a Homelessness Court participant, or if at all. Prior to any petition to the Superior Court, the County Board of Supervisors would need to conduct an examination of the willingness and capacity of the Court to overcome these and other challenges to expand this service, which could delay such a petition beyond the recommended completion date or preclude the need for such a petition, along with determining the demand for services is not currently being met. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 221 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: One staff person is not sufficient to ensure all needs within the county are met. Agency Response: Partially Agree San Joaquin County agrees that effective solutions to homelessness require commitment, coordination and collaboration from multiple stakeholders. San Joaquin County disagrees that there is only one staff person ensuring that all needs within the County are met. Finding 2.1 fails to include references to the other staff and resources devoted to solutions to homelessness, including from the District Attorney's Office, Sheriff's Office, Department of Health Care Services, and Community Development Department, all of which are highlighted elsewhere in the Grand Jury report. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2.2: The revised San Joaquin Continuum of Care has increased collaboration between the County, the cities, and non-profit organizations, helping to improve services for the homeless. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: By December 30, 2020, the County Board of Supervisors complete an analysis to determine if additional staff is needed for the Program Administrator for Homeless Initiatives. Agency Response: This recommendation will not be implemented Homelessness is a broad problem which requires community based solutions through a collaboration of committed public and private partners. Focus from a variety of sources, such as those public and private organizations contributing to the ongoing collaborative effort of the San Joaquin Continuum of Care, is necessary. The Board of Supervisors is one of several bodies acting in a leadership role on this matter and will coordinate as appropriate with other government entities, including City Leadership, non-County organizations, the County Administrator, and County Department Heads to help meet the needs of the community. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.1: Although many residents are interested in how homelessness is being managed, only the City of Lodi has published accomplishments in plain language on its website. This lack of readily available information makes it difficult for residents to understand what is being done to address homelessness Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 222 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.2: There is a need for community-wide planning and strategic use of resources for homelessness involving all cities within the County. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.3: It is important to establish a coordinated and regional system of care for the homeless community to improve services while addressing and limiting the impact of homelessness. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.5: The leadership shown recently by the City of Stockton in working with San Joaquin County towards a shared goal of obtaining funds will streamline processes and result in improved efficiency. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.6: Stockton’s leadership efforts in securing a regional strategic plan speaks to the current spirit of collaboration and communication between Stockton, San Joaquin County, and the San Joaquin Continuum of Care. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 2.0 San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office: 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: None of the four Designated Lead Departments has provided a plain language website that describes their efforts in addressing and limiting the impact of homelessness, leaving many San Joaquin residents with the false impression that the County and is doing little or nothing to address homelessness. Agency Response: Agree The respondent (San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office) agrees with the finding. The San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office will be adding this content to the department's webpage. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: The Community Car Program adds value to the community by reducing response times for calls for service, supporting the Encampment Response Team, and limiting the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: Agree The respondent (San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office) agrees with the finding. The Community Car Program is not a new idea for the Sheriff's Office. This Office had a Community Car Program deployed in many communities throughout San Joaquin County 223 from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. The program was abandoned in the early 1990s due to budget constraints. In the 1990s, the Sheriff's Office adopted the Community-Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) and Scanning Analysis Response Assessment (SARA) philosophies. These philosophies promoted and supported organizational strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and police-community partnerships. Interactions between law enforcement and residents within our communities are central to these philosophies. The Community Car concept also incorporates these philosophies. Through the redeployment of the Community Car Program, the Sheriff's Office returned to addressing and solving problems within our communities. Community Car deputies foster community partnerships by implementing problem-solving strategies that ultimately build trust between the Sheriff's Office and the communities they serve. The Community Car Program seeks to reduce crime and the fear of crime by: identifying and abating community nuisance, blight, and substandard living conditions; identifying and comprehensively responding to emerging crime trends; enhancing community safety; and protecting life and property. As a result, the Sheriff's Office is able to: Reduce the response times of calls for service • Increase Sheriff's Office presence in problem areas • Address problems that cause a reduction in the quality of life of community residents • Create and strengthen relationships with members of the public in communities served by the Sheriff's Office 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.4: The four Designated Lead Departments are successfully prioritizing homelessness and implementing the Quality of Life Policy to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: Agree The respondent (San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office) agrees with the finding. In February and March of 2020, the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office spearheaded a multi-agency operation to eradicate massive homeless encampments along an approximate five-mile stretch of the Diverting Canal between Highway 99 and West Lane, in unincorporated areas of Stockton. These encampments were proven to be the root cause of multiple incidents of arson, theft, burglary, environmental waste, and major damage to the infrastructure protecting the community from flooding. Deputies, along with social service providers, contacted over 150 individuals and offered them drug-treatment assistance, housing, financial assistance, and mental-health services. Only one person accepted these resources when offered. After days of reaching out and offering assistance, the encampments were posted with "72 Hours to Vacate" notices. After the noticed time had expired, efforts began to 224 remove the encampments and to clean and revitalize the entire area. The operation resulted in 15 arrests, the disposal of over 78 tons of trash and debris, the removal of over 85 tires, and the disposal of over 100 containers of human waste. Crime decreased significantly in the residential and commercial areas surrounding the canal. Children and parents were once again able to enjoy walking and riding bikes along the canal again without fear of becoming crime victims. The area continues to be well-maintained to this day as a result of efforts by the Sheriff's Community Car Deputies. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: By October 1, 2020, the Sheriff’s Office assign four additional deputies to the Community Car Program, for a total of eight deputies. Agency Response: The Sheriff's Office intends to assign a total of 22 Deputies to the Community Car Program; however, the Sheriff's Office currently has 41 vacant Deputy Sheriff positions. Being able to achieve the goal of assigning 22 Community Car Deputies will depend greatly on the success of the recruitment and hiring process. The Sheriff’s office is currently in the midst of a massive recruitment effort that includes purchasing television and digital ads, streamlining the background and testing process, and offering a signing bonus to new hires. Based on current staffing projections, the Sheriff's Office will assign two additional Deputies to the Community Car Program effective September 28, 2020; two additional Deputies in December 2020; and two-to-four additional Deputies in March of 2021. The Sheriff’s Office expanded the Community Car Program with its Community Revitalization Unit and assigned additional deputies. Currently there are nine deputies addressing quality of life issues relating to the County’s homelessness which exceeds the Grand Jury’s recommendation that the Sheriff’s Office assign a total of eight deputies. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 3.0 District Attorney: 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: None of the four Designated Lead Departments has provided a plain language website that describes their efforts in addressing and limiting the impact of homelessness, leaving many San Joaquin residents with the false impression that the County and is doing little or nothing to address homelessness. Agency Response: We agree with this Finding. As one of the four "Designated Lead Departments", the District Attorney's Office does not currently operate a dedicated, stand alone, website outlining its own activities, or those of other Departments, related to addressing and limiting the impacts of homelessness within San Joaquin County. The District Attorney's Office currently provides information to the community through its own dedicated website and through social media on its Facebook page, to share efforts made by the District Attorney and her team members to address and work towards the reduction of homelessness within the San Joaquin County community. The District Attorney's Office will expand the scope of information available on its website and through social media to allow for ease of accessing information related to homelessness and available resources within the community. The District Attorney's Office is supportive of the Grand Jury's recommendation that a unified website be implemented by the Board of Supervisors through the San Joaquin County Information Systems Department (ISD). As will be discussed further below, the District Attorney's Office supports the Grand Jury's Recommendation 1.1 for the development and implementation of a countywide unified, "easy to find", "plain language" website describing efforts made by the four "Designated Lead Departments" as well as those of other local agencies and/or organizations offering services to homeless individuals within San Joaquin County. This unified website will allow for direct links from the District Attorney's Office website and other County Departments for ease of access by the entire San Joaquin County community to updated and consistent information on homelessness issues, activities and services. In addition, the District Attorney's Office will work to expand the scope of information available through its website and through the use of social media to report on the activities of the three (3) designated prosecutors working in Neighborhood Deputy District Attorney (NODA) program. While their activities have historically been included on both the District Attorney's Office website and on social media, additional information can be provided to the community. The NDDAs engage the San Joaquin County citizens through participation in community activities, close working relationships with members of the Board of Supervisors' Offices, Behavioral Health Services, and other local agencies and organizations which address homelessness issues. The NDDAs also work collaboratively with the Stockton Police Department and other county agencies on the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program to find solutions for homeless individuals within Downtown footprint and neighboring areas in the City of Stockton. The District Attorney's Office will expand the scope of information shared on its website to include data and analysis of this successful collaboration and the direct work currently being done with homeless individuals. The District Attorney also regularly provides updates, offers feedback, and continues to work collaboratively with other "Designated Lead Departments" to address homelessness within the San Joaquin County community. This work and involvement with the aforementioned Departments and programs, and the additional engagement outlined in Finding 1.4 below, will continue in Fiscal year 2020- 2021. 226 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.3: Holding Homelessness Court only in Stockton denies access to many individuals and is inconsistent with the intent of the Quality of Life Policy, which is to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: We agree with this Finding. The District Attorney's Office is supportive of the San Joaquin County Superior Court expanding the reach of Homeless Court outside Stockton to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. The Homeless Court is one function of the Superior Court's Collaborative Court system. It is currently held on the last Friday of the month at St. Mary's Dining Room in Stockton, which offers a location outside the traditional courtroom setting. The San Joaquin County Superior Court currently operates circuit courts in two additional communities, the City of Manteca and the City of Lodi. The Manteca circuit court currently serves the City of Tracy community in addition to the citizens of the City of Manteca. The Tracy circuit court has been and remains closed. The District Attorney’s Office will work collaboratively with the San Joaquin County Superior Court should a decision be made to hold Homeless Court in the Manteca, Tracy and/or Lodi jurisdictions at appropriate locations outside the traditional courtroom setting similar to what occurs in Stockton. The District Attorney's Office will work collaboratively with those organizations who join in supporting the operation of Homeless Courts in those locations frequently accessed by homeless individuals. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.4: The four Designated Lead Departments are successfully prioritizing homelessness and implementing the Quality of Life Policy to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: We agree with this Finding. At this time, most communities throughout the country are facing and working hard to address homelessness in order to make this circumstance brief, rare and a one-time occurrence. The sheer magnitude and scope of the work is complex and varies substantially in each community based on the extent of homeless population itself, as well as the availability of local resources and services. Each of the "Designated Lead Departments" are prioritizing homelessness and implementing the County's Quality of Life Policy. Representatives of the District Attorney's Office continue to participate with the activities of the San Joaquin County Continuum of Care (Coe) and its related meetings and committees. In addition, the District Attorney's Office has participated as a core member of the COVID-19 Homeless Coalition and Hotel Taskforce, creating a partnership with the Human Services Agency (HSA) with operational plans for shelter screenings, emergency COVID-19 response planning for homeless individuals, referrals to Project Roomkey, and coordinated care for guests. This participation with representatives of the four (4) "Designated Lead Departments" will continue in Fiscal year 2020-2021. In addition to the aforementioned work of the District Attorney's Office prosecutors assigned as Neighborhood Deputy District Attorneys (NDDAs) and the work with the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program, prosecutors in the District Attorney's Quality of Life (QoL) Division will continue work combatting illegal dumping, environmental concerns, arson cases, public nuisance actions and other related issues. These prosecutors work collaboratively with local and statewide agencies to address issues affecting the general public and those experiencing homelessness. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: By March 1, 2021, the San Joaquin Board of Supervisors develop and publish an easy-to-find, plain language website that includes a description of efforts made to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: The District Attorney's Office will not implement this Recommendation as the Recommendation is directed to the County Board of Supervisors. The District Attorney's Office does support the development and implementation of the website suggested in this Recommendation and will contribute information for the website as requested. The recommendation from the Grand Jury supports conveying a consistent countywide message through a dedicated website for access by homeless community members, those assisting these individuals, and by members of the general public. This supports an ease of information to and for the very individuals who need access to the services outlined on the website. The recommendation to develop and implement a unified website will allow the general public to understand exactly what services are being provided and the goals that have been accomplished within the County in one specific location rather than having to access multiple websites or seek information from a variety of sources. This will assist in dissuading the false impression within the community that little or no work is being done or accomplished to address homelessness within San Joaquin County by the departments, agencies, and organizations tasked with doing so. By way of example, the Mecklenburg County Housing and Homelessness Dashboard in Charlotte, North Carolina, created with the support of the University of North Carolina, provides an example of a plain language website, designed for public access. This website was not created by policy or program providers, and demonstrates an ease of information sharing. A coordinated framework provides clear and easy to understand information on the inflow and outflow of those individuals experiencing homelessness. Additional relevant data points are shared in the Dashboard, such as information on wages, prevailing rental rates in the jurisdiction, work being done to assist those out of homelessness status, and school district estimates of homeless children. Reporting on these same data points, and others of local interest, will be an effective method of conveying key information from the unified website to the citizens of the San Joaquin County community. It is evident the Mecklenburg County Housing and Homelessness Dashboard has been growing in its sophistication and design over recent years. By leveraging from various examples like this one, San Joaquin County can launch the dedicated plain language website as recommended by the Grand Jury which continues the work to meet the needs of this community. For additional information, please see their website at https://mecklenburghousingdata.org/. As stated above, the District Attorney's Office supports the development of this website, will link its own website as a "Dedicated Lead Department", and work with County ISD to ensure the accuracy of relevant criminal justice information contained on the website, as well as providing regular information for inclusion on the website as requested. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 4.0 City Responses: 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.1: Although many residents are interested in how homelessness is being managed, only the City of Lodi has published accomplishments in plain language on its website. This lack of readily available information makes it difficult for residents to understand what is being done to address homelessness. Agency Response (City of Stockton): The City agrees with this finding Agency Response (City of Tracy): The City disagrees partially with this finding. Agency Response (City of Manteca): The City of Manteca plans to provide more information on what the City has done regarding homelessness. This will include creating a dedicated page on the City’s website indicating what has been done to date. The City will continue to update the webpage as additional items have been completed. Agency Response (City of Lathrop): Council disagrees partially with the finding of the Grand Jury. Many sources of information from numerous entities provide information on what is being done to address homelessness. That saidm the City will add information to our website as detailed in response to the Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1 below. Agency Response (City of Ripon): The City acknowledges Finding F3. 1 and recognizes the need for Ripon residents to have ready access to useful and understandable information concerning homelessness and the responsive measures of their City. This information should focus on the direct, tangible and effective steps taken by the Ripon Police Department and City government as a whole. Moreover, the City will endeavor to provide information in a format free of 229 the unnecessary jargon, euphemism and abstractions which all too often characterize government communications. Agency Response (City of Escalon): The City of Escalon acknowledges Finding F3.1 and recognizes the need for Escalon residents to have ready access to useful and understandable information concerning homelessness and the responsive measures of their City. This information should focus on the direct, tangible, and effective steps taken by the Escalon Police Department and City government as a whole. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.2: There is a need for community-wide planning and strategic use of resources for homelessness involving all cities within the County. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.3: It is important to establish a coordinated and regional system of care for the homeless community to improve services while addressing and limiting the impact of homelessness. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.4: Publishing a plain-language website titled What Lodi Has Done for has made it easier for the public to readily understand the actions the city has taken to address homelessness. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.5: The leadership shown recently by the City of Stockton in working with San Joaquin County towards a shared goal of obtaining funds will streamline processes and result in improved efficiency. Agency Response (City of Stockton): The City agrees with this finding 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.6: Stockton’s leadership efforts in securing a regional strategic plan speaks to the current spirit of collaboration and communication between Stockton, San Joaquin County, and the San Joaquin Continuum of Care. Agency Response (City of Stockton): The City agrees with this finding 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1: By December 30, 2020, the Cities of Stockton, Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon, and Escalon post plain language information on their website that outlines the actions each city has taken to address homelessness. Agency Response (City of Stockton): The City will post in plain language, information that outlines our programs and actions taken to address homelessness no later than December 30, 2020. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Tracy): This recommendation has been implemented The City of Tracy established a dedicated webpage to Homelessness in in April 2019, shortly after the Tracy City Council established the Council Ad Hoc Committee to guide the creation of a Tracy Homelessness Strategic Plan. The web page clearly outlines specific Council and staff activities related to homeless and provides hyperlinks to City Council meetings, staff reports as well as links to other resources such as County Behavioral Health, Tracy Community Connections as well as serves as a one-stop-shop for linking interested visitors to additional homelessness resources including updated information from the Center for Disease Control' s guidance with respect to homeless individuals and service providers. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Manteca): The City of Manteca is actively working on creating a dedicated page on the City’s website indicating what has been done to date as it relates to homelessness. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Lathrop): The Recommendation R3.1 has not yet been implemented. Implementation and links to information from the San Joaquin Continuum of Care (http//www.sanjoaquincoc.org/) will be added to the City of Lathrop’s website within 90 days. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Ripon): In response to Recommendation R3.1, the City will post the information referenced above on its website (www.cityofripon.org), and will provide updates as events warrant. The City plans to have a separate tab entitled "ChiefOrrnonde's Update on Homelessness-Action, Not Paperwork", which will be updated monthly at a minimum. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Escalon): In response to Recommendation R3.1, the City will post the information referenced above on its website www.cityofescalon.org and make updates as warranted. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.2: By December 30, 2020, the Cities of Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon and Escalon adopt the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary 231 organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness. Agency Response (City of Tracy): This recommendation has not yet been implemented. Upon Council direction, staff will return to Council with a resolution adopting the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the City of Tracy will work with the County and other cities to develop solutions to homelessness. On December 1, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-198, which adopted the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness for San Joaquin County. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Manteca): The City of Manteca has a longstanding relationship with the San Joaquin Continuum of Care (SJCoC) and are active participants. Currently, a City of Manteca staff member is on the board as well as another staff member attending the monthly regional meetings on a monthly basis. The City of Manteca recognizes the value of the SJCoC and is committed to continuing the partnership and efforts of addressing homelessness. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Lathrop): This recommendation is implemented with City Council’s approval of this response to the extent that “adoption” of the Continuum of Care does not commit the City of Lathrop to directly fund implementation costs incurred by other entities since the City of Lathrop incurs its own costs to address homelessness. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Ripon): In response to Recommendation R3.2 and 3.3, the City of Ripon will place a resolution on a City Council agenda by December 30, 2020 for consideration by the Council. The resolution will propose that the City of Ripon adopt the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness, and officially acknowledge and support the Program Administrator for Homeless Initiatives position as the homeless coordinator for San Joaquin County. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Escalon): In response to Recommendation R3.2 and R3.3, the City of Escalon will place a resolution on a City Council agenda by December 30, 2020, for consideration by the Council. The resolution will propose that the City of Escalon adopt the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness, and officially acknowledge and support the Program Administrator for Homeless Initiatives position as the homeless coordinator for San Joaquin County. On December 7, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 64-20, which adopted the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness for San Joaquin County. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.3: By December 30, 2020, the Cities of Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon and Escalon in open forum officially acknowledge and support the Program Administrator for Homeless Initiatives position as the homeless coordinator for San Joaquin County. Agency Response (City of Tracy): This recommendation requires further analysis. It is unclear what "support" means in the context of this recommendation. Staff will seek clarification from the Grand Jury to better understand its definition of "support" and what action(s) would demonstrate "support" of the San Joaquin County Homeless Coordinator position. Staff will endeavor to obtain the information and return to Council with a recommendation by December 30, 2020. With the adoption of Resolution 2020-198 on December 1, 2020, the City Council did officially acknowledge and support the Program Administrator for Homeless Initiatives position as the homeless coordinator for San Joaquin County. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Manteca): While the City of Manteca recognizes the San Joaquin County’s Program Administrator for Homelessness Initiatives as the county contact focused on a regional approach to homeless issues, the City believes in a more customized approach in addressing and managing the specific needs of the homeless community within Manteca. Therefore, the City’s focus is to utilize City staff on creating a more robust approach to addressing homelessness within Manteca. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Lathrop): 233 The recommendation is implemented with City Council’s approval of this response to the extent that “support” of the Program Administrator for the Homeless Initiatives position does not commit to City of Lathrop to directly fund such position since the City of Lathrop incurs its own costs to address homelessness. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Ripon): In response to Recommendation R3.2 and 3.3, the City of Ripon will place a resolution on a City Council agenda by December 30, 2020 for consideration by the Council. The resolution will propose that the City of Ripon adopt the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness, and officially acknowledge and support the Program Administrator for Homeless Initiatives position as the homeless coordinator for San Joaquin County. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Escalon): In response to Recommendation R3.2 and R3.3, the City of Escalon will place a resolution on a City Council agenda by December 30, 2020, for consideration by the Council. The resolution will propose that the City of Escalon adopt the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness, and officially acknowledge and support the Program Administrator for Homeless Initiatives position as the homeless coordinator for San Joaquin County. On December 7, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 64-20, which adopted the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness for San Joaquin County. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Acknowledgement The Grand Jury wishes to acknowledge the San Joaquin Continuum of Care (SJCoC) organization for its efforts in coordinating a strategic approach for community-wide planning and use of resources for homelessness involving all cities within the County. This non-governmental, non- incorporated association meets the requirements of Code of Federal Regulations 24 Part 578 as a collaborative and coordinating non-profit system. It includes government, homeless housing and service providers, and other community interests that increases public awareness and promotes programs that address the needs of the County’s homeless population. The Grand Jury believes many of its recommendations for action are addressed through the SJCoC’s San Joaquin Community Response to Homelessness strategic plan document, which was developed in 2020. For more information please view Response to Homelessness Strategic Plan June 2020, http://www.sanjoaquincoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/San-Joaquin- Community-Response-to-Homelessness-Strategic-Plan-June-2020.pdf . Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code 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). Follow-up Report to the 2019 - 2020 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Illegal Dumping: Talking Trash (2019-2020 Case #0519) Illegal Dumping: Talking Trash Case #0519 Preface This report contains the responses to the 2019-2020 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding illegal dumping in San Joaquin County. This follow-up report focuses on the 2019- 2020 Grand Jury findings and recommendations, as well as agency responses, which are presented verbatim in this report. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agency’s response to each recommendation. Photo courtesy of The Record Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agencies responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/. Summary The 2019-2020 Grand Jury investigated the complex issue of illegal dumping in San Joaquin County. The investigation produced multiple findings and recommendations, requiring responses from the County Board of Supervisors and the City of Stockton. The City of Stockton responded with their willingness to participate in all the recommendations. Their participation, however, is dependent upon developing and mobilizing the illegal dumping Task Force by San 237 Joaquin County. It is possible that the outbreak of the COVID pandemic had a direct impact on the ability to fulfill the recommendations of the Grand Jury. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury made multiple attempts to obtain verification of the Task Force formation, as well as resolution of the recommendations. Only the recommendation of the assignment of an Administrative Hearing Officer for code enforcement has been fulfilled. All other recommendations remain unsatisfied. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the 2019-2020 responses to the report, #0519, Illegal Dumping: Talking Trash and documented the mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations. These responses were then reviewed to determine if • the agency responses were complete and comprehensible; • the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • confirmation, including written documentation and interviews, was necessary. Follow up interviews were conducted, and surveys were sent to individuals who had knowledge of, or contributed to, the response preparation. Summary of Responses and 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusions 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion 2019-2020 Respondent Rec # Response Rec# Due Date Conclusion SJ County R1 December 31, 2021 Will be Further action Board of R1 implemented required Supervisors R2 Implemented No further action R3 Will be R2.1 December 31, 2021 Further action implemented required R2.2 December 31, 2021 Further action required R4 Will be R3 December 31, 2021 Further action implemented required R5 Requires R4 December 31, 2021 Further action further required analysis R6 Will be R5 December 31, 2021 Further action implemented required 238 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion 2019-2020 Respondent Rec # Response Rec# Due Date Conclusion R7 Will be R6 December 31, 2021 Further action implemented required R8 Will be R7 December 31, 2021 Further action implemented required City of R4 Will be No further action Stockton implemented R5 Will be No further action implemented R6 Will be No further action implemented R7 Will be No further action implemented R8 Will be No further action implemented Findings, Recommendations, and Agency Responses Board of Supervisors 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1: Illegal dumping has increased in part because the County has not created a strong, enforceable ordinance to deter illegal dumping. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury’s finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2: There is no designated hearing officer and other staff required to enforce ordinances, leading to less effective enforcement. Agency Response: Disagree San Joaquin County Ordinance Code Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 5 Hearing Officer of the County of San Joaquin established the position of Hearing Officer of the County for the purpose of adjudicating enforcement actions under the code. An Officer appointed by the Board pursuant to this Chapter is available to enforce ordinances regarding illegal dumping. However, at this time the County lacks an effective ordinance or process to effectively eradicate illegal dumping. 239 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3: San Joaquin County lacks sufficient surveillance equipment to monitor dumping hotspots and to prosecute illegal dumpers. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury’s finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F4: San Joaquin County Public Works Department, Sheriff’s Office, Community Development Department, District Attorney’s Office, and all city departments within the county are not working collaboratively to address the illegal dumping problems. Agency Response: Disagree The named County Departments work together collaboratively as the law currently allows. However, at this time the County lacks ordinances and processes to effectively eradicate illegal dumping within the County. Accordingly, in the summer of 2020 the County and City began initial efforts to work together to create a joint pilot program that will provide data and effective strategies for each jurisdiction to significantly reduce illegal dumping. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F5: San Joaquin County and the City of Stockton are not working together to share in the cost of illegal dumping cleanup. County Board of Supervisors Response: Disagree The law does not allow one jurisdiction to use funding that is allocated for a specific purpose in a separate jurisdiction. However, the County and the City are currently working together to create a joint pilot program that will provide data and effective strategies for each jurisdiction to significantly reduce illegal dumping and will also consider funding options for any proposed operations. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F6: Free drop-off services are underutilized because the public is unaware of most of the programs offered. County Board of Supervisors Response: Agree Mattress, tires, and appliances can be disposed of by residents at no charge, and yet these items are commonly dumped illegally. For example, in the first seven months of calendar year 2020, the Department of Public Works- Road Maintenance Division picked up 568 appliances, 456 mattresses, and 2,415 tires that were illegally dumped on the road right-of-way. All of these can be disposed of at no charge by individuals (but not by businesses). 240 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F7: San Joaquin County and the City of Stockton do not have a robust referral system for sharing reports of illegal dumping irrespective of jurisdiction. County Board of Supervisors Response: Disagree The County does refer and communicate with the City of Stockton about illegal dumping. When a member of the public calls the Department of Public Works to report illegal dumping, Public Works takes the report even if the illegal dumping is for a location within a City jurisdiction, and passes the information on to the correct jurisdiction. However, the County agrees that the jurisdictions could formalize the referral process. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F8: Effective cleanup incentives such as disposal vouchers, fee waivers, and recycling coupons have proven effective in reducing the likelihood of illegal dumping. County Board of Supervisors Response: Disagree Every residential garbage customer in the unincorporated County may request one free collection or disposal voucher from their garbage collection contractor. In 2019, the County and its contractors issued 7,164 no-cost disposal vouchers, and collected 172 tons of waste at free community cleanup events. Through the first nine months of 2020, the County and its contractors have issued 6,944 disposal vouchers and collected 193 tons of waste at free community cleanup events, and yet illegal dumping has increased dramatically in the County. Accordingly, the County Public Works Department intends to explore strategies to assist residents and communities in utilizing vouchers, fee waivers, and recycling coupons more easily and effectively as part of the joint pilot program. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By December 31, 2020, develop and adopt an enforceable ordinance to deter illegal dumping which includes a mechanism for collecting fines, an appeals process, and a way to recoup the cost of administration from the illegal dumpers. County Board of Supervisors Response: This recommendation will be implemented but not by December 31, 2020. The County is currently taking the lead on developing a Joint Illegal Dumping Pilot Project with the City of Stockton in order to use shared data to identify two to five illegal dumping hotspots and take joint, coordinated, comprehensive, proactive strategies and actions that can be replicated and scaled to eradicate illegal dumping in an effective and equitable way. The plan is to include the development of an enforceable ordinance within the County to deter illegal dumping. The ordinance is envisioned to include mechanisms for cost recovery, fines, penalties, and also non monetary components such as community service. The timeline of specific strategies, actions, and programs within the Project will be initially developed by participatory members and then operationalized for maximum efficiency and effectiveness. 241 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2020-2021 Grand Jury found there is no current ordinance addressing the issue. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F1: Illegal dumping continues, in part, because the County has still not created a strong, enforceable ordinance to deter illegal dumping. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By December 31, 2021, develop and adopt, an enforceable ordinance to deter illegal dumping which includes a mechanism for collecting fines, an appeals process, and a way to recoup the cost of administration from the illegal dumpers. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R2: By December 31, 2020, designate an Administrative Hearing Officer along with Public Works staff for enforcement. Agency Response: This recommendation has been implemented. San Joaquin County Ordinance Code Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 5 Hearing Officer of the County of San Joaquin established the position of Hearing Officer of the County for the purpose of adjudicating enforcement actions under the code. An Officer appointed by the Board pursuant to this Chapter is available to enforce ordinances regarding illegal dumping. Currently, when the County discovers evidence of illegal dumping activity, staff clean it up as capacity provides and refer it to the Sheriff's Office for investigation, which then works with the District Attorney's Office for prosecution. Under the Pilot Program, it is envisioned the County Code Enforcement Officers will investigate violations of the newly adopted ordinance code sections regarding illegal dumping activity and, based on their findings, will refer the matter to the District Attorney's Office, issue a citation, or take administrative action, which, if appealed, will utilize the County's Hearing Officer. The administrative action will allow for cost recovery in a fair manner. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: By December 31, 2020, obtain and install appropriate surveillance equipment, such as lighting and cameras, in the top five dumping hotspots. Agency Response: This recommendation will be Implemented. The Department of Public works intends to install appropriate surveillance equipment at five illegal dumping spots as part of the Farm Ranch Rural grant. The equipment will be monitored. The anticipated time frame is by the end of December 2020. 242 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2020-2021 Grand Jury received conflicting information from the Board of Supervisors and Public Works Department regarding the existence of the surveillance cameras and their monitoring. The Grand Jury was not able to confirm whether the surveillance cameras were purchased, installed, or who will be providing monitoring services. Although requests were made no verifiable responses were submitted. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F2: San Joaquin County still lacks sufficient surveillance equipment to monitor dumping hotspots and to prosecute illegal dumpers. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: By December 31, 2021, obtain and install appropriate surveillance equipment, such as lighting and cameras, in the top five dumping hotspots. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.2: By December 31, 2021, develop and adopt a plan for ongoing monitoring of the cameras. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R4: By November 30, 2020, create an illegal dumping task force (Task Force) that includes representatives from San Joaquin County Public Works Department, Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, Community Development, and all cities within the County to participate in the Task Force. This Task Force meet regularly throughout the year. Board of Supervisors Response: This recommendation will be implemented but not by November 30, 2020. The County is currently working on proposing a Joint Illegal Dumping Pilot Project with the City of Stockton in order to use shared data to identify two to five illegal dumping hotspots and take joint, coordinated, comprehensive, proactive strategies and actions that can be replicated and scaled to reduce illegal dumping in an effective and equitable way. The Project development team intends to present the proposal to the Board of Supervisors later this year. The presentation will include a request to the respective jurisdictions to formalize the Joint Pilot Project development group into a formal task force to move the Joint Pilot Project forward pursuant to the timeline presented. It is anticipated to present the proposal to the Board of Supervisors before the end of this year. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2020-2021 Grand Jury made multiple requests into the status of the Joint Illegal Dumping Task Force or Pilot Project including leadership, membership, meeting schedules, task force goals, and planning timelines. Inconsistent responses were received. 243 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F3: No verifiable information regarding the existence of the Joint Illegal Dumping Pilot Project or Task Force have been provided, thus the Grand Jury cannot definitively conclude that such programs exist. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: By December 31, 2021, develop and adopt the county-wide Task Force, which includes representation from San Joaquin County Public Works Department, Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, Community Development, and all cities within the County. This Task Force meet regularly throughout the year. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R5: By December 31, 2020, the newly formed Task Force develop a plan to share costs for illegal dumping pickup throughout the County and the City of Stockton. Agency Response: This Recommendation requires further analysis. Legal limitations prevent each jurisdiction from sharing the specific costs of physical cleanup outside of their respective jurisdictions. However, the County is currently working on proposing an Illegal Dumping Pilot Project with a goal that participating jurisdictions will share the cost of developing ordinances, strategies, campaigns, and programs and performing outcome analysis for reporting purposes. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2020-2021 Grand Jury made multiple requests as to the status of the Task Force and concluded there is no Task Force in place. Because of this, there is no plan in place to share costs. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F4: Legal limitations continue to prevent each jurisdiction from sharing the specific costs of cleanup outside of their respective jurisdictions, making a coordinated response difficult. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R4: By December 31, 2021, the newly formed Task Force develop a plan to share costs for illegal dumping pickup throughout the County and the City of Stockton. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R6: By January 31, 2021, the Task Force develop and implement a county-wide educational program including billboards, buses, and bus stop shelters advertising to include information about free drop-off services. Agency Response: This recommendation will be implemented but not by January 31, 2021. San Joaquin County is currently working on a Pilot Program to address illegal dumping. One proposed component would be an educational component to include targeted multi- media messaging regarding illegal dumping enforcement, eradication efforts, and equity programs that will assist resident and community utilization of vouchers, fee 244 waivers, and recycling coupons more easily and effectively. This campaign will be developed and deployed pursuant to a project timeline once established. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2020-2021 Grand Jury made multiple requests as to the status of the Task Force and concluded there is no Task Force in place. Because of this, there is no county-wide multimedia campaign to inform the public of the free drop off services. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F5: Free drop-off services continue to be underutilized because the public is unaware of most of the programs offered. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R5: By December 31, 2021, the Task Force establish a project timeline to launch the multi-media campaign. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R7: By January 31, 2021, the Task Force create a referral system to notify the appropriate jurisdictions of illegal dumping. This referral system include a complaint-recording data log with follow-up measures. Agency Response: This recommendation will be implemented but not by January 31, 2021. The Pilot Project will analyze, identify, and include effective methods of referrals of illegal dumping to the appropriate jurisdiction (local or state) with follow-up documentation and protocol included in the proposal. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2020-2021 Grand Jury made multiple requests as to the status of the Task Force and concluded there is no Task Force in place. Currently, Public Works takes the reports of illegal dumping and forwards them on to the appropriate jurisdiction, but there is no formal process. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F6: There is no formal procedure to ensure complaints are resolved. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R6: By December 31, 2021, the Task Force develop a complaint log and referral system to notify appropriate jurisdictions and to ensure complaints are resolved. 245 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R8: By January 31, 2021, the Task Force develop a written plan to establish an equitable way to fund and issue vouchers, fee waivers, and recycling coupons. Agency Response: This recommendation will be implemented but not by January 31, 2021. The proposed Pilot Project will utilize an approach that analyzes equity in addressing illegal dumping. Accordingly, the Pilot Project will develop a plan for equitably distributing benefits like vouchers, fee waivers, and recycling coupons, and also addressing other factors that limit resident or community utilization of those tools. For example, distribution of such tools does not eradicate illegal dumping if transportation to disposal sites is not available. In those instances, the Pilot Project will explore, experiment, and then evaluate the most effective strategies to assist those communities by doing pick-ups or localized drop-offs. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2020-2021 Grand Jury made multiple requests as to the status of the Task Force and concluded there is no Task Force in place. Therefore, no written plan has been established to share funding sources or distribute vouchers, fee- waivers, and recycling coupons. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F7: Fee waivers, coupons, and vouchers are available, but are still not being utilized. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R7: By December 31, 2021, the Task Force establish funding sources and implement a program that will equitably distribute vouchers, waivers, and coupons to the community. City of Stockton 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F4: San Joaquin County Public Works Department, Sheriff’s Office, Community Development Department, District Attorney’s Office, and all city departments within the county are not working collaboratively to address the illegal dumping problems. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F5: San Joaquin County and the City of Stockton are not working together to share in the cost of illegal dumping cleanup. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. The City assumes costs where appropriate for removal of garbage, junk, and debris within the city limits only. 246 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F6: Free drop-off services are underutilized because the public is unaware of most of the programs offered. Agency Response: The City partially agrees with this finding. The City provides some outreach regarding available free disposal programs and/or events such as Clean Sweep. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F7: San Joaquin County and the City of Stockton do not have a robust referral system for sharing reports of illegal dumping irrespective of jurisdiction. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F8: Effective cleanup incentives such as disposal vouchers, fee waivers, and recycling coupons have proven effective in reducing the likelihood of illegal dumping. Agency Response: The City is neutral to this finding. The City does not have data to support or refute success with a cleanup incentive program. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R4: By November 30, 2020, create an illegal dumping task force (Task Force) that includes representatives from San Joaquin County Public Works Department, Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, Community Development, and all cities within the County to participate in the Task Force. This Task Force meet regularly throughout the year. Agency Response: Upon convening of such a task force by San Joaquin County, the City will provide an appropriate representative(s). The City of Stockton has agreed to participate in the proposed Task Force, however, until the Task Force is established, the City of Stockton will be unable to fulfill their agreed upon recommendations. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R5: By December 31, 2020, the newly formed Task Force develop a plan to share costs for illegal dumping pickup throughout the County and the City of Stockton. Agency Response: The City will participate on the task force to include the assessment of possible cost- sharing opportunities. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R6: By January 31, 2021, the Task Force develop and implement a county-wide educational program including billboards, buses, and bus stop shelters advertising to include information about free drop-off services. Agency Response: The City will participate on the task force, to include assessment of educational programming. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R7: By January 31, 2021, the Task Force create a referral system to notify the appropriate jurisdictions of illegal dumping. This referral system include a complaint-recording data log with follow-up measures. Agency Response: The City will participate on the task force, to include the exploration of a shared referral/tracking system. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R8: By January 31, 2021, the Task Force develop a written plan to establish an equitable way to fund and issue vouchers, fee waivers, and recycling coupons. Agency Response: The City will participate on the task force, to include identification and assessment of equitable funding opportunities for vouchers, fee waivers, and recycling coupons. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code 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 San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to findings and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Xapuri B. Villapudua, 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 249 Follow-up to the 2019 - 2020 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report Office of the Public Defender: Conflict, Mistrust, Lawsuits (2019-2020 Case #0819) San Joaquin County Office of the Public Defender: Conflict, Mistrust, Lawsuits A Perfect Storm Case #0819 Preface This report contains the responses to the 2019-2020 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding the San Joaquin County Public Defender’s Office. This report focuses on the 2019- 2020 Grand Jury findings and recommendations, as well as agency responses, which are presented verbatim in this report. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury follow-up conclusions are presented after the agency responses to each recommendation. Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agency responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/. Summary The San Joaquin County 2019-2020 Grand Jury investigated the Office of the Public Defender to determine the reason for a disproportionally high number of internal complaints filed and the resulting continuing costs to the county to resolve them. The Grand Jury found there to be several incidents and allegations that led to • the questioning of leadership by some employees; • the formation of cliques within the department; • a cloud of distrust and a lack of cohesiveness throughout the office; • the filing of a high number of internal complaints; and • lawsuits. The Grand Jury found management followed all established policies and procedures in handling complaints, but problems continued to escalate. Communication back to employees was impacted by confidentiality rules. The Grand Jury also found there to be a disconnect between various groups within the department and recommended an independent review of departmental structure and operations to include recommendations for improvement. The Board of Supervisors disagreed with the Grand Jury findings and took no action on the recommendations. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the 2019-2020 responses to the report, #0819 San Joaquin County Office of the Public Defender: Conflict, Mistrust, Lawsuits, A Perfect Storm, and documented the mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations. These responses were then reviewed to determine if • the agency responses were complete and comprehensible; • the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • confirmation, including written documentation and interviews, was necessary. Follow up interviews were conducted with individuals who had knowledge of, or contributed to, the response preparation. Glossary • Complaint: Any dispute between the county and one or more employees or a recognized employee organization concerning the interpretation or application of ordinances, resolutions, policies, procedures, or agreements, including memoranda of understanding, on matters within the scope of representation. • County: San Joaquin County • EEO: Equal Employment Opportunity • HR: Human Resources Division 252 • Management: Public Defender, Assistant Public Defender, Chief Public Defenders, and Chief Investigator • Public Defender’s Office: Refers to the Department • Public Defender: The department head of the Public Defender’s Office Summary of Responses and 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusions 2019-2020 Respondent Response 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion Rec # SJ County Board Will not be R1.1 No further action taken of Supervisors implemented R1.2 Will not be No further action taken implemented R1.3 Will not be No further action taken implemented Findings and Agency Responses 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1: Employees of the Public Defender’s Office filed a disproportionate number of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints compared to all other County Departments. Agency Response: Disagree Disagree, while the Public Defender's Office received EEO complaints, the number of complaints may represent a single complainant with multiple responding parties. Additionally, the number of complaints received is not an appropriate measure of analysis regarding a department's EEO compliance. In response to the information requested by the Grand Jury regarding the number of EEO complaints received by County Department during the period (2010 through 2019), 2 other County Departments had more EEO Complaints than the 19 received from Public Defender's Office. This is also true for the time-period 2015-2019, which the Grand Jury also requested; where the Public Defender's Office was one of two County departments that received the highest number of EEO related complaints 18 compared to other County departments that received complaints as high as 12 and 13 in total. In summary, it is the County's assessment of this data that the Public Defender's Office did not receive a disproportionate number of EEO related complaints compared to other County departments. In addition, of the 19 complaints received, 7 complaints had substantiated findings, and the other 12 were investigated to be unsubstantiated with no violations of County policy. In each of these cases, the Public Defender's Office did take appropriate corrective action and accepted the County Human Resources-EEO Office advisory recommendation to address all seven findings. 253 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2: Confidentiality rules prevented Management from sharing any information on EEO complaints. This lack of communication caused angst and distrust in the department. Agency Response: Agree in Part Standard practice regarding County personnel investigations, including EEO complaints, requires information remain confidential. Individuals receive information on a need to know basis. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3: Management followed San Joaquin County Human Resources Department (HR) policies and procedures for addressing EEO complaints. Agency Response: Agree with Clarification San Joaquin County Human Resources has not been informed of Public Defender executive level management deviating from HR policies and procedures for addressing EEO complaints. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F4: In spite of following HR policies and procedures, problems continued to escalate within the Public Defender’s Office. Agency Response: Disagree This assumes that the HR policies and procedures contain a framework that can de escalate issues. Employees with EEO complaints are encouraged to make complaints so they may be investigated and corrective action, if necessary, can be taken. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F5: Past and present personnel issues created division and disruption between Deputy Public Defenders and Management, fueling a breakdown of trust and communication. Agency Response: Agree in part Past personnel issues created division and disruption between some deputy public defenders and some management and fueled some level of a breakdown of trust and communication due, in part, to confidentiality constraints. Disagree in part There are no current or present personnel issues creating division and disruption between all deputy public defenders and all management and the past personnel issues which created the division and disruption were not between all Deputy Public Defenders and Management. 254 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F6: Past and present personnel issues created division and disruption between Public Defender Investigators, the Chief Investigator, and Management, fueling a breakdown of trust and communication. Agency Response: Agree in part Past personnel issues created division and disruption between some Public Defender Investigators, the Chief Investigator, and some Management fueling a breakdown of trust and communication due, in part, to confidential constraints. Disagree in part There are no present personnel issues creating division and disruption. The past personnel issues which created the division and disruption were not between all Public Defender Investigators, the Chief Investigator, and all Management. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F7: The culture, divisions, and atmosphere of the Office did not lend itself to good intra-departmental communications or de-escalation of conflicts. Agency Response: Disagree Not all employees of the Office were involved in the division. In addition, all employees were expected to, and did, continue to communicate with each other regarding work related matters. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F8: Lack of respect and professionalism within the Public Defender’s Office contributed to division and disruption. Agency Response: Disagree The division and disruption among some staff was fueled by personnel matters, not necessarily connected to lack of respect and professionalism. The Grand Jury report identified four Public Defender Investigator complaints filed that were major contributors to a breakdown of trust and communication. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F9: The Department has an intensive, time-consuming mission. The turmoil, as described in this report, placed additional stress on an already hard-working staff. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F10: The turmoil in the Department led to a significant and preventable expenditure of taxpayer dollars. Agency Response: Disagree Disagree that the turmoil led to significant and preventable expenditure. Rules, policies, and laws constrained Management from releasing information on the progress and 255 resolution of complaint investigations, which contributed to the turmoil. Specific events identified in the Grand Jury report were major contributors to the breakdown of trust and communication. Recommendations and Agency Responses 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: By December 31, 2020 the Human Resources Division of San Joaquin County hire an independent consultant to conduct a thorough operational review of all aspects of the Public Defender’s Office. Agency Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. The recommendation is incongruent with the Grand Jury's focus and findings of the investigation of the Department, which related exclusively to personnel issues and not to structural or operational review or findings of any inadequacies. Therefore, their investigation and findings do not warrant hiring an independent consultant to conduct a thorough operational review of all aspects of the Department. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors elected not to implement the recommendation. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. See Conclusion. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: By June 30, 2021 present the consultant’s report including recommendations to the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. Agency Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. Because the investigation and findings related exclusively to personnel matters, there is no justification to hire an independent consultant to conduct a thorough operational review of the Department. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors elected not to implement the recommendation. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. See Conclusion. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.3: By September 30, 2021 develop and implement a plan to utilize the recommendations from the operational review. Agency Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. In addition to the responses to R1.1 and R1.2, and assuming arguendo that there is justification to hire an independent consultant, a response cannot be made without knowing what the recommendations are from the operational review. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors elected not to implement the recommendation. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. See Conclusion. Conclusion The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors disagreed either in whole, or in part, with the 2019-2020 Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations. During the follow up investigation performed by the 2020-2021 Grand Jury, it was determined that much of the disagreement resulted from differences in interpretation of the report’s content and intent. The original report can be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code 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). Section VI: Tours and Presentations Tours ................................................................................................... S N Presentations...................................................................................... O I T A T N E S E R P & S R U O T 259 Tours Due to COVID-19, there were no tours. Presentations Escalon Police Department LAFCo (Local Agency Formation Commission) Lodi Police Department Manteca Police Department Mary Graham Children’s Shelter Ripon Police Department San Joaquin County District Attorney San Joaquin County Human Services Agency San Joaquin County Probation San Joaquin County Public Health Services San Joaquin County Public Works San Joaquin County Retirement Association San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office San Joaquin Delta College Police Department Stockton Police Department Stockton Unified School District Department of Public Safety Tracy Police Department University of the Pacific Police Department 261 Section VII: Grand Jury Process About the Grand Jury ....................................................................... How the Grand Jury is Organized ..................................................... Desirable Attributes of a Grand Juror .............................................. Benefits of Being a Grand Juror........................................................ Qualifications .................................................................................... Citizen Complaints ............................................................................ To Learn More .................................................................................. 267 263 snoitatneserP & sruoT S S E C O R P Y R U J D N A R G About the Grand Jury The San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury’s duty is to address citizens’ concerns regarding the operation of local government entities. The Civil Grand Jury is comprised of 19 citizens who are impaneled annually for a one-year term. The Grand Jury has a separate and different function than that of a trial jury and does not hear cases in a courtroom. Instead, Grand Jurors examine and investigate local governmental activities within San Joaquin County. The responsibilities of the Civil Grand Jury encompass the examination of all aspects of County government, including school and special districts, to ensure that the County is being governed lawfully, efficiently, and that public monies are being handled appropriately. The Grand Jury may conduct investigations of public agencies and the administration and affairs of any city within the County. The Grand Jury is authorized by law to: • Inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the County; • Investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of city and County offices, departments and their functions; • Inquire into the allegations of willful or corrupt misconduct of public officials; • Investigate into the activities of all school and special assessment districts within the County; • Submit a final report of its findings and recommendations to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. How the Grand Jury is Organized The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court empanels 19 Grand Jurors to serve for one year, fulfilling the duties as outlined under state law. The Judge appoints a foreperson who presides over the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury elects other officers and organizes itself. The jurors meet in a weekly general session. Smaller investigative committees meet throughout the week. In addition, Jurors meet with County and city officials, visit County detention facilities, and conduct independent reviews on matters of interest or concern. Each of the working committees report to the full Grand Jury. Conclusions are reached after study and thorough discussion of the issues and they may appear as part of the Grand Jury’s final report. Desirable Attributes of a Grand Juror Grand Jury service is a volunteer position with modest monthly compensation for meetings and mileage. Members receive a wealth of experience and provide a vital service to their community. Desirable attributes include: • Good health • An open mind • Knowledge of and interest in local government and community affairs 265 • Skill in working productively with others in a group setting where respect and patience are essential • Skill and experience in fact-finding, investigative techniques, and report writing Benefits of Being a Grand Juror The benefits of being a grand juror are many, including: • The satisfaction and pride of doing an important job. • The experience of being a member of a respected panel. • Being part of a body of people with the unique authority to see local government workings not available to most County citizens. • Being given an opportunity to make a difference in your community. Qualifications To be considered for nomination to be a grand juror, you must meet the following legal requirements: • Be a U.S. citizen; • Be at least 18 years old; • Be a resident of San Joaquin County for at least one year immediately prior to the beginning of your service; • Possess intelligence, sound judgment and good character; • Have sufficient knowledge of English language to communicate orally and in writing; You cannot be considered: • If you are serving as a trial juror in any court in California; • If you have been convicted of malfeasance in office or any other high crime; • If you are serving as an elected public officer. Citizen Complaints A cornerstone of the Grand Jury process is to receive and review citizen complaints which concerned persons submit as a mechanism to expose issues within governmental agencies. Because the Grand Jury is vested with certain powers to gather information, the members are able thoroughly review and investigate issues. Through review of documents and interview of witnesses, the Grand Jury process holds a strong light up to agencies to determine whether there appear to be any inefficiencies, mismanagement, or even corruption. The Grand Jury relies to a great extent on those persons who have the courage and the determination to suggest issues which may need to be investigated. The citizen complaint is a valuable tool. The Grand Jury receives complaints regarding all levels of local government, including special districts. Complaints may include, but are not limited to, allegations of misconduct by public officials or employees and inefficiencies in local government. Any citizen may submit a 266 complaint by completing a Complaint Form. However, not all complaints are investigated. With so many issues brought before it, the Grand Jury must make difficult decisions about what investigations to undertake during their term. If the issue identified in a complaint falls within the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction, it is first assigned to a preliminary committee to determine whether the complaint has merit. After an initial review, the committee presents its findings to the entire Grand Jury with recommendations for action. The Grand Jury then votes on the matter and thoroughly investigates those that are approved. After the investigation is complete, a final report is generated which reveals the findings and any recommendations the Grand Jury has in the matter. Complaints are treated as confidential. This allows a complainant to come forward without intimidation. A complaint should be submitted to the Grand Jury only after all attempts to correct an issue have been explored. The San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury complaint form can be found at: https://www.sjcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/GrandJuryComplaintForm2.pdf Send your completed form to: San Joaquin County Superior Court Attn: Trisa Martinez, Judicial Secretary 180 E. Weber Avenue, Suite 1114 Stockton, CA 95202 Forms also can be obtained by visiting or writing to the address above. The Grand Jury does not accept complaints via e-mail. To Learn More For more information about the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury visit: https://www.sjcourts.org/divisions/civil-grand-jury/#/ E. Weber Ave., Suite 1114 Stockton, CA 95202 267 269
F1.7.1:
Employees were afraid that if they complained they would become the subject of harassment and retaliation by management, causing them not to avail themselves of the existing grievance procedure, resulting in increased denigration of morale.
F1.7.2:
Complaints were not addressed and no action was taken until the large volume of complaints could no longer be ignored, resulting in frustration and low morale.
F2.2.1:
There currently is no explicit requirement for previous city management experience for the position of city manager, leading to the hiring of inexperienced and unqualified personnel.
F2.3.1:
The mayor and some councilmembers violated Municipal Code section 2.08.080. This circumvented the public’s right to have city business conducted in public, and caused confusion among staff, subverting the required chain of command.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 Micke Grove Zoo Today 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. The Micke Grove Zoo has some Policies and Procedures in place and which are housed in various shared folders on the County server. However, due to the organizational manner in which such files are kept, such files would not be considered a manual at this time. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: To be implemented. During Fiscal Year 2018-2019, the Parks Administrator and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager (Zoo Manager) began gathering written Policy and Procedure documents to begin a Zoo Policy and Procedure Manual. The Zoo Curator who has been the “keeper” of the documents began adding them to a centralized electronic shared folder entitled Zoo Policies. As documents are gathered the Zoo Manager and staff are reading through them to ensure the validity, 181 appropriateness, and applicability of each and determining if they need to be rewritten, deleted, or in some instances, created. The Policy and Procedures Manual for the Micke Grove Zoo has a completion date of June 30, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is creating a written Policy and Procedures Manual for all Micke Grove Zoo operations. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1: The written Policy and Procedures Manual for all Micke Grove Zoo operations is needed. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By June 30, 2020, the San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division complete a written Policy and Procedures Manual for all Micke Grove Zoo operations. Agency Response: Has been implemented During Fiscal Year 2018-2019, the Parks Administrator and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager (Zoo Manager) began gathering written Policy and Procedure documents to begin a Zoo Policy and Procedure Manual. The Zoo Curator, who has been the “keeper” of the documents, began adding them to a centralized electronic shared folder entitled Zoo Policies. A Policy and Procedures Manual for the Micke Grove Zoo has been completed. Ongoing updates and edits may be performed by the Parks Administrator as deemed necessary. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury confirmed that the electronic Policy and Procedures Manual has been developed and is current. No further action is needed. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: The lack of a detailed and comprehensive budget for Micke Grove Zoo makes proper financial management difficult. Agency Response: Disagree. The Micke Grove Zoo has specific line items on the Parks and Recreation Division budget, and actual charges are tracked through an access database. The use of project costing on timesheets and material purchased allows for reports to be maintained for Zoo specific items. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division develop a detailed and comprehensive budget for the Zoo that includes assumptions for every income and expense line item by December 31, 2019. Agency Response: Has been implemented. Starting in Fiscal Year 2017-2018 and during the Fiscal Year 2018-2019, a Zoo specific budget worksheet was created including Zoo specific revenue and expenses. The information is derived from the Parks and Recreation Division budget. The Zoo budget worksheet will be updated annually after final budgets are approved. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree. As part of ongoing efficiencies at the Micke Grove Zoo, animals which were on display at the Oak Grove Nature Center have been relocated to the Micke Grove Zoo saving husbandry and travel time. Animals that are part of the MGZS Educational program are now being cared for by the MGZS staff. These two items have saved approximately 24 hours per week of staff time, which are better served within the Zoo. All veterinary care is contracted with UC Davis Medical Teaching Hospital, which provides one day of on-site field services, emergency and after-hours’ services, pharmaceuticals and telephone support as needed. The Parks Administrator and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager (Zoo Manager) began the process of cross- training employees and have consistently employed two-part time zookeeper aides to compensate for a full-time employee’s extended absence. The number of allocated full- time positions at the Zoo remains at eight. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.3: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division complete necessary cross-training for all current Zoo staff members and hire at least one additional full-time Zookeeper by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. Cross-training of all employees began in January 2019 using a top-down method. All staff will be required to train in all aspects of animal husbandry by June 30, 2020. The Zoo Manager, Zoo Curator, and Senior Animal Care Specialist began cross-training on animal medical care, veterinary services, and animal diets in March 2019, with a completion date of December 2019. The Grand Jury mistakenly reported that the Zoo employs only four full-time Animal Care Specialists (referred to as Zoo Keepers in the report) Currently the Zoo is allocated eight (8) full-time positions, one (1) Zoo Manager, one (1) Zoo Curator, and five (5) Animal Care Specialists and (1) Senior Animal Care Specialist. At this time, one Animal Care Specialist is on extended medical leave and whose job duties have been allocated to two- part time temporary Animal Care Aides. Previously the Zoo Curator and Zoo Manager did not materially participate in animal husbandry, and recent cross-training has improved Zoo efficiencies. Parks and Recreation will not be requesting a fifth Animal Care Specialist allocation as the Zoo already has five (5) but will hire a replacement full-time Animal Care Specialist if the current employee is unable to return to work. The Parks and Recreation Benchmarking and Assessments Report, commonly referred to as the Taussig report, recommends expanding the use of volunteers at Micke Grove Zoo. The Zoo Manager, along with the MGZS education staff, have begun revamping the volunteer program, and also aim to look into the possibility of creating an intern program. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 183 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. Facilities Management, Park Workers, Zoo Manager, and Parks Administrator walk the Zoo on a monthly basis, and have created a list of Zoo specific repairs. The items on the list are prioritized and tracked through to completion. In Fiscal Year 2018-2019, a new full-time Park Worker was allocated to spend three whole days within the Zoo and dedicates time/resources toward performing the necessary maintenance as identified within the Zoo repair list. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.4: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division develop a preventive maintenance schedule and accurate repair record for Micke Grove Zoo by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: Has been implemented. Beginning in January 2019, the Parks Administrator, Zoo Manager, General Services Assistant Director and Facility Maintenance and Construction Superintendent began a monthly walkthrough at the Zoo to discuss, address, and plan scheduled maintenance and repair issues. To date, the process consists of utilizing an excel worksheet with items coded as high, medium, and low priorities. Items are then tracked to completion. Although this process pertains to known issues, all new or emergent items are prioritized and submitted thought the facility maintenance program already in place. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 184 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.5: The San Joaquin County General Services Department renegotiate their operating agreement with MGZS to update and clarify assigned roles and responsibilities by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Parks Administrator will create an operating agreement with the MGZS that will include assigned roles and responsibilities by June 30, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is in the process of reviewing its operating agreement with MGZS. They requested a deadline extension to December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2: A new agreement with MGZS is an important part of the zoo’s ongoing operations. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R2: By December 31, 2020, the San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation General Services Department execute an operating agreement with MGZS that will include assigned roles and responsibilities. Agency Response: Will not be implemented On July 21, 2020, the MGZS voted to terminate the 1999 Operating Agreement with a final termination date of September 4, 2020. Litigation is now pending between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. No new operating agreement exists between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. The current and ongoing lawsuit between the Micke Grove Zoological Society and San Joaquin County makes it unlikely that an operating agreement will be executed. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined no further action is needed. 2.0 A Vision for Tomorrow 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: Despite budget challenges, San Joaquin County leadership is committed to the continued operation and improvement of Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.2: The residents of San Joaquin County value Micke Grove Zoo and desire to see it improved. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.4: San Joaquin County leadership must obtain the guidance and expertise of the industry professionals in both determining and designing the master plan for Micke Grove Zoo in order to ensure its successful future. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: To be partially implemented. The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, and the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator will 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 years by June 30, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is completing an analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo. They requested a deadline extension December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3: The analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo is an important part of its ongoing operations. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: The San Joaquin County General Services Department complete an analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo, including what they envision the Zoo to be in five years. Present the analysis to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator, and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager are preparing a five-year strategic plan to be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Due to the Micke Grove Zoological Society's termination of the existing agreement, rejection of the interim agreement and ongoing litigation the presentation of the five-year strategic 186 plan will be delayed until March 31, 2021. The presentation will include the vision for the Micke Grove Zoo in the next five years. San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan to the Board of Supervisors which was accepted by the Board on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.2: The San Joaquin County General Services Department develop and present to the Board of Supervisors a professionally designed Master Plan for Micke Grove Zoo, which includes development goals for the next five, ten, and twenty years by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented. The Parks and Recreation Division will develop and present to the Board of Supervisors a Master Plan for the Micke Grove Zoo for the next five years by December 31, 2020. Beginning with a five-year strategic plan will allow the Department to implement strategies and goals set through the strategic plan. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is preparing a professionally designed Master Plan for Micke Grove Zoo which includes strategies and goals for the next five years. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F4: The five-year plan is a critical component of the ongoing operations of the zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R4: The San Joaquin County General Services Department complete a professionally designed Master Plan for Micke Grove Zoo that includes strategies and goals for the next five years. Present the Master Plan to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator, and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager are preparing a five-year strategic plan to be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Due to the Micke Grove Zoological Society's termination of the existing agreement, rejection of the interim agreement and ongoing litigation the presentation of the five year strategic plan will be delayed until March 31, 2021. This presentation will include the vision for the Micke Grove Zoo for the next five years 187 San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.3: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division examine the requirements and affordability for obtaining accreditation from available accrediting associations, and pursue appropriate accreditation as part of the County's Master Plan to improve Micke Grove Zoo by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Park and Recreation Division will examine and analyze the requirements, affordability, and suitability of accreditation for Micke Grove Zoo by December 31, 2020. Pursuing accreditation is a rigorous process including husbandry, recordkeeping, veterinary care, animal diet, staff knowledge, and facility site inspections. 188 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is in the process of examining the requirements, affordability and suitability of obtaining accreditation from available accrediting associations as part of the County's Master Plan to improve Micke Grove Zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F5: It is important that Micke Grove Zoo have appropriate accreditation. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R5: The San Joaquin County General Services Department pursue appropriate accreditation. Present a written description of the findings to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator, and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager are preparing a five-year strategic plan to be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Due to the Micke Grove Zoological Society's termination of the existing agreement, rejection of the interim agreement and ongoing litigation the presentation of the five year strategic plan will be delayed until March 31, 2021. This presentation will include the vision for the Micke Grove Zoo for the next five years, including the pursuit of an accreditation if deemed appropriate. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The plan’s vision centers on seven objectives, one of which is to examine the requirements, affordability and suitability of obtaining accreditation from available accrediting associations. Currently Micke Grove Zoo does not have accreditation. The General Services Department is investigating the feasibility and value of zoo accreditation. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F1: Micke Grove Zoo still does not have zoo accreditation. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: The San Joaquin County General Services Department present its findings regarding zoo accreditation, including a timeline, to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2021. 3.0 Funding the Vision 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. This requires the further analysis regarding the future vision of the Micke Grove Zoo. 189 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 3.2: A non-profit organization or foundation capable of raising significant funds is essential to fulfilling the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. This requires the further analysis regarding the future vision of the Micke Grove Zoo. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F3.3: The recent fundraising results from the MGZS are insufficient to support the necessary improvements for the Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Agree. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1: The San Joaquin County General Services Department determine the role and responsibility of the MGZS for fundraising to support the future vision for the Micke Grove Zoo, and renegotiate their operating agreement accordingly by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Parks Administrator and the Director of General Services along with the MGZS will create a new operating agreement with the MGZS that will assign roles and responsibilities and determine the MGZS’S fundraising expectations to support the future vision for the Micke Grove Zoo by June 30, 2020 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The Parks Administrator and the Director of General Services along with the MGZS committed to create a new operating agreement with the MGZS that will assign roles, responsibilities, and determine the MGZS’s fundraising expectations. They requested a deadline extension to December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F6: A new operating agreement that assigns roles, responsibilities, and determines fundraising expectations is important for the future of Micke Grove Zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R6: By December 31, 2020, the Parks Administrator and the Director of General Services, along with the MGZS, execute a new operating agreement with the MGZS. The agreement will assign roles, responsibilities, and determine the MGZS’s fundraising expectations to support the future vision for the Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Will not be implemented On July 21, 2020, the MGZS voted to terminate the 1999 Operating Agreement with a final termination date of September 4, 2020. Litigation is now pending between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. No new operating agreement exists between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, and the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator will complete and present to the Board of Supervisors an analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo, including what 190 they envision the Zoo to be in five years by March 31, 2021. The presentation will include a framework for identifying a non-profit strategic partner. San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan, including a framework to identify a non-profit strategic partner, to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. In the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Micke Grove Zoo received grant funding for $500,000 from the State, and additional funding through Proposition 68 by working collaboratively with the United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.2: The San Joaquin County General Services Department evaluate all available funding sources for the improvement of Micke Grove Zoo and report their findings to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Department will evaluate available funding sources to improve Micke Grove Zoo and report the finding to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The San Joaquin County General Services Department committed to evaluate all available funding sources to improve Micke Grove Zoo and report their findings to the Board of Supervisors. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F7: It is important to know the available funding sources for the improvement of Micke Grove Zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R7: The San Joaquin County General Services Department evaluate all available funding sources for the improvement of Micke Grove Zoo and report their findings to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, and the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator will 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 years by March 31, 2021. The presentation will include an evaluation of additional funding sources. San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan, including strategies to improve its revenue stream, to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.
R8:
Will be R7 December 31, 2021 Further action implemented required City of R4 Will be No further action Stockton implemented
R12:
We agree to look upon history as lessons learned; focus on the present and the future. (See
Findings & Recommendations
41 findings
F1:
1 The city manager and the assistant city manager positions were filled without the benefit of an established recruitment process. This caused community-wide turmoil while they struggled to learn the job.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
1 By March 1, 2022, San Joaquin County train all Public Health Services, Emergency Medical Services Agency, and Office of Emergency Services staff on the overall coordination and application of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Operations Plan, including its Emergency Support Function Annexes, and thereafter provide refresher training on an annual basis.
F2:
2.1 The Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees did not follow Bylaw 9124, failing to initiate a Request for Proposal when hiring the current board attorney on February 24, 2020. Taking this shortcut created confusion and mistrust among the Stockton Unified Board, the staff, and the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
1 By March 1, 2022, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors approve an organizational structure wherein the Public Health Officer reports directly to the Director of Health Care Services Agency. 3.0 Lack of Understanding and Use of County Disaster Workers Under State Law, Title 1, Sections 3100-3109 of California Government Code, all government employees are declared Disaster Service Workers (DSW) who can be called upon to perform their regular duties or work in another department during a declared emergency. Throughout this investigation it became evident that there was not a clear understanding of how Department Heads could retain Disaster Service Workers assigned to them. The written policy in San Joaquin County does not explicitly state the procedure for how and when employees are recalled to their home departments. During emergency situations, departments place a request for staff with the Human Resources Department (HR) who then coordinates that effort countywide. Issues included a shortage of personnel, departments not making a timely request for personnel, and staff members being prematurely recalled back to their original departments. Some Department Heads believed that employees assigned to their department to deal with the pandemic were assigned until released; not until recalled. Department Heads recalled their employees when they felt it was necessary, regardless of pressing needs of the borrowing department. Several departments had personnel recalled prematurely, which left the emergency response departments short-staffed. As a result, Department Heads had to go through the process of getting a staff request approved by the CAO and placed on the BOS agenda. In some instances, this took several months. To obtain urgently needed workers, Department Heads were required to find alternative methods, such as requesting part-time staff, which did not require Board of Supervisor approval.
F4:
1 The lack of understanding of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Operations Plan delayed a collaborative and coordinated response necessary to meet the requirements outlined in the Public Health Emergency Preparedness agreement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
1 By March 1, 2022, Health Care Services complete an operational audit to affirm that the requirements outlined within the Public Health Emergency Preparedness agreement are being met.
F1.1:
A lack of full understanding and application of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Operations Plan, and its Emergency Support Function Annexes, delayed a collaborative and coordinated response.
F1.2:
The most critical departments operate independently of one another during the declaration of a Local Disaster or Public Health Emergency, making it difficult to coordinate and collaborate their response.
F1.3:
When Public Health Services took over management of the COVID-19 response, communication and coordination between departments failed, which delayed the process of curtailing the spread of the COVID-19 Virus.
F1.4:
The financial transactions on the State Controller’s Office website do not provide an easily understood picture of the district’s finances.
F1.5:
The San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller’s Office has audits and financial summaries for most districts that provide a more complete picture of the finances. 43
F1.6:
The district could achieve higher levels of functionality and security on its website by leveraging the IS services of the county or other entity that has focused software for special districts.
F2.1:
Requiring the Public Health Officer to report directly to the Director of Public Health Services impeded the Public Health Officer’s ability to fulfill the statutory requirements of responding to the Public Health Emergency.
F2.2:
There is no comprehensive central directory from which the public can access information on their independent special districts, making such information difficult to find.
F2.3:
The public would benefit from the addition of the following to the LAFCO website • District website link; • Link to latest Municipal Service Review; • Link to latest Sphere of Influence study; • Link to the district map (usually found on the county GIS); • Date of agency formation; and • Links to information about each Independent Special District as available from county departments.
F3.1:
San Joaquin County does not have a clear policy or procedure that stipulates how Disaster Service Workers are deployed to emergency departments, and how they are recalled to their home departments. This caused personnel shortages and delayed the County’s emergency response. 27
F3.2:
Not all County employees receive training about their Disaster Service Workers responsibilities, causing confusion when an emergency is declared.
F3.3:
The city council’s approval of loans between restricted funds, without receiving any information or documents on the repayment requirements or fiscal impacts, created an unclear picture of the actual fund balances in the various accounts.
F3.4:
Censuring of Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees, based on personal disagreements, is an abuse of district time and resources.
F3.5:
The current Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees does not follow the Professional Governance Standards recommended by the California School Board Association.
F4.1:
The lack of understanding of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Operations Plan delayed a collaborative and coordinated response necessary to meet the requirements outlined in the Public Health Emergency Preparedness agreement.
F4.2:
The brief financial summaries derived from the audits by the Auditor-Controller’s Office are not easily accessible to the public.
F4.3:
The Auditor-Controller’s Office financial summaries provide a clearer picture of a district’s finances than that which is found on the State Controller’s Office site.
F4.4:
Disregard for, or misunderstanding of, the Ralph M. Brown Act among Stockton Unified School District Trustees results in violations of the act and reduced governance transparency.
F5.1:
The county has a modern, professionally run Information Systems Division with many quality services that can be shared with independent special districts.
F5.2:
The county’s robust implementation of its cyber strategy would be difficult for most independent special districts to duplicate.
F5.3:
Investigations of frivolous complaints made by Stockton Unified School District Trustees against each other waste time and money which could be better used for students. 117
F6.1:
The board meetings lack transparency and sufficient access, making it difficult for members of the community to be informed about what is happening in the district.
F6.2:
Incomplete or unpublished board minutes undermine public engagement and trust.
F6.3:
The dissolution of the board subcommittees reduced public engagement and board transparency.
F6.4:
All public comments submitted to board meetings are not easily accessible which reduces transparency and public engagement.
F1.2.1:
Some managers were not capable of providing necessary training for staff, particularly within the finance department, which resulted in poor decision making.
F1.2.2:
The city has no policy for employee training or professional development; therefore, employees lack the necessary skills to maintain efficient operations.
F1.3.1:
City council approved the reorganization without the benefit of a detailed position control schedule, causing confusion and failure of the reorganization plan.
F1.4.1:
The City of Manteca has a history of unfair promotional practices which caused low morale and the loss of employees.
F1.4.2:
Employees were ill-prepared for promotions, leading to inexperienced and unqualified employees being promoted.
F1.5.1:
The city has no succession plan to fill management positions with qualified candidates. Without a transitional process, there was a delay in the preparation and completion of important reports, including the annual audit.
F1.6.1:
The policy for placing an employee on administrative leave, also called suspension, is ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation, leading to unfair practices.
F1.6.2:
Investigations conducted by outside law firms are expensive and costly to taxpayers. 88
F163:
San Joaquin County Grand Jury Follow-up Reports Introduction Introduction Each year Grand Juries investigate and prepare reports with findings and recommendations directed to local governments and other public entities. California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that the agencies provide written responses to all findings and recommendations to the Superior Court. Section 933.05 requires that for each finding, the responding person or entity must indicate one of the following: 1) the respondent agrees with the finding, or 2) the respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation. For each recommendation, the responding party must provide one of the following responses: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 1. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. 2. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. 3. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. This section of the Grand Jury’s Final Report contains the responses to the prior year’s report, as well as the follow-up to several reports from earlier Grand Juries. The findings and recommendations, as well as the agencies’ responses, are provided verbatim. In addition to reviewing the responses to ensure that they met the criteria specified above, the Grand Jury also determined whether additional follow-up is needed. If an agency’s response is not clear or complete, or if it includes a future date for implementation of the recommendation, the Grand Jury may choose to conduct a follow-up review. If a future date is indicated, the Grand Jury will verify whether or not it is completed at the time indicated by the agency. When an agency responds that they do not intend to implement the recommendation of a Grand Jury, the Grand Jury may choose to take no further action or to conduct a new investigation. Follow-up to the 2018 - 2019 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation: Budget Challenges and Matters of Trust (2018-2019 Case #0118) San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation: Budget Challenges and Matters of Trust Case #0118 Preface This report contains a continuation of the responses to the 2018-2019 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding the San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Department. The first follow-up report was presented in the 2019-2020 Grand Jury report. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury reviewed the responses and made new recommendations. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury follow-up conclusions are presented after the agency responses to each recommendation. Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agency responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/ 167 Summary The 2018-2019 Grand Jury investigated the need for the Board of Supervisors and the Parks and Recreation Division to manage the Park System within a structurally balanced and sustainable budget. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury reviewed the responses from the Board of Supervisors. They determined the Board of Supervisors developed a balanced and sustainable budget for the 2020-2021 fiscal year which was funded by generated revenues and only supplemented by endowment trusts. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury recommended the Board of Supervisors obtain, from Wells Fargo, an annual performance report for the William G. Micke Estate Trust. They also recommended the creation of an annually updated Living Document to be included in all future budget packets which will maintain trust administration continuity. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined that the outstanding recommendations were implemented. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the 2019-2020 responses to the 2018-2019 report, #0118, San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation: Budget Challenges and Matters of Trust, and documented the mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the responses to the recommendations to determine if • the agency responses were complete and comprehensible; • the agency implemented the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • confirmation, including written documentation and interviews, was necessary. Summary of Responses and 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusions Respondent 2019-2020 Rec # Response 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion County of San Joaquin R1 Implemented No further action taken R2 Implemented No further action taken R3 Implemented No further action taken Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 Parks and Recreation Budget and Trust Usage 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree 168 The Parks and Recreation Division utilizes ongoing programs offered from other county divisions that include repairs, maintenance, and improvement to the parks and the costs associated have not historically been reflected in the Parks and Recreation budget. In 2018-2019 this cost was estimated to be approximately $800,000. In addition, the 2019- 2020 budget narrative includes a description of an estimated $905,000, specifically for parks facility improvement projects through the Public Improvement Program and general Fund. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: The reduction in County contributions through Net County Costs has further exacerbated the Parks and Recreation budget challenges. Agency Response: Disagree Beginning in FY 2011-2012, General Fund contributions for the Parks and Recreation Division have been reduced a total of four (4) years and increased five (5) years. During the same time, the Division’s revenues have increased three (3) years and decreased six (6) years. Fiscal Year General Fund Revenue 2011-2012 $3,776,537 $1,601,963 2012-2013* $ 426,409 $4,348,326 2013-2014 $2,113,634 $2,844,191 2014-2015 $1,715,820 $3,098,370 2015-2016 $1,769,986 $2,873,854 2016-2017 $2,572,711 $2,685,957 2017-2018 $2,377,440 $2,696,076 2018-2019 $2,295,359 $2,291,884 2019-2020 $3,804,296 $2,251,452 (adjusted) * The 2012-2013 Revenue includes operating transfers in the amount of $1,630,758 that should have been processed in 2011-2012. In addition to General Fund support for the Parks and Recreation Division, the following table identifies the additional General Fund support that has been provided through the Capital Projects Division during the same timeframe, totaling $6,108,181: Fiscal Year General Fund 2011-2012 $ 578,479 2012-2013 $ 404,398 2013-2014 $ 838,707 2014-2015 $ 490,126 2015-2016 $1,349,316 169 2016-2017 $ 232,608 2017-2018 $1,013,721 2018-2019 $1,200,826 Total $6,108,181 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree The 2018-2019 budget reflects the difficult decisions that were made, which eliminated three vacant Park Worker positions and significantly reduced the Division’s reliance on part-time temporary (extra help) positions. The Parks and Recreation Division continues to maintain a balanced budget. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree The Parks and Recreation Division did not borrow money from the trust funds. Over the past three fiscal years, there has been a significant decrease in the utilization of the Parks Trust Funds. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree The County Parks are supported by revenue from trust accounts established for their maintenance and operation. The Micke Grove Trust Fund receives approximately $300,000 each year for the operation and maintenance of the Micke Grove Park. The Park Donation Trust funds have been utilized in accordance with the donor’s intent. The funds in the Subdivision Trust have been used in accordance with the parameters set forth in County Ordinance 3675, which requires the dedication of land or the imposition of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes. The approved Parks and Recreation Division budget for 2019-2020 only utilizes trust funds specifically designated for maintenance and operations and is a balanced budget. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree As previously stated, the Parks and Recreation Division did not borrow money from the trust funds. The Board of Supervisors, upon the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Division, created the Park Endowment Trust. However, the prior acts of the Board of Supervisors cannot deprive its successors of future discretionary policy choices. Thus, although ongoing operations were not included as an intended purpose for use of trust funds at the time that the Park Endowment Trust was created, the Board of Supervisors retained discretion to approve all expenditures of trust funds and has since done so. Additional County General Fund support is provided to the Parks and Recreation Division budget through investments in facilities included within the capital projects budget, totaling $6,108,181 from 2011-2012 to 2018-2019, as reflected previously in the table for Agency Response to F1.2. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree 2018-2019 Year-End actuals indicate that the revenue should have been reduced by an additional $65,000, not $100,000. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: By March 31, 2020, the Parks and Recreation Division complete a comprehensive analysis of the County parks system that includes the tradeoffs required to operate the system under a structurally balanced budget. Agency Response: Has been implemented The Parks and Recreation Division operates within a structurally balanced budget. In 2018-2019, the Division reduced its use of trust funds by $75,940. The amount budgeted was $669,500, and end of year actuals were $593,560. Trust fund usage continues to be reduced annually and has been reduced by approximately 53% since FY 2016-2017. Fiscal Year Trust Fund Usage 2016-2017 $1,034,395 2017-2018 $ 794,787 2018-2019 $ 593,560 2019-2020* $ 485,078 * Includes an adjustment of $137,078 to the 2019-2020 proposed budget. The additional funds are being utilized through the Parks Special Projects Fund in accordance with its adopted Policy and Procedures. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: The Parks and Recreation Division develop and present to the Board of Supervisors a structurally balanced and sustainable budget beginning in 2020-2021 that includes realistic estimates for revenue. Agency Response: Has been implemented The 2019-2020 budget has further reduced the usage of trust fund revenue by $108,482 as compared to the 2018-2019 actual amount of $593,560 and has reduced revenue estimates by $69,993 from the 2018-2019 budget. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2.0 County Managed Trusts 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree The Board of Supervisors, upon the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Division, created the Park Endowment Trust. However, the prior acts of the Board of Supervisors cannot deprive its successors of future discretionary policy choices. Thus, although ongoing he Park Endowment Trust was created, the Board of Supervisors retained discretion to approve all expenditures of trust funds and has since done so. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree The Parks and Recreation Division agrees that trust funds are an invaluable resource. As previously stated, the County General Fund also provided $6,108,181 of additional funding to the Parks and Recreation Division through investments in capital projects during the previous eight years. 2018-2019 Grand Jury 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. Agency Response: Requires Further Analysis The San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller’s Office is currently conducting an audit of County trust funds, including the Parks and Recreation Division’s trust funds. The Auditor-Controller’s report is expected to be available during mid-year 2019-2020. Parks and Recreation will need to review the results of the report to appropriately respond to the finding. 172 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Response: The agency’s position is that the purpose of the Micke Grove Trust is to provide operating funds when needed. Additionally, the Park Endowment Trust will be reduced to $50,000 in the 2020-2021 budget. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.2: The Parks and Recreation Division allow the principal of the Micke Grove Trust and the Park Endowment Trust funds to grow and utilize only the interest to support new park initiatives or capital expenditures. Agency Response: R2.1 & R2.2 requires further analysis and timeframe for further determination within twelve months Board Resolution R-18-37 established the Micke Grove Trust Account in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Last Will of William G. Micke to operate and maintain the Micke Grove Park. Annual revenues are utilized in accordance with the adopted resolution. The Fiscal Year 2019-2020 budget utilizes $485,578 from multiple trust accounts. Reducing this amount by an additional $330,000 in 2020-2021 requires further analysis. 2019-2020 2019-2020 Trust Estimated Deposits Utilization Micke Grove Trust $ 300,000 $ 230,000 Park Activity Trust $ 7,500 $ 6,000 Park Endowment Trust $ 235,000 $ 100,000 Fish & Wildlife $ 7,500 $ 7,500 Park Donation Trust $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Special Projects $ 512,500 $ 137,078* Total $ 1,067,500 $ 485,578 * An increase of $137,078 from the 2019-2020 proposed budget. The additional funding is from the Parks Special Projects Fund, in accordance with its adopted Policy and Procedures. Additionally in 2019-2020, the Auditor-Controller’s Office will be completing an audit of Parks and Recreation Division Trust Funds, and the report will be presented to the Division with its findings and recommendations. 173 2019-2020 Grand Jury Response: The agency’s position is that the purpose of the Micke Grove Trust is to provide operating funds when needed. Additionally, the Park Endowment Trust will be reduced to $50,000 in the 2020-2021 budget. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 3.0 Non-County Managed Trusts 2018-2019 Grand Jury 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. Agency Response: Requires further analysis and timeframe for further determination within twelve months. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: Requires further analysis and timeframe for further determination within twelve months. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Finding, and Recommendation The Board of Supervisors requested more time for Wells Fargo to submit the annual performance report for the William G. Micke Estate Trust. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1: The Wells Fargo annual performance report is critical to determine the effectiveness in managing the William G. Micke Estate Trust. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: The Board of Supervisors require Wells Fargo to submit an annual performance report for the William G. Micke Estate Trust by September 30, 2020. This report shall include the total return compared to an industry standard benchmark with a similar risk profile. Agency Response: Has Been Implemented On December 3, 2019, during the Micke Grove Trust annual review, San Joaquin County requested Wells Fargo provide an annual industry standard benchmark report. On October 1, 2020, Wells Fargo provided San Joaquin County a total portfolio performance report with benchmarks for the reporting period of 01/01/1996 through 08/31/2020. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the Micke Grove Trust report, delivered by Wells Fargo to San Joaquin County, and determined it provided the requested portfolio performance information and benchmark data. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 174 4.0 Parks and Recreation Benchmarking Assessment Report 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree The Taussig report states, “there may be room to improve employee efficiencies through increased staffing efforts or a realignment of employee roles.” The Parks and Recreation Division has not continued to eliminate positions. The last elimination was during the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year. The 2019-2020 budget does not eliminate any positions, and the Division has retained a number of Zoo part-time staff during both 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. During midyear 2018-2019, the Parks and Recreation Division secured Board approval to reclassify an administrative support staff position to a Park Worker position in an effort to create a more efficient division. Other efficiencies include cross training staff in all of the departments; parks, zoo, and administration, expanding the online reservations system, improving the volunteer program, and the creation of a marketing program with annual events. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree While the 2018-2019 budget eliminated three vacant full-time positions, the 2019-2020 budget does not eliminate any positions. As part of the 2018-2019 mid-year budget review process, the Board of Supervisor increased the Parks and Recreation Division appropriations for utilities by $50,000 and the motor pool allocation by $39,679 increasing General Fund contributions by $76,679. The approved 2019-2020 budget included additional increases of $18,173 and $4,445 respectively from the General Fund. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree The Parks and Recreation Division operates within a balanced budget. The Taussig Report used Stanislaus, Placer, and Yolo counties for benchmarking purposes in 2018- 2019 in which the low per capital statistic is being used. The report also compared Net County Cost contributions as a percentage of the overall budgets and reported that San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Placer Counties fall within 1% of each other. The report warns that no parks and recreation departments are alike, and such differences in sources of funding, organizational structure, and policy objectives are to be expected. The report also states that when examining the statistics, it is important to consider each in context. Each is a component of a greater whole and its isolation may prove to be an ineffective comparative tool. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R4.1: By March 31, 2020, the Parks and Recreation Division provide the Board of Supervisors with a plan for addressing the findings in the Taussig report, including: (1) appropriate staffing levels, (2) rising costs of services and maintenance, and (3) long-term funding options. Agency Response: During the 2019-2020 budget hearing portions of this request have already been addressed with an increase in allocations to offset the increases in services and maintenance. Although the Taussig report states that the Parks and Recreation Division has 6.61 FTE’s per regional park, which is lower than the benchmarked counties, the Taussig report also states that San Joaquin’s regional park acreage is less than the benchmarked counties which are likely due to the urbanized nature of the County. The County utilizes the Alternative Workforce Program, which in 2018-2019 averaged 584 hours worked per month or the equivalent of 3.3 FTE’s, which would bring the FTE’s to 9.9 and align such statistic with the benchmarked counties. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R4.2: In the 2020-2021 proposed budget, the Parks and Recreation Division present options to the Board of Supervisors for bringing the per capita contribution more in line with the contributions from the benchmarked counties. Agency Response: Requires further analysis and timeframe for further determination within twelve months. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 5.0 Loss of Historical Knowledge 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F5.1: Departmental reorganizations and turnover have resulted in the loss of historical knowledge amongst the Parks and Recreation leadership and staff. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.1: By June 30, 2020, the Parks and Recreation Administrator gather together into a living document the necessary information to accurately document requirements of the trust funds, the stipulations related to grants awarded for each park, the requirements for managing any property donated to the County parks system, and 176 any other historical information that may be required by future Parks and Recreation Division administrators and employees. Agency Response: The Parks and Recreation Division will create a living document that will include trust fund information, recommendations from the Auditor Controllers audit, grant information and requirements, and bequeathment requirements. This document will be updated by the Division on an annual basis. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Finding, and Recommendation The living document (including trust fund information, recommendations from the Auditor Controller’s audit, grant information and requirements, and bequeathment requirements) will be completed by June 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2: The living document is an important part of the ongoing operation of the department. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R2: By June 30, 2020, the Parks and Recreation Division prepare and complete the living document which will include trust fund information, recommendations from the Auditor Controller’s audit, grant information and requirements, and bequeathment requirements. Agency Response: Has Been Implemented The Parks and Recreation Division created a living document with updated trust fund information for inclusion in the 2019-2020 budget process. The Auditor-Controller's Office did not make recommendations beyond those included in the 2018-2019 Grand Jury report. There was no grant or bequeathment information to report at the time. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the Living Document with updated trust fund information and determined the requirements and stipulations of the trust funds were met. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.2: The Parks and Recreation Administrator present this information to the Board of Supervisors during the 2020-2021 budget hearings to ensure the board has a clear understanding of this information when making budget decisions. Agency Response: The Parks and Recreation Division will create a living document that will include trust fund, information, and recommendations from the Auditor Controllers audit, grant information and requirements, and bequeathment requirements. This 177 document will be updated by the Division on an annual basis and provided to the Board as part of the Division’s budget process. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Finding, and Recommendation The living document needs to be available to the Board of Supervisors as part of the 2020-2021 budget process. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3: The living document information will be included with the Department’s budget packet for 2020-2021. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: The Parks and Recreation Division include the living document in the Department’s budget packet for 2020-2021. Agency Response: Has Been Implemented The Parks and Recreation Division created a living document that included updated trust fund information, grant information and requirements (if any), and bequeathment requirements (if any). This living document was included as part of the 2019-2020 budget process and updated during the 2020-2021 budget process. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined the Living Document was included in the development of the 2020-2021 budget. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code 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). Follow-up to the 2018 - 2019 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report Micke Grove Zoo: Honoring the Past, Securing the Future (2018-2019 Case #0218) Micke Grove Zoo: Honoring the Past, Securing the Future Case #0218 Preface This report contains a continuation of the responses to the 2018-2019 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding Micke Grove Zoo. The first follow-up report was presented in the 2019-2020 Grand Jury report. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury reviewed the responses and made new recommendations. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury follow-up conclusions are presented after the agency responses to each recommendation. Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/. Summary The 2018-2019 Grand Jury found the Micke Grove Zoo suffered from inadequate funding and outdated facilities for years. Recommendations were made to update and improve the Zoo in the hopes it will continue to be a viable amenity for residents. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury found 179 some of the recommendations had been fulfilled while more time was needed to complete others. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury confirmed the San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year master plan to the County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors accepted the plan with its seven overarching objectives, including specific strategies and tactics. The plan serves as a foundation to advance the Zoo’s mission to allow it to be a place of enjoyment for the residents of San Joaquin County. The single outstanding recommendation regarding the process of seeking accreditation is still under evaluation. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the agency responses to the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 reports, #0218, Micke Grove Zoo: Honoring the Past, Securing the Future, and documented the mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the responses to the recommendations to determine if • the agency responses were complete and comprehensible; • the agency implemented the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • confirmation, including written documentation and interviews, was necessary. Glossary • AZA: Association of Zoos and Aquariums • County: San Joaquin County • MGZS: Micke Grove Zoological Society • Taussig Report: Parks and Recreation Benchmarking and Assessment Report (June 2018) • ZAA: Zoological Association of America • Zoo: Micke Grove Zoo 180 Summary of Responses and 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusions 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion 2019-2020 Respondent Rec # Response Rec# Due Date Conclusion San Joaquin Implemented No further action County Board R1 of Supervisors Will not be No further action R2 implemented Implemented No further action R3 Implemented No further action R4 Will be R1 December 31, 2021 Requires further R5 implemented action Will not be No further action R6 implemented Implemented No further action R7 Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 Micke Grove Zoo Today 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. The Micke Grove Zoo has some Policies and Procedures in place and which are housed in various shared folders on the County server. However, due to the organizational manner in which such files are kept, such files would not be considered a manual at this time. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: To be implemented. During Fiscal Year 2018-2019, the Parks Administrator and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager (Zoo Manager) began gathering written Policy and Procedure documents to begin a Zoo Policy and Procedure Manual. The Zoo Curator who has been the “keeper” of the documents began adding them to a centralized electronic shared folder entitled Zoo Policies. As documents are gathered the Zoo Manager and staff are reading through them to ensure the validity, 181 appropriateness, and applicability of each and determining if they need to be rewritten, deleted, or in some instances, created. The Policy and Procedures Manual for the Micke Grove Zoo has a completion date of June 30, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is creating a written Policy and Procedures Manual for all Micke Grove Zoo operations. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1: The written Policy and Procedures Manual for all Micke Grove Zoo operations is needed. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By June 30, 2020, the San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division complete a written Policy and Procedures Manual for all Micke Grove Zoo operations. Agency Response: Has been implemented During Fiscal Year 2018-2019, the Parks Administrator and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager (Zoo Manager) began gathering written Policy and Procedure documents to begin a Zoo Policy and Procedure Manual. The Zoo Curator, who has been the “keeper” of the documents, began adding them to a centralized electronic shared folder entitled Zoo Policies. A Policy and Procedures Manual for the Micke Grove Zoo has been completed. Ongoing updates and edits may be performed by the Parks Administrator as deemed necessary. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury confirmed that the electronic Policy and Procedures Manual has been developed and is current. No further action is needed. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: The lack of a detailed and comprehensive budget for Micke Grove Zoo makes proper financial management difficult. Agency Response: Disagree. The Micke Grove Zoo has specific line items on the Parks and Recreation Division budget, and actual charges are tracked through an access database. The use of project costing on timesheets and material purchased allows for reports to be maintained for Zoo specific items. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division develop a detailed and comprehensive budget for the Zoo that includes assumptions for every income and expense line item by December 31, 2019. Agency Response: Has been implemented. Starting in Fiscal Year 2017-2018 and during the Fiscal Year 2018-2019, a Zoo specific budget worksheet was created including Zoo specific revenue and expenses. The information is derived from the Parks and Recreation Division budget. The Zoo budget worksheet will be updated annually after final budgets are approved. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree. As part of ongoing efficiencies at the Micke Grove Zoo, animals which were on display at the Oak Grove Nature Center have been relocated to the Micke Grove Zoo saving husbandry and travel time. Animals that are part of the MGZS Educational program are now being cared for by the MGZS staff. These two items have saved approximately 24 hours per week of staff time, which are better served within the Zoo. All veterinary care is contracted with UC Davis Medical Teaching Hospital, which provides one day of on-site field services, emergency and after-hours’ services, pharmaceuticals and telephone support as needed. The Parks Administrator and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager (Zoo Manager) began the process of cross- training employees and have consistently employed two-part time zookeeper aides to compensate for a full-time employee’s extended absence. The number of allocated full- time positions at the Zoo remains at eight. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.3: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division complete necessary cross-training for all current Zoo staff members and hire at least one additional full-time Zookeeper by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. Cross-training of all employees began in January 2019 using a top-down method. All staff will be required to train in all aspects of animal husbandry by June 30, 2020. The Zoo Manager, Zoo Curator, and Senior Animal Care Specialist began cross-training on animal medical care, veterinary services, and animal diets in March 2019, with a completion date of December 2019. The Grand Jury mistakenly reported that the Zoo employs only four full-time Animal Care Specialists (referred to as Zoo Keepers in the report) Currently the Zoo is allocated eight (8) full-time positions, one (1) Zoo Manager, one (1) Zoo Curator, and five (5) Animal Care Specialists and (1) Senior Animal Care Specialist. At this time, one Animal Care Specialist is on extended medical leave and whose job duties have been allocated to two- part time temporary Animal Care Aides. Previously the Zoo Curator and Zoo Manager did not materially participate in animal husbandry, and recent cross-training has improved Zoo efficiencies. Parks and Recreation will not be requesting a fifth Animal Care Specialist allocation as the Zoo already has five (5) but will hire a replacement full-time Animal Care Specialist if the current employee is unable to return to work. The Parks and Recreation Benchmarking and Assessments Report, commonly referred to as the Taussig report, recommends expanding the use of volunteers at Micke Grove Zoo. The Zoo Manager, along with the MGZS education staff, have begun revamping the volunteer program, and also aim to look into the possibility of creating an intern program. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 183 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. Facilities Management, Park Workers, Zoo Manager, and Parks Administrator walk the Zoo on a monthly basis, and have created a list of Zoo specific repairs. The items on the list are prioritized and tracked through to completion. In Fiscal Year 2018-2019, a new full-time Park Worker was allocated to spend three whole days within the Zoo and dedicates time/resources toward performing the necessary maintenance as identified within the Zoo repair list. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.4: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division develop a preventive maintenance schedule and accurate repair record for Micke Grove Zoo by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: Has been implemented. Beginning in January 2019, the Parks Administrator, Zoo Manager, General Services Assistant Director and Facility Maintenance and Construction Superintendent began a monthly walkthrough at the Zoo to discuss, address, and plan scheduled maintenance and repair issues. To date, the process consists of utilizing an excel worksheet with items coded as high, medium, and low priorities. Items are then tracked to completion. Although this process pertains to known issues, all new or emergent items are prioritized and submitted thought the facility maintenance program already in place. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 184 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.5: The San Joaquin County General Services Department renegotiate their operating agreement with MGZS to update and clarify assigned roles and responsibilities by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Parks Administrator will create an operating agreement with the MGZS that will include assigned roles and responsibilities by June 30, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is in the process of reviewing its operating agreement with MGZS. They requested a deadline extension to December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2: A new agreement with MGZS is an important part of the zoo’s ongoing operations. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R2: By December 31, 2020, the San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation General Services Department execute an operating agreement with MGZS that will include assigned roles and responsibilities. Agency Response: Will not be implemented On July 21, 2020, the MGZS voted to terminate the 1999 Operating Agreement with a final termination date of September 4, 2020. Litigation is now pending between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. No new operating agreement exists between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. The current and ongoing lawsuit between the Micke Grove Zoological Society and San Joaquin County makes it unlikely that an operating agreement will be executed. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined no further action is needed. 2.0 A Vision for Tomorrow 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: Despite budget challenges, San Joaquin County leadership is committed to the continued operation and improvement of Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.2: The residents of San Joaquin County value Micke Grove Zoo and desire to see it improved. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.4: San Joaquin County leadership must obtain the guidance and expertise of the industry professionals in both determining and designing the master plan for Micke Grove Zoo in order to ensure its successful future. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: To be partially implemented. The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, and the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator will 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 years by June 30, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is completing an analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo. They requested a deadline extension December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3: The analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo is an important part of its ongoing operations. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: The San Joaquin County General Services Department complete an analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo, including what they envision the Zoo to be in five years. Present the analysis to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator, and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager are preparing a five-year strategic plan to be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Due to the Micke Grove Zoological Society's termination of the existing agreement, rejection of the interim agreement and ongoing litigation the presentation of the five-year strategic 186 plan will be delayed until March 31, 2021. The presentation will include the vision for the Micke Grove Zoo in the next five years. San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan to the Board of Supervisors which was accepted by the Board on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.2: The San Joaquin County General Services Department develop and present to the Board of Supervisors a professionally designed Master Plan for Micke Grove Zoo, which includes development goals for the next five, ten, and twenty years by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented. The Parks and Recreation Division will develop and present to the Board of Supervisors a Master Plan for the Micke Grove Zoo for the next five years by December 31, 2020. Beginning with a five-year strategic plan will allow the Department to implement strategies and goals set through the strategic plan. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is preparing a professionally designed Master Plan for Micke Grove Zoo which includes strategies and goals for the next five years. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F4: The five-year plan is a critical component of the ongoing operations of the zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R4: The San Joaquin County General Services Department complete a professionally designed Master Plan for Micke Grove Zoo that includes strategies and goals for the next five years. Present the Master Plan to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator, and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager are preparing a five-year strategic plan to be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Due to the Micke Grove Zoological Society's termination of the existing agreement, rejection of the interim agreement and ongoing litigation the presentation of the five year strategic plan will be delayed until March 31, 2021. This presentation will include the vision for the Micke Grove Zoo for the next five years 187 San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.3: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division examine the requirements and affordability for obtaining accreditation from available accrediting associations, and pursue appropriate accreditation as part of the County's Master Plan to improve Micke Grove Zoo by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Park and Recreation Division will examine and analyze the requirements, affordability, and suitability of accreditation for Micke Grove Zoo by December 31, 2020. Pursuing accreditation is a rigorous process including husbandry, recordkeeping, veterinary care, animal diet, staff knowledge, and facility site inspections. 188 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is in the process of examining the requirements, affordability and suitability of obtaining accreditation from available accrediting associations as part of the County's Master Plan to improve Micke Grove Zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F5: It is important that Micke Grove Zoo have appropriate accreditation. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R5: The San Joaquin County General Services Department pursue appropriate accreditation. Present a written description of the findings to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator, and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager are preparing a five-year strategic plan to be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Due to the Micke Grove Zoological Society's termination of the existing agreement, rejection of the interim agreement and ongoing litigation the presentation of the five year strategic plan will be delayed until March 31, 2021. This presentation will include the vision for the Micke Grove Zoo for the next five years, including the pursuit of an accreditation if deemed appropriate. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The plan’s vision centers on seven objectives, one of which is to examine the requirements, affordability and suitability of obtaining accreditation from available accrediting associations. Currently Micke Grove Zoo does not have accreditation. The General Services Department is investigating the feasibility and value of zoo accreditation. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F1: Micke Grove Zoo still does not have zoo accreditation. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: The San Joaquin County General Services Department present its findings regarding zoo accreditation, including a timeline, to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2021. 3.0 Funding the Vision 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. This requires the further analysis regarding the future vision of the Micke Grove Zoo. 189 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 3.2: A non-profit organization or foundation capable of raising significant funds is essential to fulfilling the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. This requires the further analysis regarding the future vision of the Micke Grove Zoo. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F3.3: The recent fundraising results from the MGZS are insufficient to support the necessary improvements for the Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Agree. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1: The San Joaquin County General Services Department determine the role and responsibility of the MGZS for fundraising to support the future vision for the Micke Grove Zoo, and renegotiate their operating agreement accordingly by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Parks Administrator and the Director of General Services along with the MGZS will create a new operating agreement with the MGZS that will assign roles and responsibilities and determine the MGZS’S fundraising expectations to support the future vision for the Micke Grove Zoo by June 30, 2020 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The Parks Administrator and the Director of General Services along with the MGZS committed to create a new operating agreement with the MGZS that will assign roles, responsibilities, and determine the MGZS’s fundraising expectations. They requested a deadline extension to December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F6: A new operating agreement that assigns roles, responsibilities, and determines fundraising expectations is important for the future of Micke Grove Zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R6: By December 31, 2020, the Parks Administrator and the Director of General Services, along with the MGZS, execute a new operating agreement with the MGZS. The agreement will assign roles, responsibilities, and determine the MGZS’s fundraising expectations to support the future vision for the Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Will not be implemented On July 21, 2020, the MGZS voted to terminate the 1999 Operating Agreement with a final termination date of September 4, 2020. Litigation is now pending between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. No new operating agreement exists between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, and the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator will complete and present to the Board of Supervisors an analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo, including what 190 they envision the Zoo to be in five years by March 31, 2021. The presentation will include a framework for identifying a non-profit strategic partner. San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan, including a framework to identify a non-profit strategic partner, to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. In the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Micke Grove Zoo received grant funding for $500,000 from the State, and additional funding through Proposition 68 by working collaboratively with the United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.2: The San Joaquin County General Services Department evaluate all available funding sources for the improvement of Micke Grove Zoo and report their findings to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Department will evaluate available funding sources to improve Micke Grove Zoo and report the finding to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The San Joaquin County General Services Department committed to evaluate all available funding sources to improve Micke Grove Zoo and report their findings to the Board of Supervisors. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F7: It is important to know the available funding sources for the improvement of Micke Grove Zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R7: The San Joaquin County General Services Department evaluate all available funding sources for the improvement of Micke Grove Zoo and report their findings to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, and the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator will 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 years by March 31, 2021. The presentation will include an evaluation of additional funding sources. San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan, including strategies to improve its revenue stream, to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 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 San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to the finding and recommendation from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Xapuri B. Villapudua, 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. Follow-up to the 2019 - 2020 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report Tracy City Council: Restore the Public Trust (2018-2019 Case #0418) Tracy City Council: Restore the Public Trust Case #0418 Preface This report contains a continuation of the responses to the 2018-2019 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding Tracy City Council. The first follow-up report was presented in the 2019-2020 Grand Jury’s report. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agency’s response to the recommendation. Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/ 193 Summary The Tracy City Council was the subject of multiple complaints that warranted the attention of the Grand Jury. For several years, the Tracy City Council developed a reputation for its inability to work together as a collegial legislative body. The 2017-2018 Grand Jury recommended the Tracy City Council adopt an Ethics Policy that governs the behaviors of their elected officials. Along with the Council’s public discord, a pattern of power politics surfaced resulting in consistent three to two voting blocs. This led to the terminations or forced resignations of the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and the Chief of Police. The unexplained departures of the City’s administrative leaders created an unstable work environment at City Hall. The Tracy City Council addressed the 2018-19 Grand Jury findings and recommendations and adopted a Code of Conduct. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury followed-up on the recommendation that the Tracy City Council adopt an amendment to the Municipal Code requiring a supermajority vote of four members of the City Council to remove the City Manager or City Attorney. On July 20, 2020, the Tracy City Council ratified this amendment. This completes the last outstanding 2018-2019 Grand Jury recommendation. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the 2019-2020 responses to the original 2018-2019 report, #0418, Tracy City Council: Restore the Public Trust. There was one outstanding recommendation. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury evaluated the response to that recommendation to determine if • the agency’s response was complete and comprehensible; and • the agency implemented the recommendation within the stated deadline. Summary of Response and 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion 2019-2020 Respondent Rec # Response Rec# Due Date Conclusion Tracy City R1 Implemented No further action Council Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 Ethics Policy 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 194 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. The City will endeavor to draft and adopt an Ethics Policy by October 31, 2019. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Follow-up Response: The Tracy City Council approved and adopted the Tracy City Council Code of Conduct at their meeting on October 15, 2019. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: The Tracy City Council develop a “Rules of Behavior” document to be distributed to each Council member and posted in the Council Chambers and the closed meeting rooms by October 31, 2019. Agency Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. Rules regarding expectations for City Council's behavior and norms would be included in the City's Ethics Policy. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Follow-up Response: The Tracy City Council approved and adopted the Tracy City Council Code of Conduct at their meeting on October 15, 2019. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2.0 City Council Conduct 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 195 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City disagrees partially with this finding; individual Council members did recognize the discord amongst the Council body. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.4: Unethical conduct during the 2018 election campaign further damaged Council members’ ability to work together. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. The anticipated adoption of an Ethics Policy will serve as an opportunity for the Council as a body to proclaim its commitment to work together collaboratively. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Follow-up Response: The Tracy City Council approved and adopted the Tracy City Council Code of Conduct at their meeting on October 15, 2019. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 3.0 Council Vacancy Appointment Process 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City disagrees partially with this finding; it is unclear that the appointment process resulted in consistent voting blocs and facilitated divisiveness. However, alternative appointment methods could be explored in the future. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City disagrees partially with this finding; the appointment process provides an opportunity for Council members, as elected officials themselves, to take into the will of the voters during the appointment process. 196 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: This recommendation requires further analysis and discussion. Staff will develop and present alternative Council vacancy selection processes for consideration. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Follow-up Response: At their meeting on December 3, 2019, the Tracy City Council adopted Resolution 2019-250 for filling council vacancies. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 4.0 Impact of Executive Staff Separations 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding; the rapid succession of executive staff terminations and forced resignations may have contributed to an unstable working environment for the City of Tracy staff as department leadership dismantled. The instability may have contributed to an unnecessarily stressful work environment which was compounded by fear of job loss. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City disagrees partially with this finding; the City of Tracy's reputation as a desirable employer may have been damaged by the series of unexplained terminations and forced resignations. This unstable environment may have made recruiting for open positions more difficult. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: This recommendation requires further analysis and discussion. Staff will evaluate the proposed ordinance amendment. 197 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1: It remains important that Tracy City Council approve and adopt the amended Tracy City Municipal Code which requires a supermajority vote of four (4) members 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: At the next meeting, or no later than September 30, 2020, the Tracy City Council approve and adopt the amended Municipal Code which requires a supermajority vote of four (4) members of the City Council to remove the City Manager or City Attorney. At their July 20, 2020 meeting, the Tracy City Council adopted ordinance 1295 amending the Tracy Municipal Code section 2.08.080 to require a supermajority vote of four members of the City Council to remove the City Manager or City Attorney. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 5.0 Council Intrusion in City Operations 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F5.2: Individual Council members have intimidated staff by giving orders that are in direct opposition to departmental procedures. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F5.3: The professional recommendations of City of Tracy staff may be tempered by the potential consequences of disapproving Council members due to fear of potential job loss. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: This recommendation requires further analysis and discussion. Staff will present options for accountability measures to be included in the Ethics Policy. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Follow-up Response: The Tracy City Council approved and adopted the Tracy City Council Code of Conduct at their meeting on October 15, 2019. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code 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). Follow-up to the 2018 - 2019 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Report French Camp McKinley Fire District: A District in Disarray (2018-2019 Case #0518) French Camp McKinley Fire District: A District in Disarray Case #0518 Preface This report contains a continuation of the agency responses to the 2018-2019 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding the French Camp McKinley Fire District. The first follow-up report was presented in the 2019-2020 Grand Jury report. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury reviewed the responses and made new recommendations. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury follow-up conclusions are presented after the agency responses to each recommendation. Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/. Summary The 2018-2019 Grand Jury found a number of issues with the French Camp McKinley Fire District, including high employee turnover, a lack of policies and procedures, and ineffective Board oversight. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury report noted some recommendations were resolved leaving others still in progress. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the responses to the outstanding recommendations and concluded that the policy manual was updated and the recommended financial audits for the District were completed for fiscal years (FY) 2015 through 2019. The audit reports were filed with the San Joaquin County Office of the Auditor-Controller. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the 2019-2020 responses to the 2018-2019 report, #0518 French Camp McKinley Fire District: A District in Disarray. The responses were reviewed to determine if • the agency responses were complete and comprehensible; • the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • confirmation, including written documentation and interviews, was necessary. Glossary • Board of Directors or Board: French Camp McKinley Board of Directors • District: French Camp McKinley Fire District • Policy Manual: French Camp McKinley Fire District Fire Services Manual • San Joaquin County Best Practices for Accounting and Reporting for Locally-Governed Special Districts: A manual developed by the County Auditor-Controller to aid the Boards of special districts in managing their finances 202 Summary of Responses and 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion Respondent 2019-2020 Rec # Response 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion French Camp McKinley Fire R1 Implemented No further action taken District Board R2 Implemented No further action taken R3 Implemented No further action taken R4 Implemented No further action taken R5 Implemented No further action taken R6 Implemented No further action taken R7 Implemented No further action taken Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 5.0 Procedures, Policies, and Documentation 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: The District’s Policy Manual requires significant customization in order to adequately meet the needs of the District. Agency Response: With the implementation of Program Management Charters, the process of monitoring and updated the Policies and Procedures has been adopted. Additionally, the term" significantly" over states the issue. The policies and procedures need cleaning up to reflect some of the District's internal organization administrative and organizational practices. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: The District does not review and regularly update the Policy Manual, placing the District at risk for financial liability. Agency Response: "As Needed" describes the model FRC utilizes as listed in the "Chiefs Preface" page of the Policies Manual (See R1.1). The conclusion drawn from the Grand Jury survey of other agencies indicated there is not one universal method or model for policies and procedures revision/updating that applies for all agencies. 203 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Electronic access to the policy manual is available for via Lexipol online now that Administrative staff has completed the online webinar training. Authorized personnel and member have always had access to the Policy Manual and additional information via the District's secured internet access. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: A policy has been drafted for the Directors approval. The policy includes a status tracking process to accurately inventory and maintained district property and equipment. Additionally, this increased oversite will occur via Program / Project Managers, in consultation with the Fire Chief and the BOD. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.5: Not requiring the Board to approve policy updates leaves them without the ability to provide appropriate policy oversight for the District. Agency Response: The Fire Chief is responsible for the execution of "day-to-day" operational oversite of fire and life safety activities, i.e. emergency responses, fire prevention, etc. The Board of the Directors' oversite exist in the form of checks and balances relative to outcomes based on expected goals to ensure that sound fiscal policy exists, and that practices and controls are in place so that the district employees are accountability to the communities it serves. The Fire Chief and Board of Directors shared responsibility exist in the form of approval of the annual budget, establishing financial goals, reviewing district finances, developing capital improvement plans, being involved in setting the direction of the district and, most importantly, working in the best interests of the community and the constituents the district serves. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.6: Without clearly defined testing procedures, firefighters are deprived of the opportunity for promotions based upon their training, experience, and qualifications. Agency Response: Policy 1000: Recruiting and Retention and Policy 1004: Promotions and Transfers. The present leadership is committed to fair and transparent promotional practices based upon training, experience, and qualifications. Entry Level Examinations • Employment opportunity posting with qualifications and study reference; • Written examination, constructed by an outside testing firm based on modern / latest fire service knowledge and training; • Interview Panel with Internal French Camp Members and external Fire Service Members; • Comprehensive background check by an experienced investigator; • Interview with the Fire Chief; • Medical examination. Promotional Examinations: • Based on the promotional position being tested; a list of qualifications and study reference for the written examination will be sent to members and or open posting for external candidates; • In conjunction with an outside testing firm the written examination will be constructed; • Abilities Assessment and or Interview Panel with internal French Camp Members and or external Fire Service Members; demonstration of the Candidate's ability to perform duties and responsibilities for the position being tested; Comprehensive background check by an experienced investigator, an interview with the Fire Chief; • Medical examination; if necessary. Fire Chief Hirinq: • Discretion of the Board of Director's; • Consideration given to the Individual's experience, and qualifications and training. Administrative Staff: • Discretion of the Board of Director's; in consultation with the Fire Chief. • Consideration given to the Individual's experience, and qualifications and training. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.7: Public safety may be compromised when department promotions are not based on the results of objective testing procedures. Agency Response: Refer to FRC Response 1.6. [See the response to F1.6 above.] 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: Implementing an artificial time frame before a complete assessment of the district processes, practices and needs would not be beneficial to the District or it's 205 members. An assessment of the Policy Manual was underway prior to the Grand Jury investigation and continues today. Additionally, we are re-evaluating all computer based records management, staffing and training platforms in order to streamline and optimize Fire Department business processes. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency disagreed with the timeframe. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1: The customization of the Policy Manual is important to adequately meet the needs of the District. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By September 30, 2020, the French Camp McKinley Board of Directors approve the newly customized Policy Manual which reflects the needs of the District and deliver a copy to the Grand Jury. Agency Response: Implemented The Policy Manual has been revised and reviewed by Fire personnel. Online access is available for members at any time. The current version is on the CD disc included. Updates are made as needed to the policy manual. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop and follow a written policy to systematically review and update their Policy Manual on a regular schedule by December 31, 2019. Agency Response: SEE AP 1.1 [See the response to R1.1 above] 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency disagreed with the timeframe. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2: A policy to systematically review and update their Policy Manual is important to ensure the policies reflect latest practices and procedures. 206 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R2: By September 30, 2020, the French Camp McKinley Board of Directors approve the written policy to systematically review and update their Policy Manual on a regular schedule. Agency Response: Implemented The Policy Manual has been updated according to Policy 204 “District Directives.” Updates occur as needed to reflect the addition of new policie; the revision of existing policies, or the removal of legacy policies. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.3: The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors post its updated Policy Manual and all updates electronically by December 31, 2019. Agency Response: [None Given] 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency stated the Policy Manual is posted electronically but not available for public viewing until approved by the Board. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3: To ensure transparency, it is important that the policy be posted for the public to review. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: By September 30, 2020, the French Camp McKinley Board of Directors post for public viewing its updated Policy Manual and all updates. Agency Response: Implemented Completed. The Policy Manual revision is available via the District’s Lexipol online account at http:/www.lexipol.com/. Updates are made as policies and or operational changes take occur. A copy of the Policy Manual resides in each firehouse. Once COVID restrictions are lifted, interested community members may view the Manual by appointment. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.4: The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop policies for purchasing and disposing of equipment by December 31, 2019. Agency Response: [None Given] 207 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The policy Inventories, Transfer, and Disposal of District-Owned Property Policy 701 was provided to the Grand Jury. The agency did not provide a policy for purchasing equipment. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F4: A policy for purchasing equipment is important for transparency and consistency. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R4: By September 30, 2020, the French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop a policy for purchasing equipment. Agency Response: Implemented Policy 701 Inventories, Transfer, and Disposal of District-Owned Property states “It is the policy of the French Camp-McKinley Fire District to accurately inventory and maintained all district property and equipment Policy 201 – Program Management states “It is the policy of the French Camp McKinley Rural Fire Protection District to manage resources in a responsible and transparent manner by dividing Fire Department functional tasks into specific programs and assigning program managers to each.” The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.5: The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop policies for testing and promotions that maintain the integrity of test scores by December 31, 2019. Agency Response: [None given] 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations Subsequent discussion with Agency staff included a reference to Policy 1000: Recruiting and Retention and Policy 1004: Promotions and Transfers. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F5: A policy for testing and promotions is important for transparency and consistency. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R5: By September 30, 2020, the French Camp McKinley Board of Directors upload the Policy regarding recruitment and retention to a public website. Agency Response: Implemented Policy 1000 “Recruitment and Selection” outlines the new hiring process and the promotional process 208 The District committed to fair and transparent employment practices based upon individual training, experience, and qualifications. The Following outlines the general processes utilized Entry Level Examinations • Employment opportunity posting with qualifications and study reference. • Written examination conducted by a profession testing organization based on contemporary / latest fire service knowledge and training. • Interview Panel with Internal French Camp Members and external Fire Service Members. • Interview with Fire Chief and or Board Members. • Comprehensive background check by an experienced investigator. • Medical examination. Promotional Examinations: • Based on the promotional position being tested; a list of qualifications and study reference for the written examination will be provided to candidate and or open posting for external candidates. • In conjunction with a profession testing organization a job specific written examination will be constructed. • An assessment and or interview panel with French Camp Members and or external Fire Service Members; Candidate’s must demonstration the ability to perform duties and responsibilities for the position being tested. • Comprehensive background check by an experienced investigator for external candidates, and an interview with the Fire Chief. • Medical Examination; if necessary. Chief Officers Hiring: • Discretion of the Board of Directors’ • Consideration given to the individual’s experience, and qualifications and training. Administrative Staff: • Discretion of the Board of Director’s; in consultation with the Fire Chief. • Consideration given to the individual’s experience, and qualifications and training. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 209 6.0 Personnel Issues 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: "Less Qualified" member have not been placed into positions that would create a risk to the public. A new leadership team is being assembled, which is committed to conduct transparent testing. Current and future hiring and promotions practices will follow commonly utilized fire service practices to ensure the best candidates are hired and promoted based upon their training, experience, and qualifications. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The "excessive" number of grievances resulted from previous leadership team(s) not following the established policies; the policies themselves are adequate. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Refer to FRC Response 2.2. [See the response to F2.2 above.] 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.4: The District’s failure to conduct an annual grievance audit may have resulted in unnecessary financial liability. Agency Response: Refer to FRC Response 2.2. [See the response to F2.2 above.] 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: The French Camp McKinley Board of Directors develop a clear and concise grievance policy and form by December 31, 2019. Agency Response: The Board and the Interim Fire Chief have reviewed the policy and are working to implement a process to address member's concerns in a transparent and timely manner. Fire Administration policy adherence and execution are required to resolving any grievance 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The Personnel Complaints Policy 1028 and Employee Complaint/Resolution Form are completed. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 210 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: The Board concurs. Ongoing communication between the Board of Directors and the Fire Chief should eliminate any grievance related surprises. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency stated that the upcoming District Policy Manual covers this topic. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F6: It is important for transparency and consistency that the new Policy Manual provide guidance regarding the ongoing communication between the Board of Directors and the Fire Chief about processing grievances. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R6: By September 30, 2020, the French Camp McKinley Board of Directors post for public viewing its updated Policy Manual with guidance for the ongoing communication between the Board of Directors and the Fire Chief about processing grievances. Agency Response: Implemented Policy “1039 Grievance Procedure” has been updated to reflect that an annual grievance audit is completed and reviewed by Board of Directors per Subsection 1039.7. The Board of Directors completed a review 2019 (no grievance filed). The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: Currently the Interim Fire Chief advises the Board of Directors monthly on the status of all grievances. The Board also receives a summary of any investigative report upon it's conclusion or with their monthly meeting packet. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 7.0 Board Oversight 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F3.1: Board responsibilities are not clearly understood by all board members, which has contributed to ineffective leadership of French Camp McKinley Fire District. Agency Response: The lack of clear communication by previous fire leadership and onboarding of new directors contributed to the perception that role and responsibilities of some members are not clearly understood. 211 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F3.2: Without a formalized annual review process, the Board is unable to measure the Fire Chief’s performance. Agency Response: The Board concurs. A review process is in place and has been utilized to determine goals and objectives and compensation. An evaluation of the past Chief was underway when his occupational leave occurred. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The previous leadership's lack of honesty and transparency, coupled with the creation of a culture of intimidation of members, concealed serious personnel issues from the board. Upon becoming aware of the seriousness of several personnel issues, the Board initiated action to hold the responsible members accountable. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: A lack of honesty and transparency lead the board to infer the required filings were taking place. (See Plan of Action 3.2). [See response to R3.2 below.] 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: The Board concurs. A review of the chief performance is generally coupled with annual budget and planning sessions or hire date. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: The District is working with a Certified Public Account to reconcile 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 records. 212 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency requested more time. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F7: It is important for public trust that the District have correct and audited financial records. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R7: By December 31, 2020, 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. Agency Response: Not Completed Robert W Johnson Accountancy Corporation has been hired to audit the District’s financial record for the following fiscal years: FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, FY 2019-20. The review is expected to be completed by the end of 2020. The audits from fiscal years 2015 through 2019 have been completed and copies are on file with the San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The Board concurs. The Board and the Interim Fire Chief have received a copy of the "San Joaquin County Best Practices for Accounting and Reporting for Locally Governed Special Districts. Additionally, the Board and Staff plans to utilize the California Special District Association vast training resources which includes online webinars to conference to assist special district. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 8.0 The Future of French Camp McKinley Fire District 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: The Board of Director's position is to continue as the French Camp McKinley Fire District. The Board's decision is based on providing fire and life safety to the residents and business communities of French Camp and Mountain House Community Service District. Refer to Attachment 1. "The Office of the County administrator August 1 3, 2019 recommendation to the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors: “Approval of Response to the 2018-2019 Civil Grand Jury Report Regarding the French Camp McKinley Fire District." 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F4.2: The District’s Board has failed to follow-up on repeated recommendations to explore consolidation. Agency Response: This is not accurate. The board will respectfully consider any mutually beneficial agreements and or consolidation. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: Refer to Responses 4.1 and 4.2. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: Not Applicable: Refer to Attachment 1. "The Office of the County administrator August 13, 2019 recommendation to the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors: "Approval of Response to the 2018-2019 Civil Grand Jury Report Regarding the French Camp McKinley Fire District.” San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors’ Response: The recommendation has been implemented. An internal review of FCMFD fire protection services was performed by the County Administrator’s Office. The results of the review determined: • There were no indications of performance deficiencies in FCMFD fire protection services provided to County facilities; • Overall, County departments were pleased with the service received from FCMFD; and, • The FCMFD response times and performance have been consistent with comparable fire agencies and therefore FCMFD is a viable option for the delivery of fire protection services to the County’s French Camp facilities. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code 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). . Follow-up to the 2019 - 2020 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report Homelessness in San Joaquin County Building on a Foundation: Collaboration and Communication (2019-2020 Case #0119) Homelessness in San Joaquin County Building on a Foundation: Collaboration and Communication Case #0119 Preface This report contains the responses to the 2019-2020 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding Homelessness in San Joaquin County. This report focuses on the 2019-2020 Grand Jury findings and recommendations, as well as the agency responses, which are presented verbatim in this report. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agency response to each recommendation. Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agency responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/. Summary The 2019-2020 Grand Jury investigation into homelessness was initiated in response to a citizen complaint. The investigation focused on how San Joaquin County and the seven cities within the county addressed homelessness. The Grand Jury found San Joaquin County and the seven cities have made efforts in addressing homelessness but more needed to be done. The 2019- 2020 Grand Jury recommendations included • Develop easy-to-read websites which would lead to a more-informed public on the topic of homelessness; • Petition the court to extend the Homeless Court; • Add four more deputies to the Community Car Program; and • The cities of Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon, and Escalon adopt the San Joaquin Continuum of Care and the Program Administrator as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury found that the 2019-2020 Grand Jury had done admirable work in understanding homelessness as an issue in San Joaquin County, including the various systems and agencies that seek to make homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring. San Joaquin County is making great strides pursuing solutions to homelessness in the region including cities posting plain language websites for ease of public understanding and participation in the Continuum of Care. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury found resolution to all of the recommendations on dealing with homelessness in San Joaquin County. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current 2020-2021 Grand Jury studied the original 2019-2020 report, #0119, Homelessness in San Joaquin County, Building on a Foundation: Collaboration and Communication, and documented the mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations. These responses were then reviewed to determine if • the agency responses were complete and comprehensible; • the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • confirmation, including written documentation and interviews, was necessary. Glossary • HUD: U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department; a federal department that, as part of its mission, among other things administers homelessness grants. • LEAD: Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion; a program that redirects individuals from criminal justice system involvement into community-based social, health, and behavioral services. The San Joaquin LEAD team consists of representatives from the Stockton Police Department, San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office, County Behavior Health Services, Community Medical Center, and the Public Defender’s Office. 218 • Plain Language: Writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or intended audience (Plain Writing Act of 2020, October 13, 2010). • SJCoC: San Joaquin Continuum of Care; a local program required by HUD to provide leadership and effective stewardship of resources, as well as to facilitate community planning, design, and implementation of programs critical to ending homelessness in San Joaquin County. • Stockton PD: Stockton Police Department. Summary of Responses and 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusions 2020-2021 Grand Jury Respondent 2019-2020 Rec # Response Conclusion Board of Supervisors R1.1 No further action To be implemented R1.3 Requires further analysis No further action R2.1 Will not be implemented No further action Sheriff’s Office R1.2 Implemented No further action District Attorney’s Office R1.1 Will not be implemented No further action City of Stockton R3.1 Implemented No further action City of Tracy R3.1 Implemented No further action R3.2 Implemented No further action R3.3 Implemented No further action City of Manteca R3.1 Implemented No further action R3.2 Implemented No further action R3.3 Will not be implemented No further action City of Lathrop R3.1 Implemented No further action R3.2 Implemented No further action R3.3 Implemented No further action Ripon City Council R3.1 Implemented No further action R3.2 Implemented No further action R3.3 Implemented No further action City of Escalon R3.1 Implemented No further action R3.2 To be implemented No further action R3.3 To be implemented No further action 219 Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors: 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: None of the four Designated Lead Departments has provided a plain language website that describes their efforts in addressing and limiting the impact of homelessness, leaving many San Joaquin residents with the false impression that the County and is doing little or nothing to address homelessness. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.3: Holding Homelessness Court only in Stockton denies access to many individuals and is inconsistent with the intent of the Quality of Life Policy, which is to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: Partially Agree San Joaquin County acknowledges that access to transportation can be a struggle for many experiencing homelessness. San Joaquin County also acknowledges that Homelessness Court is an additional non-mandated service which goes above and beyond those typically offered by the Superior Courts, and which is being offered in the most geographically central city in the County where the majority of the region's homeless individuals typically congregate. The Quality of Life Policy seeks to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County in part through exercising authority and discretion in the application of all laws enacted to protect the health, safety and welfare of all County residents. The Policy does not contemplate any directive or suggestion to provide Homelessness Court or other services for the homeless equally in every city of the County. San Joaquin Superior Court is a judicial branch of the State of California and not the organization of San Joaquin County. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.4: The four Designated Lead Departments are successfully prioritizing homelessness and implementing the Quality of Life Policy to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: By March 1, 2021, the San Joaquin Board of Supervisors develop and publish an easy-to-find, plain language website that includes a description of efforts made to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: This recommendation will be implemented but not by March 1, 2021. Plans to consolidate and refine the presentation of homelessness information on the San Joaquin County website are under discussion. Multiple factors which are difficult or 220 impossible to predict, including the ongoing implementation of homelessness data collection strategies, next point in time count (PIT) scheduled for January 2021 and the impacts of COVID-19, the County will make its best effort for completion of this initiative by end of calendar year 2021. Due to COVID restrictions, the planned January 2021 Point In Time Count and finalization of communication plans on homelessness was postponed. There is not a clear timeline to develop and publish the county website. The County has relegated the provision of resources to the Continuum of Care and has a link on their website www.sanjoaquincoc.org. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.3: By March 1, 2021, County Board of Supervisors petition the court to expand the Homelessness Court to the Branch Courts, as recommended in the Homelessness Task Force 2015-2016 Annual Report (November 16, 2016). Agency Response: This recommendation requires Further Analysis San Joaquin County acknowledges that expanding services such as Homelessness Court for those experiencing homelessness can effectively address and limit the impacts of homelessness in the community. San Joaquin County also acknowledges the limited resources available to provide these services. The referenced Homelessness Task Force report (November 16, 2016) includes a policy recommendation from the Task Force Law and Justice Sub-committee to "expand Homeless Court to the Circuit Courts within San Joaquin County." The Task Force report does not discuss potential operational challenges to the Superior Courts in expanding this service, nor does it offer solutions to the likely cost increases associated with such an expansion. Additionally, the Task Force report fails to acknowledge that Homelessness Court is currently offered only at the offices of homeless services provider St. Mary's Dining Room, a location which the Grand Jury report cites as ideal due to it being "a familiar and safe environment to the local homeless community." This would indicate that Homelessness Court is not offered at the Stockton Courthouse by design. It is unclear how expanding Homelessness Court in the outlying courts would be accepted by a Homelessness Court participant, or if at all. Prior to any petition to the Superior Court, the County Board of Supervisors would need to conduct an examination of the willingness and capacity of the Court to overcome these and other challenges to expand this service, which could delay such a petition beyond the recommended completion date or preclude the need for such a petition, along with determining the demand for services is not currently being met. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 221 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: One staff person is not sufficient to ensure all needs within the county are met. Agency Response: Partially Agree San Joaquin County agrees that effective solutions to homelessness require commitment, coordination and collaboration from multiple stakeholders. San Joaquin County disagrees that there is only one staff person ensuring that all needs within the County are met. Finding 2.1 fails to include references to the other staff and resources devoted to solutions to homelessness, including from the District Attorney's Office, Sheriff's Office, Department of Health Care Services, and Community Development Department, all of which are highlighted elsewhere in the Grand Jury report. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2.2: The revised San Joaquin Continuum of Care has increased collaboration between the County, the cities, and non-profit organizations, helping to improve services for the homeless. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: By December 30, 2020, the County Board of Supervisors complete an analysis to determine if additional staff is needed for the Program Administrator for Homeless Initiatives. Agency Response: This recommendation will not be implemented Homelessness is a broad problem which requires community based solutions through a collaboration of committed public and private partners. Focus from a variety of sources, such as those public and private organizations contributing to the ongoing collaborative effort of the San Joaquin Continuum of Care, is necessary. The Board of Supervisors is one of several bodies acting in a leadership role on this matter and will coordinate as appropriate with other government entities, including City Leadership, non-County organizations, the County Administrator, and County Department Heads to help meet the needs of the community. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.1: Although many residents are interested in how homelessness is being managed, only the City of Lodi has published accomplishments in plain language on its website. This lack of readily available information makes it difficult for residents to understand what is being done to address homelessness Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 222 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.2: There is a need for community-wide planning and strategic use of resources for homelessness involving all cities within the County. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.3: It is important to establish a coordinated and regional system of care for the homeless community to improve services while addressing and limiting the impact of homelessness. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.5: The leadership shown recently by the City of Stockton in working with San Joaquin County towards a shared goal of obtaining funds will streamline processes and result in improved efficiency. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.6: Stockton’s leadership efforts in securing a regional strategic plan speaks to the current spirit of collaboration and communication between Stockton, San Joaquin County, and the San Joaquin Continuum of Care. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 2.0 San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office: 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: None of the four Designated Lead Departments has provided a plain language website that describes their efforts in addressing and limiting the impact of homelessness, leaving many San Joaquin residents with the false impression that the County and is doing little or nothing to address homelessness. Agency Response: Agree The respondent (San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office) agrees with the finding. The San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office will be adding this content to the department's webpage. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: The Community Car Program adds value to the community by reducing response times for calls for service, supporting the Encampment Response Team, and limiting the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: Agree The respondent (San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office) agrees with the finding. The Community Car Program is not a new idea for the Sheriff's Office. This Office had a Community Car Program deployed in many communities throughout San Joaquin County 223 from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. The program was abandoned in the early 1990s due to budget constraints. In the 1990s, the Sheriff's Office adopted the Community-Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) and Scanning Analysis Response Assessment (SARA) philosophies. These philosophies promoted and supported organizational strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and police-community partnerships. Interactions between law enforcement and residents within our communities are central to these philosophies. The Community Car concept also incorporates these philosophies. Through the redeployment of the Community Car Program, the Sheriff's Office returned to addressing and solving problems within our communities. Community Car deputies foster community partnerships by implementing problem-solving strategies that ultimately build trust between the Sheriff's Office and the communities they serve. The Community Car Program seeks to reduce crime and the fear of crime by: identifying and abating community nuisance, blight, and substandard living conditions; identifying and comprehensively responding to emerging crime trends; enhancing community safety; and protecting life and property. As a result, the Sheriff's Office is able to: Reduce the response times of calls for service • Increase Sheriff's Office presence in problem areas • Address problems that cause a reduction in the quality of life of community residents • Create and strengthen relationships with members of the public in communities served by the Sheriff's Office 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.4: The four Designated Lead Departments are successfully prioritizing homelessness and implementing the Quality of Life Policy to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: Agree The respondent (San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office) agrees with the finding. In February and March of 2020, the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office spearheaded a multi-agency operation to eradicate massive homeless encampments along an approximate five-mile stretch of the Diverting Canal between Highway 99 and West Lane, in unincorporated areas of Stockton. These encampments were proven to be the root cause of multiple incidents of arson, theft, burglary, environmental waste, and major damage to the infrastructure protecting the community from flooding. Deputies, along with social service providers, contacted over 150 individuals and offered them drug-treatment assistance, housing, financial assistance, and mental-health services. Only one person accepted these resources when offered. After days of reaching out and offering assistance, the encampments were posted with "72 Hours to Vacate" notices. After the noticed time had expired, efforts began to 224 remove the encampments and to clean and revitalize the entire area. The operation resulted in 15 arrests, the disposal of over 78 tons of trash and debris, the removal of over 85 tires, and the disposal of over 100 containers of human waste. Crime decreased significantly in the residential and commercial areas surrounding the canal. Children and parents were once again able to enjoy walking and riding bikes along the canal again without fear of becoming crime victims. The area continues to be well-maintained to this day as a result of efforts by the Sheriff's Community Car Deputies. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: By October 1, 2020, the Sheriff’s Office assign four additional deputies to the Community Car Program, for a total of eight deputies. Agency Response: The Sheriff's Office intends to assign a total of 22 Deputies to the Community Car Program; however, the Sheriff's Office currently has 41 vacant Deputy Sheriff positions. Being able to achieve the goal of assigning 22 Community Car Deputies will depend greatly on the success of the recruitment and hiring process. The Sheriff’s office is currently in the midst of a massive recruitment effort that includes purchasing television and digital ads, streamlining the background and testing process, and offering a signing bonus to new hires. Based on current staffing projections, the Sheriff's Office will assign two additional Deputies to the Community Car Program effective September 28, 2020; two additional Deputies in December 2020; and two-to-four additional Deputies in March of 2021. The Sheriff’s Office expanded the Community Car Program with its Community Revitalization Unit and assigned additional deputies. Currently there are nine deputies addressing quality of life issues relating to the County’s homelessness which exceeds the Grand Jury’s recommendation that the Sheriff’s Office assign a total of eight deputies. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 3.0 District Attorney: 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: None of the four Designated Lead Departments has provided a plain language website that describes their efforts in addressing and limiting the impact of homelessness, leaving many San Joaquin residents with the false impression that the County and is doing little or nothing to address homelessness. Agency Response: We agree with this Finding. As one of the four "Designated Lead Departments", the District Attorney's Office does not currently operate a dedicated, stand alone, website outlining its own activities, or those of other Departments, related to addressing and limiting the impacts of homelessness within San Joaquin County. The District Attorney's Office currently provides information to the community through its own dedicated website and through social media on its Facebook page, to share efforts made by the District Attorney and her team members to address and work towards the reduction of homelessness within the San Joaquin County community. The District Attorney's Office will expand the scope of information available on its website and through social media to allow for ease of accessing information related to homelessness and available resources within the community. The District Attorney's Office is supportive of the Grand Jury's recommendation that a unified website be implemented by the Board of Supervisors through the San Joaquin County Information Systems Department (ISD). As will be discussed further below, the District Attorney's Office supports the Grand Jury's Recommendation 1.1 for the development and implementation of a countywide unified, "easy to find", "plain language" website describing efforts made by the four "Designated Lead Departments" as well as those of other local agencies and/or organizations offering services to homeless individuals within San Joaquin County. This unified website will allow for direct links from the District Attorney's Office website and other County Departments for ease of access by the entire San Joaquin County community to updated and consistent information on homelessness issues, activities and services. In addition, the District Attorney's Office will work to expand the scope of information available through its website and through the use of social media to report on the activities of the three (3) designated prosecutors working in Neighborhood Deputy District Attorney (NODA) program. While their activities have historically been included on both the District Attorney's Office website and on social media, additional information can be provided to the community. The NDDAs engage the San Joaquin County citizens through participation in community activities, close working relationships with members of the Board of Supervisors' Offices, Behavioral Health Services, and other local agencies and organizations which address homelessness issues. The NDDAs also work collaboratively with the Stockton Police Department and other county agencies on the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program to find solutions for homeless individuals within Downtown footprint and neighboring areas in the City of Stockton. The District Attorney's Office will expand the scope of information shared on its website to include data and analysis of this successful collaboration and the direct work currently being done with homeless individuals. The District Attorney also regularly provides updates, offers feedback, and continues to work collaboratively with other "Designated Lead Departments" to address homelessness within the San Joaquin County community. This work and involvement with the aforementioned Departments and programs, and the additional engagement outlined in Finding 1.4 below, will continue in Fiscal year 2020- 2021. 226 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.3: Holding Homelessness Court only in Stockton denies access to many individuals and is inconsistent with the intent of the Quality of Life Policy, which is to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: We agree with this Finding. The District Attorney's Office is supportive of the San Joaquin County Superior Court expanding the reach of Homeless Court outside Stockton to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. The Homeless Court is one function of the Superior Court's Collaborative Court system. It is currently held on the last Friday of the month at St. Mary's Dining Room in Stockton, which offers a location outside the traditional courtroom setting. The San Joaquin County Superior Court currently operates circuit courts in two additional communities, the City of Manteca and the City of Lodi. The Manteca circuit court currently serves the City of Tracy community in addition to the citizens of the City of Manteca. The Tracy circuit court has been and remains closed. The District Attorney’s Office will work collaboratively with the San Joaquin County Superior Court should a decision be made to hold Homeless Court in the Manteca, Tracy and/or Lodi jurisdictions at appropriate locations outside the traditional courtroom setting similar to what occurs in Stockton. The District Attorney's Office will work collaboratively with those organizations who join in supporting the operation of Homeless Courts in those locations frequently accessed by homeless individuals. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1.4: The four Designated Lead Departments are successfully prioritizing homelessness and implementing the Quality of Life Policy to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: We agree with this Finding. At this time, most communities throughout the country are facing and working hard to address homelessness in order to make this circumstance brief, rare and a one-time occurrence. The sheer magnitude and scope of the work is complex and varies substantially in each community based on the extent of homeless population itself, as well as the availability of local resources and services. Each of the "Designated Lead Departments" are prioritizing homelessness and implementing the County's Quality of Life Policy. Representatives of the District Attorney's Office continue to participate with the activities of the San Joaquin County Continuum of Care (Coe) and its related meetings and committees. In addition, the District Attorney's Office has participated as a core member of the COVID-19 Homeless Coalition and Hotel Taskforce, creating a partnership with the Human Services Agency (HSA) with operational plans for shelter screenings, emergency COVID-19 response planning for homeless individuals, referrals to Project Roomkey, and coordinated care for guests. This participation with representatives of the four (4) "Designated Lead Departments" will continue in Fiscal year 2020-2021. In addition to the aforementioned work of the District Attorney's Office prosecutors assigned as Neighborhood Deputy District Attorneys (NDDAs) and the work with the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program, prosecutors in the District Attorney's Quality of Life (QoL) Division will continue work combatting illegal dumping, environmental concerns, arson cases, public nuisance actions and other related issues. These prosecutors work collaboratively with local and statewide agencies to address issues affecting the general public and those experiencing homelessness. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: By March 1, 2021, the San Joaquin Board of Supervisors develop and publish an easy-to-find, plain language website that includes a description of efforts made to address and limit the impacts of homelessness in San Joaquin County. Agency Response: The District Attorney's Office will not implement this Recommendation as the Recommendation is directed to the County Board of Supervisors. The District Attorney's Office does support the development and implementation of the website suggested in this Recommendation and will contribute information for the website as requested. The recommendation from the Grand Jury supports conveying a consistent countywide message through a dedicated website for access by homeless community members, those assisting these individuals, and by members of the general public. This supports an ease of information to and for the very individuals who need access to the services outlined on the website. The recommendation to develop and implement a unified website will allow the general public to understand exactly what services are being provided and the goals that have been accomplished within the County in one specific location rather than having to access multiple websites or seek information from a variety of sources. This will assist in dissuading the false impression within the community that little or no work is being done or accomplished to address homelessness within San Joaquin County by the departments, agencies, and organizations tasked with doing so. By way of example, the Mecklenburg County Housing and Homelessness Dashboard in Charlotte, North Carolina, created with the support of the University of North Carolina, provides an example of a plain language website, designed for public access. This website was not created by policy or program providers, and demonstrates an ease of information sharing. A coordinated framework provides clear and easy to understand information on the inflow and outflow of those individuals experiencing homelessness. Additional relevant data points are shared in the Dashboard, such as information on wages, prevailing rental rates in the jurisdiction, work being done to assist those out of homelessness status, and school district estimates of homeless children. Reporting on these same data points, and others of local interest, will be an effective method of conveying key information from the unified website to the citizens of the San Joaquin County community. It is evident the Mecklenburg County Housing and Homelessness Dashboard has been growing in its sophistication and design over recent years. By leveraging from various examples like this one, San Joaquin County can launch the dedicated plain language website as recommended by the Grand Jury which continues the work to meet the needs of this community. For additional information, please see their website at https://mecklenburghousingdata.org/. As stated above, the District Attorney's Office supports the development of this website, will link its own website as a "Dedicated Lead Department", and work with County ISD to ensure the accuracy of relevant criminal justice information contained on the website, as well as providing regular information for inclusion on the website as requested. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 4.0 City Responses: 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.1: Although many residents are interested in how homelessness is being managed, only the City of Lodi has published accomplishments in plain language on its website. This lack of readily available information makes it difficult for residents to understand what is being done to address homelessness. Agency Response (City of Stockton): The City agrees with this finding Agency Response (City of Tracy): The City disagrees partially with this finding. Agency Response (City of Manteca): The City of Manteca plans to provide more information on what the City has done regarding homelessness. This will include creating a dedicated page on the City’s website indicating what has been done to date. The City will continue to update the webpage as additional items have been completed. Agency Response (City of Lathrop): Council disagrees partially with the finding of the Grand Jury. Many sources of information from numerous entities provide information on what is being done to address homelessness. That saidm the City will add information to our website as detailed in response to the Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1 below. Agency Response (City of Ripon): The City acknowledges Finding F3. 1 and recognizes the need for Ripon residents to have ready access to useful and understandable information concerning homelessness and the responsive measures of their City. This information should focus on the direct, tangible and effective steps taken by the Ripon Police Department and City government as a whole. Moreover, the City will endeavor to provide information in a format free of 229 the unnecessary jargon, euphemism and abstractions which all too often characterize government communications. Agency Response (City of Escalon): The City of Escalon acknowledges Finding F3.1 and recognizes the need for Escalon residents to have ready access to useful and understandable information concerning homelessness and the responsive measures of their City. This information should focus on the direct, tangible, and effective steps taken by the Escalon Police Department and City government as a whole. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.2: There is a need for community-wide planning and strategic use of resources for homelessness involving all cities within the County. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.3: It is important to establish a coordinated and regional system of care for the homeless community to improve services while addressing and limiting the impact of homelessness. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.4: Publishing a plain-language website titled What Lodi Has Done for has made it easier for the public to readily understand the actions the city has taken to address homelessness. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.5: The leadership shown recently by the City of Stockton in working with San Joaquin County towards a shared goal of obtaining funds will streamline processes and result in improved efficiency. Agency Response (City of Stockton): The City agrees with this finding 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3.6: Stockton’s leadership efforts in securing a regional strategic plan speaks to the current spirit of collaboration and communication between Stockton, San Joaquin County, and the San Joaquin Continuum of Care. Agency Response (City of Stockton): The City agrees with this finding 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1: By December 30, 2020, the Cities of Stockton, Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon, and Escalon post plain language information on their website that outlines the actions each city has taken to address homelessness. Agency Response (City of Stockton): The City will post in plain language, information that outlines our programs and actions taken to address homelessness no later than December 30, 2020. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Tracy): This recommendation has been implemented The City of Tracy established a dedicated webpage to Homelessness in in April 2019, shortly after the Tracy City Council established the Council Ad Hoc Committee to guide the creation of a Tracy Homelessness Strategic Plan. The web page clearly outlines specific Council and staff activities related to homeless and provides hyperlinks to City Council meetings, staff reports as well as links to other resources such as County Behavioral Health, Tracy Community Connections as well as serves as a one-stop-shop for linking interested visitors to additional homelessness resources including updated information from the Center for Disease Control' s guidance with respect to homeless individuals and service providers. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Manteca): The City of Manteca is actively working on creating a dedicated page on the City’s website indicating what has been done to date as it relates to homelessness. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Lathrop): The Recommendation R3.1 has not yet been implemented. Implementation and links to information from the San Joaquin Continuum of Care (http//www.sanjoaquincoc.org/) will be added to the City of Lathrop’s website within 90 days. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Ripon): In response to Recommendation R3.1, the City will post the information referenced above on its website (www.cityofripon.org), and will provide updates as events warrant. The City plans to have a separate tab entitled "ChiefOrrnonde's Update on Homelessness-Action, Not Paperwork", which will be updated monthly at a minimum. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Escalon): In response to Recommendation R3.1, the City will post the information referenced above on its website www.cityofescalon.org and make updates as warranted. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.2: By December 30, 2020, the Cities of Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon and Escalon adopt the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary 231 organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness. Agency Response (City of Tracy): This recommendation has not yet been implemented. Upon Council direction, staff will return to Council with a resolution adopting the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the City of Tracy will work with the County and other cities to develop solutions to homelessness. On December 1, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-198, which adopted the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness for San Joaquin County. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Manteca): The City of Manteca has a longstanding relationship with the San Joaquin Continuum of Care (SJCoC) and are active participants. Currently, a City of Manteca staff member is on the board as well as another staff member attending the monthly regional meetings on a monthly basis. The City of Manteca recognizes the value of the SJCoC and is committed to continuing the partnership and efforts of addressing homelessness. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Lathrop): This recommendation is implemented with City Council’s approval of this response to the extent that “adoption” of the Continuum of Care does not commit the City of Lathrop to directly fund implementation costs incurred by other entities since the City of Lathrop incurs its own costs to address homelessness. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Ripon): In response to Recommendation R3.2 and 3.3, the City of Ripon will place a resolution on a City Council agenda by December 30, 2020 for consideration by the Council. The resolution will propose that the City of Ripon adopt the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness, and officially acknowledge and support the Program Administrator for Homeless Initiatives position as the homeless coordinator for San Joaquin County. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Escalon): In response to Recommendation R3.2 and R3.3, the City of Escalon will place a resolution on a City Council agenda by December 30, 2020, for consideration by the Council. The resolution will propose that the City of Escalon adopt the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness, and officially acknowledge and support the Program Administrator for Homeless Initiatives position as the homeless coordinator for San Joaquin County. On December 7, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 64-20, which adopted the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness for San Joaquin County. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.3: By December 30, 2020, the Cities of Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon and Escalon in open forum officially acknowledge and support the Program Administrator for Homeless Initiatives position as the homeless coordinator for San Joaquin County. Agency Response (City of Tracy): This recommendation requires further analysis. It is unclear what "support" means in the context of this recommendation. Staff will seek clarification from the Grand Jury to better understand its definition of "support" and what action(s) would demonstrate "support" of the San Joaquin County Homeless Coordinator position. Staff will endeavor to obtain the information and return to Council with a recommendation by December 30, 2020. With the adoption of Resolution 2020-198 on December 1, 2020, the City Council did officially acknowledge and support the Program Administrator for Homeless Initiatives position as the homeless coordinator for San Joaquin County. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Manteca): While the City of Manteca recognizes the San Joaquin County’s Program Administrator for Homelessness Initiatives as the county contact focused on a regional approach to homeless issues, the City believes in a more customized approach in addressing and managing the specific needs of the homeless community within Manteca. Therefore, the City’s focus is to utilize City staff on creating a more robust approach to addressing homelessness within Manteca. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Lathrop): 233 The recommendation is implemented with City Council’s approval of this response to the extent that “support” of the Program Administrator for the Homeless Initiatives position does not commit to City of Lathrop to directly fund such position since the City of Lathrop incurs its own costs to address homelessness. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Ripon): In response to Recommendation R3.2 and 3.3, the City of Ripon will place a resolution on a City Council agenda by December 30, 2020 for consideration by the Council. The resolution will propose that the City of Ripon adopt the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness, and officially acknowledge and support the Program Administrator for Homeless Initiatives position as the homeless coordinator for San Joaquin County. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Agency Response (City of Escalon): In response to Recommendation R3.2 and R3.3, the City of Escalon will place a resolution on a City Council agenda by December 30, 2020, for consideration by the Council. The resolution will propose that the City of Escalon adopt the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness, and officially acknowledge and support the Program Administrator for Homeless Initiatives position as the homeless coordinator for San Joaquin County. On December 7, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 64-20, which adopted the San Joaquin Continuum of Care as the primary organization through which the County and cities work together to develop solutions to homelessness for San Joaquin County. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Acknowledgement The Grand Jury wishes to acknowledge the San Joaquin Continuum of Care (SJCoC) organization for its efforts in coordinating a strategic approach for community-wide planning and use of resources for homelessness involving all cities within the County. This non-governmental, non- incorporated association meets the requirements of Code of Federal Regulations 24 Part 578 as a collaborative and coordinating non-profit system. It includes government, homeless housing and service providers, and other community interests that increases public awareness and promotes programs that address the needs of the County’s homeless population. The Grand Jury believes many of its recommendations for action are addressed through the SJCoC’s San Joaquin Community Response to Homelessness strategic plan document, which was developed in 2020. For more information please view Response to Homelessness Strategic Plan June 2020, http://www.sanjoaquincoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/San-Joaquin- Community-Response-to-Homelessness-Strategic-Plan-June-2020.pdf . Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code 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). Follow-up Report to the 2019 - 2020 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Illegal Dumping: Talking Trash (2019-2020 Case #0519) Illegal Dumping: Talking Trash Case #0519 Preface This report contains the responses to the 2019-2020 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding illegal dumping in San Joaquin County. This follow-up report focuses on the 2019- 2020 Grand Jury findings and recommendations, as well as agency responses, which are presented verbatim in this report. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agency’s response to each recommendation. Photo courtesy of The Record Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agencies responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/. Summary The 2019-2020 Grand Jury investigated the complex issue of illegal dumping in San Joaquin County. The investigation produced multiple findings and recommendations, requiring responses from the County Board of Supervisors and the City of Stockton. The City of Stockton responded with their willingness to participate in all the recommendations. Their participation, however, is dependent upon developing and mobilizing the illegal dumping Task Force by San 237 Joaquin County. It is possible that the outbreak of the COVID pandemic had a direct impact on the ability to fulfill the recommendations of the Grand Jury. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury made multiple attempts to obtain verification of the Task Force formation, as well as resolution of the recommendations. Only the recommendation of the assignment of an Administrative Hearing Officer for code enforcement has been fulfilled. All other recommendations remain unsatisfied. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the 2019-2020 responses to the report, #0519, Illegal Dumping: Talking Trash and documented the mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations. These responses were then reviewed to determine if • the agency responses were complete and comprehensible; • the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • confirmation, including written documentation and interviews, was necessary. Follow up interviews were conducted, and surveys were sent to individuals who had knowledge of, or contributed to, the response preparation. Summary of Responses and 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusions 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion 2019-2020 Respondent Rec # Response Rec# Due Date Conclusion SJ County R1 December 31, 2021 Will be Further action Board of R1 implemented required Supervisors R2 Implemented No further action R3 Will be R2.1 December 31, 2021 Further action implemented required R2.2 December 31, 2021 Further action required R4 Will be R3 December 31, 2021 Further action implemented required R5 Requires R4 December 31, 2021 Further action further required analysis R6 Will be R5 December 31, 2021 Further action implemented required 238 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion 2019-2020 Respondent Rec # Response Rec# Due Date Conclusion R7 Will be R6 December 31, 2021 Further action implemented required R8 Will be R7 December 31, 2021 Further action implemented required City of R4 Will be No further action Stockton implemented R5 Will be No further action implemented R6 Will be No further action implemented R7 Will be No further action implemented R8 Will be No further action implemented Findings, Recommendations, and Agency Responses Board of Supervisors 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1: Illegal dumping has increased in part because the County has not created a strong, enforceable ordinance to deter illegal dumping. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury’s finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2: There is no designated hearing officer and other staff required to enforce ordinances, leading to less effective enforcement. Agency Response: Disagree San Joaquin County Ordinance Code Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 5 Hearing Officer of the County of San Joaquin established the position of Hearing Officer of the County for the purpose of adjudicating enforcement actions under the code. An Officer appointed by the Board pursuant to this Chapter is available to enforce ordinances regarding illegal dumping. However, at this time the County lacks an effective ordinance or process to effectively eradicate illegal dumping. 239 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3: San Joaquin County lacks sufficient surveillance equipment to monitor dumping hotspots and to prosecute illegal dumpers. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury’s finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F4: San Joaquin County Public Works Department, Sheriff’s Office, Community Development Department, District Attorney’s Office, and all city departments within the county are not working collaboratively to address the illegal dumping problems. Agency Response: Disagree The named County Departments work together collaboratively as the law currently allows. However, at this time the County lacks ordinances and processes to effectively eradicate illegal dumping within the County. Accordingly, in the summer of 2020 the County and City began initial efforts to work together to create a joint pilot program that will provide data and effective strategies for each jurisdiction to significantly reduce illegal dumping. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F5: San Joaquin County and the City of Stockton are not working together to share in the cost of illegal dumping cleanup. County Board of Supervisors Response: Disagree The law does not allow one jurisdiction to use funding that is allocated for a specific purpose in a separate jurisdiction. However, the County and the City are currently working together to create a joint pilot program that will provide data and effective strategies for each jurisdiction to significantly reduce illegal dumping and will also consider funding options for any proposed operations. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F6: Free drop-off services are underutilized because the public is unaware of most of the programs offered. County Board of Supervisors Response: Agree Mattress, tires, and appliances can be disposed of by residents at no charge, and yet these items are commonly dumped illegally. For example, in the first seven months of calendar year 2020, the Department of Public Works- Road Maintenance Division picked up 568 appliances, 456 mattresses, and 2,415 tires that were illegally dumped on the road right-of-way. All of these can be disposed of at no charge by individuals (but not by businesses). 240 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F7: San Joaquin County and the City of Stockton do not have a robust referral system for sharing reports of illegal dumping irrespective of jurisdiction. County Board of Supervisors Response: Disagree The County does refer and communicate with the City of Stockton about illegal dumping. When a member of the public calls the Department of Public Works to report illegal dumping, Public Works takes the report even if the illegal dumping is for a location within a City jurisdiction, and passes the information on to the correct jurisdiction. However, the County agrees that the jurisdictions could formalize the referral process. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F8: Effective cleanup incentives such as disposal vouchers, fee waivers, and recycling coupons have proven effective in reducing the likelihood of illegal dumping. County Board of Supervisors Response: Disagree Every residential garbage customer in the unincorporated County may request one free collection or disposal voucher from their garbage collection contractor. In 2019, the County and its contractors issued 7,164 no-cost disposal vouchers, and collected 172 tons of waste at free community cleanup events. Through the first nine months of 2020, the County and its contractors have issued 6,944 disposal vouchers and collected 193 tons of waste at free community cleanup events, and yet illegal dumping has increased dramatically in the County. Accordingly, the County Public Works Department intends to explore strategies to assist residents and communities in utilizing vouchers, fee waivers, and recycling coupons more easily and effectively as part of the joint pilot program. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By December 31, 2020, develop and adopt an enforceable ordinance to deter illegal dumping which includes a mechanism for collecting fines, an appeals process, and a way to recoup the cost of administration from the illegal dumpers. County Board of Supervisors Response: This recommendation will be implemented but not by December 31, 2020. The County is currently taking the lead on developing a Joint Illegal Dumping Pilot Project with the City of Stockton in order to use shared data to identify two to five illegal dumping hotspots and take joint, coordinated, comprehensive, proactive strategies and actions that can be replicated and scaled to eradicate illegal dumping in an effective and equitable way. The plan is to include the development of an enforceable ordinance within the County to deter illegal dumping. The ordinance is envisioned to include mechanisms for cost recovery, fines, penalties, and also non monetary components such as community service. The timeline of specific strategies, actions, and programs within the Project will be initially developed by participatory members and then operationalized for maximum efficiency and effectiveness. 241 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2020-2021 Grand Jury found there is no current ordinance addressing the issue. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F1: Illegal dumping continues, in part, because the County has still not created a strong, enforceable ordinance to deter illegal dumping. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By December 31, 2021, develop and adopt, an enforceable ordinance to deter illegal dumping which includes a mechanism for collecting fines, an appeals process, and a way to recoup the cost of administration from the illegal dumpers. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R2: By December 31, 2020, designate an Administrative Hearing Officer along with Public Works staff for enforcement. Agency Response: This recommendation has been implemented. San Joaquin County Ordinance Code Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 5 Hearing Officer of the County of San Joaquin established the position of Hearing Officer of the County for the purpose of adjudicating enforcement actions under the code. An Officer appointed by the Board pursuant to this Chapter is available to enforce ordinances regarding illegal dumping. Currently, when the County discovers evidence of illegal dumping activity, staff clean it up as capacity provides and refer it to the Sheriff's Office for investigation, which then works with the District Attorney's Office for prosecution. Under the Pilot Program, it is envisioned the County Code Enforcement Officers will investigate violations of the newly adopted ordinance code sections regarding illegal dumping activity and, based on their findings, will refer the matter to the District Attorney's Office, issue a citation, or take administrative action, which, if appealed, will utilize the County's Hearing Officer. The administrative action will allow for cost recovery in a fair manner. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: By December 31, 2020, obtain and install appropriate surveillance equipment, such as lighting and cameras, in the top five dumping hotspots. Agency Response: This recommendation will be Implemented. The Department of Public works intends to install appropriate surveillance equipment at five illegal dumping spots as part of the Farm Ranch Rural grant. The equipment will be monitored. The anticipated time frame is by the end of December 2020. 242 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2020-2021 Grand Jury received conflicting information from the Board of Supervisors and Public Works Department regarding the existence of the surveillance cameras and their monitoring. The Grand Jury was not able to confirm whether the surveillance cameras were purchased, installed, or who will be providing monitoring services. Although requests were made no verifiable responses were submitted. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F2: San Joaquin County still lacks sufficient surveillance equipment to monitor dumping hotspots and to prosecute illegal dumpers. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: By December 31, 2021, obtain and install appropriate surveillance equipment, such as lighting and cameras, in the top five dumping hotspots. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.2: By December 31, 2021, develop and adopt a plan for ongoing monitoring of the cameras. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R4: By November 30, 2020, create an illegal dumping task force (Task Force) that includes representatives from San Joaquin County Public Works Department, Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, Community Development, and all cities within the County to participate in the Task Force. This Task Force meet regularly throughout the year. Board of Supervisors Response: This recommendation will be implemented but not by November 30, 2020. The County is currently working on proposing a Joint Illegal Dumping Pilot Project with the City of Stockton in order to use shared data to identify two to five illegal dumping hotspots and take joint, coordinated, comprehensive, proactive strategies and actions that can be replicated and scaled to reduce illegal dumping in an effective and equitable way. The Project development team intends to present the proposal to the Board of Supervisors later this year. The presentation will include a request to the respective jurisdictions to formalize the Joint Pilot Project development group into a formal task force to move the Joint Pilot Project forward pursuant to the timeline presented. It is anticipated to present the proposal to the Board of Supervisors before the end of this year. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2020-2021 Grand Jury made multiple requests into the status of the Joint Illegal Dumping Task Force or Pilot Project including leadership, membership, meeting schedules, task force goals, and planning timelines. Inconsistent responses were received. 243 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F3: No verifiable information regarding the existence of the Joint Illegal Dumping Pilot Project or Task Force have been provided, thus the Grand Jury cannot definitively conclude that such programs exist. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: By December 31, 2021, develop and adopt the county-wide Task Force, which includes representation from San Joaquin County Public Works Department, Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, Community Development, and all cities within the County. This Task Force meet regularly throughout the year. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R5: By December 31, 2020, the newly formed Task Force develop a plan to share costs for illegal dumping pickup throughout the County and the City of Stockton. Agency Response: This Recommendation requires further analysis. Legal limitations prevent each jurisdiction from sharing the specific costs of physical cleanup outside of their respective jurisdictions. However, the County is currently working on proposing an Illegal Dumping Pilot Project with a goal that participating jurisdictions will share the cost of developing ordinances, strategies, campaigns, and programs and performing outcome analysis for reporting purposes. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2020-2021 Grand Jury made multiple requests as to the status of the Task Force and concluded there is no Task Force in place. Because of this, there is no plan in place to share costs. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F4: Legal limitations continue to prevent each jurisdiction from sharing the specific costs of cleanup outside of their respective jurisdictions, making a coordinated response difficult. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R4: By December 31, 2021, the newly formed Task Force develop a plan to share costs for illegal dumping pickup throughout the County and the City of Stockton. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R6: By January 31, 2021, the Task Force develop and implement a county-wide educational program including billboards, buses, and bus stop shelters advertising to include information about free drop-off services. Agency Response: This recommendation will be implemented but not by January 31, 2021. San Joaquin County is currently working on a Pilot Program to address illegal dumping. One proposed component would be an educational component to include targeted multi- media messaging regarding illegal dumping enforcement, eradication efforts, and equity programs that will assist resident and community utilization of vouchers, fee 244 waivers, and recycling coupons more easily and effectively. This campaign will be developed and deployed pursuant to a project timeline once established. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2020-2021 Grand Jury made multiple requests as to the status of the Task Force and concluded there is no Task Force in place. Because of this, there is no county-wide multimedia campaign to inform the public of the free drop off services. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F5: Free drop-off services continue to be underutilized because the public is unaware of most of the programs offered. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R5: By December 31, 2021, the Task Force establish a project timeline to launch the multi-media campaign. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R7: By January 31, 2021, the Task Force create a referral system to notify the appropriate jurisdictions of illegal dumping. This referral system include a complaint-recording data log with follow-up measures. Agency Response: This recommendation will be implemented but not by January 31, 2021. The Pilot Project will analyze, identify, and include effective methods of referrals of illegal dumping to the appropriate jurisdiction (local or state) with follow-up documentation and protocol included in the proposal. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2020-2021 Grand Jury made multiple requests as to the status of the Task Force and concluded there is no Task Force in place. Currently, Public Works takes the reports of illegal dumping and forwards them on to the appropriate jurisdiction, but there is no formal process. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F6: There is no formal procedure to ensure complaints are resolved. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R6: By December 31, 2021, the Task Force develop a complaint log and referral system to notify appropriate jurisdictions and to ensure complaints are resolved. 245 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R8: By January 31, 2021, the Task Force develop a written plan to establish an equitable way to fund and issue vouchers, fee waivers, and recycling coupons. Agency Response: This recommendation will be implemented but not by January 31, 2021. The proposed Pilot Project will utilize an approach that analyzes equity in addressing illegal dumping. Accordingly, the Pilot Project will develop a plan for equitably distributing benefits like vouchers, fee waivers, and recycling coupons, and also addressing other factors that limit resident or community utilization of those tools. For example, distribution of such tools does not eradicate illegal dumping if transportation to disposal sites is not available. In those instances, the Pilot Project will explore, experiment, and then evaluate the most effective strategies to assist those communities by doing pick-ups or localized drop-offs. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The 2020-2021 Grand Jury made multiple requests as to the status of the Task Force and concluded there is no Task Force in place. Therefore, no written plan has been established to share funding sources or distribute vouchers, fee- waivers, and recycling coupons. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F7: Fee waivers, coupons, and vouchers are available, but are still not being utilized. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R7: By December 31, 2021, the Task Force establish funding sources and implement a program that will equitably distribute vouchers, waivers, and coupons to the community. City of Stockton 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F4: San Joaquin County Public Works Department, Sheriff’s Office, Community Development Department, District Attorney’s Office, and all city departments within the county are not working collaboratively to address the illegal dumping problems. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F5: San Joaquin County and the City of Stockton are not working together to share in the cost of illegal dumping cleanup. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. The City assumes costs where appropriate for removal of garbage, junk, and debris within the city limits only. 246 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F6: Free drop-off services are underutilized because the public is unaware of most of the programs offered. Agency Response: The City partially agrees with this finding. The City provides some outreach regarding available free disposal programs and/or events such as Clean Sweep. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F7: San Joaquin County and the City of Stockton do not have a robust referral system for sharing reports of illegal dumping irrespective of jurisdiction. Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F8: Effective cleanup incentives such as disposal vouchers, fee waivers, and recycling coupons have proven effective in reducing the likelihood of illegal dumping. Agency Response: The City is neutral to this finding. The City does not have data to support or refute success with a cleanup incentive program. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R4: By November 30, 2020, create an illegal dumping task force (Task Force) that includes representatives from San Joaquin County Public Works Department, Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, Community Development, and all cities within the County to participate in the Task Force. This Task Force meet regularly throughout the year. Agency Response: Upon convening of such a task force by San Joaquin County, the City will provide an appropriate representative(s). The City of Stockton has agreed to participate in the proposed Task Force, however, until the Task Force is established, the City of Stockton will be unable to fulfill their agreed upon recommendations. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R5: By December 31, 2020, the newly formed Task Force develop a plan to share costs for illegal dumping pickup throughout the County and the City of Stockton. Agency Response: The City will participate on the task force to include the assessment of possible cost- sharing opportunities. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R6: By January 31, 2021, the Task Force develop and implement a county-wide educational program including billboards, buses, and bus stop shelters advertising to include information about free drop-off services. Agency Response: The City will participate on the task force, to include assessment of educational programming. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R7: By January 31, 2021, the Task Force create a referral system to notify the appropriate jurisdictions of illegal dumping. This referral system include a complaint-recording data log with follow-up measures. Agency Response: The City will participate on the task force, to include the exploration of a shared referral/tracking system. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R8: By January 31, 2021, the Task Force develop a written plan to establish an equitable way to fund and issue vouchers, fee waivers, and recycling coupons. Agency Response: The City will participate on the task force, to include identification and assessment of equitable funding opportunities for vouchers, fee waivers, and recycling coupons. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code 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 San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to findings and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Xapuri B. Villapudua, 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 249 Follow-up to the 2019 - 2020 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report Office of the Public Defender: Conflict, Mistrust, Lawsuits (2019-2020 Case #0819) San Joaquin County Office of the Public Defender: Conflict, Mistrust, Lawsuits A Perfect Storm Case #0819 Preface This report contains the responses to the 2019-2020 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding the San Joaquin County Public Defender’s Office. This report focuses on the 2019- 2020 Grand Jury findings and recommendations, as well as agency responses, which are presented verbatim in this report. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury follow-up conclusions are presented after the agency responses to each recommendation. Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2020-2021 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agency responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/. Summary The San Joaquin County 2019-2020 Grand Jury investigated the Office of the Public Defender to determine the reason for a disproportionally high number of internal complaints filed and the resulting continuing costs to the county to resolve them. The Grand Jury found there to be several incidents and allegations that led to • the questioning of leadership by some employees; • the formation of cliques within the department; • a cloud of distrust and a lack of cohesiveness throughout the office; • the filing of a high number of internal complaints; and • lawsuits. The Grand Jury found management followed all established policies and procedures in handling complaints, but problems continued to escalate. Communication back to employees was impacted by confidentiality rules. The Grand Jury also found there to be a disconnect between various groups within the department and recommended an independent review of departmental structure and operations to include recommendations for improvement. The Board of Supervisors disagreed with the Grand Jury findings and took no action on the recommendations. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2020-2021 Grand Jury reviewed the 2019-2020 responses to the report, #0819 San Joaquin County Office of the Public Defender: Conflict, Mistrust, Lawsuits, A Perfect Storm, and documented the mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations. These responses were then reviewed to determine if • the agency responses were complete and comprehensible; • the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • confirmation, including written documentation and interviews, was necessary. Follow up interviews were conducted with individuals who had knowledge of, or contributed to, the response preparation. Glossary • Complaint: Any dispute between the county and one or more employees or a recognized employee organization concerning the interpretation or application of ordinances, resolutions, policies, procedures, or agreements, including memoranda of understanding, on matters within the scope of representation. • County: San Joaquin County • EEO: Equal Employment Opportunity • HR: Human Resources Division 252 • Management: Public Defender, Assistant Public Defender, Chief Public Defenders, and Chief Investigator • Public Defender’s Office: Refers to the Department • Public Defender: The department head of the Public Defender’s Office Summary of Responses and 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusions 2019-2020 Respondent Response 2020-2021 Grand Jury Conclusion Rec # SJ County Board Will not be R1.1 No further action taken of Supervisors implemented R1.2 Will not be No further action taken implemented R1.3 Will not be No further action taken implemented Findings and Agency Responses 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1: Employees of the Public Defender’s Office filed a disproportionate number of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints compared to all other County Departments. Agency Response: Disagree Disagree, while the Public Defender's Office received EEO complaints, the number of complaints may represent a single complainant with multiple responding parties. Additionally, the number of complaints received is not an appropriate measure of analysis regarding a department's EEO compliance. In response to the information requested by the Grand Jury regarding the number of EEO complaints received by County Department during the period (2010 through 2019), 2 other County Departments had more EEO Complaints than the 19 received from Public Defender's Office. This is also true for the time-period 2015-2019, which the Grand Jury also requested; where the Public Defender's Office was one of two County departments that received the highest number of EEO related complaints 18 compared to other County departments that received complaints as high as 12 and 13 in total. In summary, it is the County's assessment of this data that the Public Defender's Office did not receive a disproportionate number of EEO related complaints compared to other County departments. In addition, of the 19 complaints received, 7 complaints had substantiated findings, and the other 12 were investigated to be unsubstantiated with no violations of County policy. In each of these cases, the Public Defender's Office did take appropriate corrective action and accepted the County Human Resources-EEO Office advisory recommendation to address all seven findings. 253 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2: Confidentiality rules prevented Management from sharing any information on EEO complaints. This lack of communication caused angst and distrust in the department. Agency Response: Agree in Part Standard practice regarding County personnel investigations, including EEO complaints, requires information remain confidential. Individuals receive information on a need to know basis. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3: Management followed San Joaquin County Human Resources Department (HR) policies and procedures for addressing EEO complaints. Agency Response: Agree with Clarification San Joaquin County Human Resources has not been informed of Public Defender executive level management deviating from HR policies and procedures for addressing EEO complaints. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F4: In spite of following HR policies and procedures, problems continued to escalate within the Public Defender’s Office. Agency Response: Disagree This assumes that the HR policies and procedures contain a framework that can de escalate issues. Employees with EEO complaints are encouraged to make complaints so they may be investigated and corrective action, if necessary, can be taken. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F5: Past and present personnel issues created division and disruption between Deputy Public Defenders and Management, fueling a breakdown of trust and communication. Agency Response: Agree in part Past personnel issues created division and disruption between some deputy public defenders and some management and fueled some level of a breakdown of trust and communication due, in part, to confidentiality constraints. Disagree in part There are no current or present personnel issues creating division and disruption between all deputy public defenders and all management and the past personnel issues which created the division and disruption were not between all Deputy Public Defenders and Management. 254 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F6: Past and present personnel issues created division and disruption between Public Defender Investigators, the Chief Investigator, and Management, fueling a breakdown of trust and communication. Agency Response: Agree in part Past personnel issues created division and disruption between some Public Defender Investigators, the Chief Investigator, and some Management fueling a breakdown of trust and communication due, in part, to confidential constraints. Disagree in part There are no present personnel issues creating division and disruption. The past personnel issues which created the division and disruption were not between all Public Defender Investigators, the Chief Investigator, and all Management. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F7: The culture, divisions, and atmosphere of the Office did not lend itself to good intra-departmental communications or de-escalation of conflicts. Agency Response: Disagree Not all employees of the Office were involved in the division. In addition, all employees were expected to, and did, continue to communicate with each other regarding work related matters. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F8: Lack of respect and professionalism within the Public Defender’s Office contributed to division and disruption. Agency Response: Disagree The division and disruption among some staff was fueled by personnel matters, not necessarily connected to lack of respect and professionalism. The Grand Jury report identified four Public Defender Investigator complaints filed that were major contributors to a breakdown of trust and communication. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F9: The Department has an intensive, time-consuming mission. The turmoil, as described in this report, placed additional stress on an already hard-working staff. Agency Response: Agree San Joaquin County concurs with the Grand Jury's finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F10: The turmoil in the Department led to a significant and preventable expenditure of taxpayer dollars. Agency Response: Disagree Disagree that the turmoil led to significant and preventable expenditure. Rules, policies, and laws constrained Management from releasing information on the progress and 255 resolution of complaint investigations, which contributed to the turmoil. Specific events identified in the Grand Jury report were major contributors to the breakdown of trust and communication. Recommendations and Agency Responses 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: By December 31, 2020 the Human Resources Division of San Joaquin County hire an independent consultant to conduct a thorough operational review of all aspects of the Public Defender’s Office. Agency Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. The recommendation is incongruent with the Grand Jury's focus and findings of the investigation of the Department, which related exclusively to personnel issues and not to structural or operational review or findings of any inadequacies. Therefore, their investigation and findings do not warrant hiring an independent consultant to conduct a thorough operational review of all aspects of the Department. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors elected not to implement the recommendation. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. See Conclusion. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: By June 30, 2021 present the consultant’s report including recommendations to the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. Agency Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. Because the investigation and findings related exclusively to personnel matters, there is no justification to hire an independent consultant to conduct a thorough operational review of the Department. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors elected not to implement the recommendation. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. See Conclusion. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.3: By September 30, 2021 develop and implement a plan to utilize the recommendations from the operational review. Agency Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. In addition to the responses to R1.1 and R1.2, and assuming arguendo that there is justification to hire an independent consultant, a response cannot be made without knowing what the recommendations are from the operational review. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors elected not to implement the recommendation. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. See Conclusion. Conclusion The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors disagreed either in whole, or in part, with the 2019-2020 Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations. During the follow up investigation performed by the 2020-2021 Grand Jury, it was determined that much of the disagreement resulted from differences in interpretation of the report’s content and intent. The original report can be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code 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). Section VI: Tours and Presentations Tours ................................................................................................... S N Presentations...................................................................................... O I T A T N E S E R P & S R U O T 259 Tours Due to COVID-19, there were no tours. Presentations Escalon Police Department LAFCo (Local Agency Formation Commission) Lodi Police Department Manteca Police Department Mary Graham Children’s Shelter Ripon Police Department San Joaquin County District Attorney San Joaquin County Human Services Agency San Joaquin County Probation San Joaquin County Public Health Services San Joaquin County Public Works San Joaquin County Retirement Association San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office San Joaquin Delta College Police Department Stockton Police Department Stockton Unified School District Department of Public Safety Tracy Police Department University of the Pacific Police Department 261 Section VII: Grand Jury Process About the Grand Jury ....................................................................... How the Grand Jury is Organized ..................................................... Desirable Attributes of a Grand Juror .............................................. Benefits of Being a Grand Juror........................................................ Qualifications .................................................................................... Citizen Complaints ............................................................................ To Learn More .................................................................................. 267 263 snoitatneserP & sruoT S S E C O R P Y R U J D N A R G About the Grand Jury The San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury’s duty is to address citizens’ concerns regarding the operation of local government entities. The Civil Grand Jury is comprised of 19 citizens who are impaneled annually for a one-year term. The Grand Jury has a separate and different function than that of a trial jury and does not hear cases in a courtroom. Instead, Grand Jurors examine and investigate local governmental activities within San Joaquin County. The responsibilities of the Civil Grand Jury encompass the examination of all aspects of County government, including school and special districts, to ensure that the County is being governed lawfully, efficiently, and that public monies are being handled appropriately. The Grand Jury may conduct investigations of public agencies and the administration and affairs of any city within the County. The Grand Jury is authorized by law to: • Inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the County; • Investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of city and County offices, departments and their functions; • Inquire into the allegations of willful or corrupt misconduct of public officials; • Investigate into the activities of all school and special assessment districts within the County; • Submit a final report of its findings and recommendations to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. How the Grand Jury is Organized The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court empanels 19 Grand Jurors to serve for one year, fulfilling the duties as outlined under state law. The Judge appoints a foreperson who presides over the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury elects other officers and organizes itself. The jurors meet in a weekly general session. Smaller investigative committees meet throughout the week. In addition, Jurors meet with County and city officials, visit County detention facilities, and conduct independent reviews on matters of interest or concern. Each of the working committees report to the full Grand Jury. Conclusions are reached after study and thorough discussion of the issues and they may appear as part of the Grand Jury’s final report. Desirable Attributes of a Grand Juror Grand Jury service is a volunteer position with modest monthly compensation for meetings and mileage. Members receive a wealth of experience and provide a vital service to their community. Desirable attributes include: • Good health • An open mind • Knowledge of and interest in local government and community affairs 265 • Skill in working productively with others in a group setting where respect and patience are essential • Skill and experience in fact-finding, investigative techniques, and report writing Benefits of Being a Grand Juror The benefits of being a grand juror are many, including: • The satisfaction and pride of doing an important job. • The experience of being a member of a respected panel. • Being part of a body of people with the unique authority to see local government workings not available to most County citizens. • Being given an opportunity to make a difference in your community. Qualifications To be considered for nomination to be a grand juror, you must meet the following legal requirements: • Be a U.S. citizen; • Be at least 18 years old; • Be a resident of San Joaquin County for at least one year immediately prior to the beginning of your service; • Possess intelligence, sound judgment and good character; • Have sufficient knowledge of English language to communicate orally and in writing; You cannot be considered: • If you are serving as a trial juror in any court in California; • If you have been convicted of malfeasance in office or any other high crime; • If you are serving as an elected public officer. Citizen Complaints A cornerstone of the Grand Jury process is to receive and review citizen complaints which concerned persons submit as a mechanism to expose issues within governmental agencies. Because the Grand Jury is vested with certain powers to gather information, the members are able thoroughly review and investigate issues. Through review of documents and interview of witnesses, the Grand Jury process holds a strong light up to agencies to determine whether there appear to be any inefficiencies, mismanagement, or even corruption. The Grand Jury relies to a great extent on those persons who have the courage and the determination to suggest issues which may need to be investigated. The citizen complaint is a valuable tool. The Grand Jury receives complaints regarding all levels of local government, including special districts. Complaints may include, but are not limited to, allegations of misconduct by public officials or employees and inefficiencies in local government. Any citizen may submit a 266 complaint by completing a Complaint Form. However, not all complaints are investigated. With so many issues brought before it, the Grand Jury must make difficult decisions about what investigations to undertake during their term. If the issue identified in a complaint falls within the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction, it is first assigned to a preliminary committee to determine whether the complaint has merit. After an initial review, the committee presents its findings to the entire Grand Jury with recommendations for action. The Grand Jury then votes on the matter and thoroughly investigates those that are approved. After the investigation is complete, a final report is generated which reveals the findings and any recommendations the Grand Jury has in the matter. Complaints are treated as confidential. This allows a complainant to come forward without intimidation. A complaint should be submitted to the Grand Jury only after all attempts to correct an issue have been explored. The San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury complaint form can be found at: https://www.sjcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/GrandJuryComplaintForm2.pdf Send your completed form to: San Joaquin County Superior Court Attn: Trisa Martinez, Judicial Secretary 180 E. Weber Avenue, Suite 1114 Stockton, CA 95202 Forms also can be obtained by visiting or writing to the address above. The Grand Jury does not accept complaints via e-mail. To Learn More For more information about the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury visit: https://www.sjcourts.org/divisions/civil-grand-jury/#/ E. Weber Ave., Suite 1114 Stockton, CA 95202 267 269
F1.7.1:
Employees were afraid that if they complained they would become the subject of harassment and retaliation by management, causing them not to avail themselves of the existing grievance procedure, resulting in increased denigration of morale.
F1.7.2:
Complaints were not addressed and no action was taken until the large volume of complaints could no longer be ignored, resulting in frustration and low morale.
F2.2.1:
There currently is no explicit requirement for previous city management experience for the position of city manager, leading to the hiring of inexperienced and unqualified personnel.
F2.3.1:
The mayor and some councilmembers violated Municipal Code section 2.08.080. This circumvented the public’s right to have city business conducted in public, and caused confusion among staff, subverting the required chain of command.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 Micke Grove Zoo Today 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. The Micke Grove Zoo has some Policies and Procedures in place and which are housed in various shared folders on the County server. However, due to the organizational manner in which such files are kept, such files would not be considered a manual at this time. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: To be implemented. During Fiscal Year 2018-2019, the Parks Administrator and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager (Zoo Manager) began gathering written Policy and Procedure documents to begin a Zoo Policy and Procedure Manual. The Zoo Curator who has been the “keeper” of the documents began adding them to a centralized electronic shared folder entitled Zoo Policies. As documents are gathered the Zoo Manager and staff are reading through them to ensure the validity, 181 appropriateness, and applicability of each and determining if they need to be rewritten, deleted, or in some instances, created. The Policy and Procedures Manual for the Micke Grove Zoo has a completion date of June 30, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is creating a written Policy and Procedures Manual for all Micke Grove Zoo operations. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F1: The written Policy and Procedures Manual for all Micke Grove Zoo operations is needed. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By June 30, 2020, the San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division complete a written Policy and Procedures Manual for all Micke Grove Zoo operations. Agency Response: Has been implemented During Fiscal Year 2018-2019, the Parks Administrator and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager (Zoo Manager) began gathering written Policy and Procedure documents to begin a Zoo Policy and Procedure Manual. The Zoo Curator, who has been the “keeper” of the documents, began adding them to a centralized electronic shared folder entitled Zoo Policies. A Policy and Procedures Manual for the Micke Grove Zoo has been completed. Ongoing updates and edits may be performed by the Parks Administrator as deemed necessary. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury confirmed that the electronic Policy and Procedures Manual has been developed and is current. No further action is needed. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: The lack of a detailed and comprehensive budget for Micke Grove Zoo makes proper financial management difficult. Agency Response: Disagree. The Micke Grove Zoo has specific line items on the Parks and Recreation Division budget, and actual charges are tracked through an access database. The use of project costing on timesheets and material purchased allows for reports to be maintained for Zoo specific items. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division develop a detailed and comprehensive budget for the Zoo that includes assumptions for every income and expense line item by December 31, 2019. Agency Response: Has been implemented. Starting in Fiscal Year 2017-2018 and during the Fiscal Year 2018-2019, a Zoo specific budget worksheet was created including Zoo specific revenue and expenses. The information is derived from the Parks and Recreation Division budget. The Zoo budget worksheet will be updated annually after final budgets are approved. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Disagree. As part of ongoing efficiencies at the Micke Grove Zoo, animals which were on display at the Oak Grove Nature Center have been relocated to the Micke Grove Zoo saving husbandry and travel time. Animals that are part of the MGZS Educational program are now being cared for by the MGZS staff. These two items have saved approximately 24 hours per week of staff time, which are better served within the Zoo. All veterinary care is contracted with UC Davis Medical Teaching Hospital, which provides one day of on-site field services, emergency and after-hours’ services, pharmaceuticals and telephone support as needed. The Parks Administrator and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager (Zoo Manager) began the process of cross- training employees and have consistently employed two-part time zookeeper aides to compensate for a full-time employee’s extended absence. The number of allocated full- time positions at the Zoo remains at eight. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.3: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division complete necessary cross-training for all current Zoo staff members and hire at least one additional full-time Zookeeper by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. Cross-training of all employees began in January 2019 using a top-down method. All staff will be required to train in all aspects of animal husbandry by June 30, 2020. The Zoo Manager, Zoo Curator, and Senior Animal Care Specialist began cross-training on animal medical care, veterinary services, and animal diets in March 2019, with a completion date of December 2019. The Grand Jury mistakenly reported that the Zoo employs only four full-time Animal Care Specialists (referred to as Zoo Keepers in the report) Currently the Zoo is allocated eight (8) full-time positions, one (1) Zoo Manager, one (1) Zoo Curator, and five (5) Animal Care Specialists and (1) Senior Animal Care Specialist. At this time, one Animal Care Specialist is on extended medical leave and whose job duties have been allocated to two- part time temporary Animal Care Aides. Previously the Zoo Curator and Zoo Manager did not materially participate in animal husbandry, and recent cross-training has improved Zoo efficiencies. Parks and Recreation will not be requesting a fifth Animal Care Specialist allocation as the Zoo already has five (5) but will hire a replacement full-time Animal Care Specialist if the current employee is unable to return to work. The Parks and Recreation Benchmarking and Assessments Report, commonly referred to as the Taussig report, recommends expanding the use of volunteers at Micke Grove Zoo. The Zoo Manager, along with the MGZS education staff, have begun revamping the volunteer program, and also aim to look into the possibility of creating an intern program. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 183 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. Facilities Management, Park Workers, Zoo Manager, and Parks Administrator walk the Zoo on a monthly basis, and have created a list of Zoo specific repairs. The items on the list are prioritized and tracked through to completion. In Fiscal Year 2018-2019, a new full-time Park Worker was allocated to spend three whole days within the Zoo and dedicates time/resources toward performing the necessary maintenance as identified within the Zoo repair list. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.4: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division develop a preventive maintenance schedule and accurate repair record for Micke Grove Zoo by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: Has been implemented. Beginning in January 2019, the Parks Administrator, Zoo Manager, General Services Assistant Director and Facility Maintenance and Construction Superintendent began a monthly walkthrough at the Zoo to discuss, address, and plan scheduled maintenance and repair issues. To date, the process consists of utilizing an excel worksheet with items coded as high, medium, and low priorities. Items are then tracked to completion. Although this process pertains to known issues, all new or emergent items are prioritized and submitted thought the facility maintenance program already in place. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 184 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.5: The San Joaquin County General Services Department renegotiate their operating agreement with MGZS to update and clarify assigned roles and responsibilities by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Parks Administrator will create an operating agreement with the MGZS that will include assigned roles and responsibilities by June 30, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is in the process of reviewing its operating agreement with MGZS. They requested a deadline extension to December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F2: A new agreement with MGZS is an important part of the zoo’s ongoing operations. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R2: By December 31, 2020, the San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation General Services Department execute an operating agreement with MGZS that will include assigned roles and responsibilities. Agency Response: Will not be implemented On July 21, 2020, the MGZS voted to terminate the 1999 Operating Agreement with a final termination date of September 4, 2020. Litigation is now pending between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. No new operating agreement exists between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. The current and ongoing lawsuit between the Micke Grove Zoological Society and San Joaquin County makes it unlikely that an operating agreement will be executed. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined no further action is needed. 2.0 A Vision for Tomorrow 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: Despite budget challenges, San Joaquin County leadership is committed to the continued operation and improvement of Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.2: The residents of San Joaquin County value Micke Grove Zoo and desire to see it improved. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F2.4: San Joaquin County leadership must obtain the guidance and expertise of the industry professionals in both determining and designing the master plan for Micke Grove Zoo in order to ensure its successful future. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation 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. Agency Response: To be partially implemented. The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, and the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator will 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 years by June 30, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is completing an analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo. They requested a deadline extension December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F3: The analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo is an important part of its ongoing operations. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: The San Joaquin County General Services Department complete an analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo, including what they envision the Zoo to be in five years. Present the analysis to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator, and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager are preparing a five-year strategic plan to be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Due to the Micke Grove Zoological Society's termination of the existing agreement, rejection of the interim agreement and ongoing litigation the presentation of the five-year strategic 186 plan will be delayed until March 31, 2021. The presentation will include the vision for the Micke Grove Zoo in the next five years. San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan to the Board of Supervisors which was accepted by the Board on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.2: The San Joaquin County General Services Department develop and present to the Board of Supervisors a professionally designed Master Plan for Micke Grove Zoo, which includes development goals for the next five, ten, and twenty years by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented. The Parks and Recreation Division will develop and present to the Board of Supervisors a Master Plan for the Micke Grove Zoo for the next five years by December 31, 2020. Beginning with a five-year strategic plan will allow the Department to implement strategies and goals set through the strategic plan. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is preparing a professionally designed Master Plan for Micke Grove Zoo which includes strategies and goals for the next five years. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F4: The five-year plan is a critical component of the ongoing operations of the zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R4: The San Joaquin County General Services Department complete a professionally designed Master Plan for Micke Grove Zoo that includes strategies and goals for the next five years. Present the Master Plan to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator, and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager are preparing a five-year strategic plan to be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Due to the Micke Grove Zoological Society's termination of the existing agreement, rejection of the interim agreement and ongoing litigation the presentation of the five year strategic plan will be delayed until March 31, 2021. This presentation will include the vision for the Micke Grove Zoo for the next five years 187 San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Agree 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.3: The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division examine the requirements and affordability for obtaining accreditation from available accrediting associations, and pursue appropriate accreditation as part of the County's Master Plan to improve Micke Grove Zoo by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Park and Recreation Division will examine and analyze the requirements, affordability, and suitability of accreditation for Micke Grove Zoo by December 31, 2020. Pursuing accreditation is a rigorous process including husbandry, recordkeeping, veterinary care, animal diet, staff knowledge, and facility site inspections. 188 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The agency is in the process of examining the requirements, affordability and suitability of obtaining accreditation from available accrediting associations as part of the County's Master Plan to improve Micke Grove Zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F5: It is important that Micke Grove Zoo have appropriate accreditation. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R5: The San Joaquin County General Services Department pursue appropriate accreditation. Present a written description of the findings to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be partially implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator, and the Zoo & Interpretive Services Manager are preparing a five-year strategic plan to be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Due to the Micke Grove Zoological Society's termination of the existing agreement, rejection of the interim agreement and ongoing litigation the presentation of the five year strategic plan will be delayed until March 31, 2021. This presentation will include the vision for the Micke Grove Zoo for the next five years, including the pursuit of an accreditation if deemed appropriate. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The plan’s vision centers on seven objectives, one of which is to examine the requirements, affordability and suitability of obtaining accreditation from available accrediting associations. Currently Micke Grove Zoo does not have accreditation. The General Services Department is investigating the feasibility and value of zoo accreditation. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F1: Micke Grove Zoo still does not have zoo accreditation. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: The San Joaquin County General Services Department present its findings regarding zoo accreditation, including a timeline, to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2021. 3.0 Funding the Vision 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. This requires the further analysis regarding the future vision of the Micke Grove Zoo. 189 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 3.2: A non-profit organization or foundation capable of raising significant funds is essential to fulfilling the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. This requires the further analysis regarding the future vision of the Micke Grove Zoo. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding F3.3: The recent fundraising results from the MGZS are insufficient to support the necessary improvements for the Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Agree. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1: The San Joaquin County General Services Department determine the role and responsibility of the MGZS for fundraising to support the future vision for the Micke Grove Zoo, and renegotiate their operating agreement accordingly by June 30, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Parks Administrator and the Director of General Services along with the MGZS will create a new operating agreement with the MGZS that will assign roles and responsibilities and determine the MGZS’S fundraising expectations to support the future vision for the Micke Grove Zoo by June 30, 2020 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The Parks Administrator and the Director of General Services along with the MGZS committed to create a new operating agreement with the MGZS that will assign roles, responsibilities, and determine the MGZS’s fundraising expectations. They requested a deadline extension to December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F6: A new operating agreement that assigns roles, responsibilities, and determines fundraising expectations is important for the future of Micke Grove Zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R6: By December 31, 2020, the Parks Administrator and the Director of General Services, along with the MGZS, execute a new operating agreement with the MGZS. The agreement will assign roles, responsibilities, and determine the MGZS’s fundraising expectations to support the future vision for the Micke Grove Zoo. Agency Response: Will not be implemented On July 21, 2020, the MGZS voted to terminate the 1999 Operating Agreement with a final termination date of September 4, 2020. Litigation is now pending between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. No new operating agreement exists between the MGZS and San Joaquin County. The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, and the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator will complete and present to the Board of Supervisors an analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo, including what 190 they envision the Zoo to be in five years by March 31, 2021. The presentation will include a framework for identifying a non-profit strategic partner. San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan, including a framework to identify a non-profit strategic partner, to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Finding 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. Agency Response: Partially Disagree. In the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Micke Grove Zoo received grant funding for $500,000 from the State, and additional funding through Proposition 68 by working collaboratively with the United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.2: The San Joaquin County General Services Department evaluate all available funding sources for the improvement of Micke Grove Zoo and report their findings to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented. The Department will evaluate available funding sources to improve Micke Grove Zoo and report the finding to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations The San Joaquin County General Services Department committed to evaluate all available funding sources to improve Micke Grove Zoo and report their findings to the Board of Supervisors. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Finding F7: It is important to know the available funding sources for the improvement of Micke Grove Zoo. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendation R7: The San Joaquin County General Services Department evaluate all available funding sources for the improvement of Micke Grove Zoo and report their findings to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2020. Agency Response: To be implemented The San Joaquin County General Services Department, Director, and the Parks and Recreation, Parks Administrator will 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 years by March 31, 2021. The presentation will include an evaluation of additional funding sources. San Joaquin County General Services Department presented a five-year plan, including strategies to improve its revenue stream, to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2021. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.
R8:
Will be R7 December 31, 2021 Further action implemented required City of R4 Will be No further action Stockton implemented
R12:
We agree to look upon history as lessons learned; focus on the present and the future. (See
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
1 The city manager and the assistant city manager positions were filled without the benefit of an established recruitment process. This caused community-wide turmoil while they struggled to learn the job.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
1 By December 31, 2021, develop, adopt, and implement effective written recruitment policies and procedures, and strictly adhere to them for all executive hiring. 1.2 Insufficient Training & Development There were concerns that employees in various departments were not sufficiently trained, particularly within the finance department. Employees were not provided periodic training to keep or improve current skills, nor were they updated on new processes or procedures. Leadership training was also noted as a critical need across departments. Due to a lack of qualified leadership in some departments, especially the finance department, and the absence of a training and development policy for city employees, there were few managers capable of identifying issues in order to provide necessary training and development for staff.
F2:
2.1 There currently is no explicit requirement for previous city management experience for the position of city manager, leading to the hiring of inexperienced and unqualified personnel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
1 By December 31, 2021, the city council review the structure of the city manager’s office to ascertain a management approach that is most efficient and cost-effective. 10 2.2 Qualifications of City Manager Manteca city manager’s job description includes the following minimum requirements • Education - bachelor’s degree in business administration, public administration, or related field; and • Experience - eight years of increasing responsibility in city or other government administration. The recent former city manager started working in Manteca on July 16, 2019, as the administrative services director (human resources), and within two months was appointed acting city manager. No other candidates were considered for the position.
F3:
1 Councilmembers asked few questions of staff about the city’s financial condition or the fiscal impacts of major expenditures they were being asked to approve. This caused ill- informed decision making.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
1 Beginning October 1, 2021, the city council conduct public study sessions, at least quarterly, to receive and discuss complex financial issues. These sessions include, but not be limited to, the city’s financial condition, long-term impacts of past, current, and proposed fiscal obligations of the city, major capital outlays, and employee contracts.
F1.1:
The city manager and the assistant city manager positions were filled without the benefit of an established recruitment process. This caused community-wide turmoil while they struggled to learn the job.
F2.1:
A series of mistakes were made that more experienced managers could have avoided, costing the taxpayers undue financial expense.
F2.2:
The team approach was inefficient, duplicating many efforts and requiring constant conferences to update other members of management. This cost unnecessary time and money.
F3.1:
Councilmembers asked few questions of staff about the city’s financial condition or the fiscal impacts of major expenditures they were being asked to approve. This caused ill- informed decision making.
F3.2:
Major projects were presented to councilmembers with inadequate time to review the complex issues involved. This caused ill-informed decision making.
F3.3:
The city council’s approval of loans between restricted funds, without receiving any information or documents on the repayment requirements or fiscal impacts, created an unclear picture of the actual fund balances in the various accounts.
F1.2.1:
Some managers were not capable of providing necessary training for staff, particularly within the finance department, which resulted in poor decision making.
F1.2.2:
The city has no policy for employee training or professional development; therefore, employees lack the necessary skills to maintain efficient operations. 6
F1.3.1:
City council approved the reorganization without the benefit of a detailed position control schedule, causing confusion and failure of the reorganization plan.
F1.4.1:
The City of Manteca has a history of unfair promotional practices which caused low morale and the loss of employees.
F1.4.2:
Employees were ill-prepared for promotions, leading to inexperienced and unqualified employees being promoted. 7
F1.5.1:
The city has no succession plan to fill management positions with qualified candidates. Without a transitional process, there was a delay in the preparation and completion of important reports, including the annual audit.
F1.6.1:
The policy for placing an employee on administrative leave, also called suspension, is ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation, leading to unfair practices.
F1.6.2:
Investigations conducted by outside law firms are expensive and costly to taxpayers.
F1.7.1:
Employees were afraid that if they complained they would become the subject of harassment and retaliation by management, causing them not to avail themselves of the existing grievance procedure, resulting in increased denigration of morale.
F1.7.2:
Complaints were not addressed and no action was taken until the large volume of complaints could no longer be ignored, resulting in frustration and low morale. 9
F2.2.1:
There currently is no explicit requirement for previous city management experience for the position of city manager, leading to the hiring of inexperienced and unqualified personnel.
F2.3.1:
The mayor and some councilmembers violated Municipal Code section 2.08.080. This circumvented the public’s right to have city business conducted in public, and caused confusion among staff, subverting the required chain of command.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
MUSD By-law 9000 b "Role of the Board"
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
1 By September 30, 2015 a policy should be adopted by the MUSD Board of Trustees to accomplish the following: When a Board member or an administrator becomes aware of any improper behavior by any Board member, it will be immediately shared with the Superintendent and all Board members.
R7:
S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . world To V---- San . BYLAW NO. 9000 (a) MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ROLE OF THE BOARD The Governing Board has been elected by the community to provide leadership and citizen oversight of the District. The Board shall ensure that the District is responsive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of the community. The Board shall work with the Superintendent to fulfill its major responsibilities, which include: 1) Setting the direction for the District through a process that involves the community parents/guardians, students, and staff and is focused on student learning and achievement. Establishing an effective and efficient organizational structure for the District by: 2)
F2:
MUSD By-law 9005 "Governance Standards"
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
MUSD By-law 9005 "Governance Standards"
F3:
MUSD By-law 9010 "Public Statements" MUSD By-law 9011 "Disclosure of Confidential/Privileged Information"
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
1 Newly elected Board members are strongly urged to participate in new board training offered by CSBA or other organizations
R4:
MUSD By-law 9012 a "Board Member Electronic Communications"
F4:
1 Board by-laws Sections 9000, 9005, 9010, and 9011 were violated by the Board members as described in this report. F4.2 By-laws changes dealing with the Board were added or updated as a result of Board member behavior Conclusion The Grand Jury found that inappropriate and disrespectful behavior by Board members has been the greatest challenge for Manteca Unified School District in many years. Disrespect for each other, for employees, and for community members has created a toxic climate. Additionally, administrators at all levels have been pressured to cut corners and ignore important policies and procedures, leading some to question their judgment. As a result, some employees are actively seeking work elsewhere. In the past Manteca Unified School District has generally served its students successfully. However, that effort may be jeopardized by the exceedingly disturbing actions described in this report. These actions must stop. If they are not stopped, the District risks further undermining its credibility with the community it serves and also risks losing some of the people who have been responsible for the District's successes. Both would severely stymie District progress. School boards have been in existence for centuries, and have a rich tradition of serving as upholders of the beliefs and values of the community they represent. Roles and responsibilities are part of that tradition. When school board members operate with respect for their appropriate roles and responsibilities, education can be strong, and great things can happen, especially for students. When Board members and administrators ignore agreed upon rules and policies, it can be as damaging as breaking the law. If trustees behave inappropriately with no regard or respect for established norms, the educational system can be seriously damaged, harming taxpayers, employees and, most importantly, students. Disclaimers Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and
F5:
MUSD By-law 9210 "Qualifications"
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
MUSD By-law 9210 "Qualifications"
F6:
MUSD By-law 9222 "Removal"
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
MUSD By-law 9222 "Removal"
F7:
S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . world To V---- San . BYLAW NO. 9000 (a) MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ROLE OF THE BOARD The Governing Board has been elected by the community to provide leadership and citizen oversight of the District. The Board shall ensure that the District is responsive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of the community. The Board shall work with the Superintendent to fulfill its major responsibilities, which include: 1) Setting the direction for the District through a process that involves the community parents/guardians, students, and staff and is focused on student learning and achievement. Establishing an effective and efficient organizational structure for the District by: 2)
F8:
deliberations. LEGAL REFERENCE Education Code 35010 Power of governing board to adopt rules for its own governance 35160 Board authority to act in any manner not conflicting with law 35164 Actions by majority vote Government Code Financial interest in contract 1090 Disclosure of confidential information 1098 1125-1129 Incompatible activities 54950-54963 The Ralph M. Brown Act 87300-87313 Conflict of interest code Management Resources CSBA PUBLICATIONS CSBA Professional Governance Standards, 2000 Maximizing School Board Leadership: Boardsmanship, 1996 WEB SITES CSBA: http://www.csba.org Board Adopted: To the second section of the second 86 S 5000 TO BYLAW NO. 9010 (a) MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PUBLIC STATEMENTS The Governing Board of the Manteca Unified School District recognizes the responsibility of Board members in their role as community leaders to participate in public disclosure on matters of civic or community interest, include those involving the District, and their right to freely express their personal views. However, to ensure communication of a consistent, unified message regarding District issues, Board members are expected to respect the authority of the Board to choose its representatives to communicate its positions and to abide by established protocols. All public statements authorized to be made on behalf of the Board shall be made by the Board President, or if appropriate, by the Superintendent or other designated representative. When speaking for the District, the Board encourages its spokesperson to exercise restraint and tact and to communicate the message in a manner that promotes public confidence in the Board's leadership. The Board and District spokespersons shall not disclose confidential information or information received in closed session except when authorized by a majority of the Board. When speaking to community groups, members of the public, or the media, individual Board members should recognize that their statements may be perceived as reflecting the views and positions of the Board. Board members have a responsibility to identify personal viewpoints as such and not as the viewpoint of the Board. In addition, the Board encourages members who participate on social networking sites, blogs, or other discussion or informational sites to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous, and professional manner and to model good behaviors for district students and the community. Such electronic communications are subject to the same standards and protocols established for other forms of communication, and the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act may likewise apply to them. LEGAL REFERENCE Education Code 35010 Control of district; prescription and enforcement of rules Government Code California Public Records Act 6250-6270 54960 Actions to stop or prevent violation of meeting provisions 54963 Confidential information in closed session MANAGEMENT RESOURCES Websites CSBA: http://www.csba.org Board Adopted: * * . : 9 N ....................................... BYLAW NO. 9011 MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL/PRIVILEGED INFORMATION The Governing Board of Manteca Unified School District recognizes the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of information acquired as part of a Board member's official duties. Confidential/privileged information shall be released only to the extent authorized by law. Disclosure of Closed Session Information A Board member shall not disclose confidential information acquired during a closed session to a person not entitled to receive such information, unless a majority of the Board has authorized its disclosure. Confidential information means a communication made in a closed session that is specifically related to the basis for the Board to meet lawfully in closed session. The Board shall not take any action set forth in Government Code 549563(c) against any person for disclosing confidential information (as defined above) nor shall the disclosure be considered a violation of Government Code 54963 when the person is:
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
deliberations. LEGAL REFERENCE Education Code 35010 Power of governing board to adopt rules for its own governance 35160 Board authority to act in any manner not conflicting with law 35164 Actions by majority vote Government Code Financial interest in contract 1090 Disclosure of confidential information 1098 1125-1129 Incompatible activities 54950-54963 The Ralph M. Brown Act 87300-87313 Conflict of interest code Management Resources CSBA PUBLICATIONS CSBA Professional Governance Standards, 2000 Maximizing School Board Leadership: Boardsmanship, 1996 WEB SITES CSBA: http://www.csba.org Board Adopted: To the second section of the second 86 S 5000 TO BYLAW NO. 9010 (a) MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PUBLIC STATEMENTS The Governing Board of the Manteca Unified School District recognizes the responsibility of Board members in their role as community leaders to participate in public disclosure on matters of civic or community interest, include those involving the District, and their right to freely express their personal views. However, to ensure communication of a consistent, unified message regarding District issues, Board members are expected to respect the authority of the Board to choose its representatives to communicate its positions and to abide by established protocols. All public statements authorized to be made on behalf of the Board shall be made by the Board President, or if appropriate, by the Superintendent or other designated representative. When speaking for the District, the Board encourages its spokesperson to exercise restraint and tact and to communicate the message in a manner that promotes public confidence in the Board's leadership. The Board and District spokespersons shall not disclose confidential information or information received in closed session except when authorized by a majority of the Board. When speaking to community groups, members of the public, or the media, individual Board members should recognize that their statements may be perceived as reflecting the views and positions of the Board. Board members have a responsibility to identify personal viewpoints as such and not as the viewpoint of the Board. In addition, the Board encourages members who participate on social networking sites, blogs, or other
F1.1:
Coercion by some trustees caused established Board policies and procedures, including safeguards, to be circumvented by some administrators
F1.2:
Public statements by some trustees have caused anger and disruption in MUSD
F1.3:
Some Board members interfered with employees' duties, violating Board policies and by-laws
F1.4:
Behavior by some Board members has made employees fearful in the workplace
F1.5:
Administrators have been spending inordinate amounts of time dealing with issues involving trustees, making it difficult for them to complete necessary District work
F2.1:
Costs for legal services related to Board members' behavior has increased during the first nine months of the current fiscal year nearly 30 times what it was two years earlier
F2.2:
The departure of the Weston Ranch High School principal added an unnecessary cost to the District 3.0 Fact Board and staff training In December, soon after Trustees Drain and Bronson were elected, they were given an option to attend training held by the California School Board Association (CSBA) in San Francisco. Mr. Bronson was not able to attend due to conflicts with work. Ms. Drain was scheduled to go, but when she arrived to check in at her hotel, she found it unacceptable. She returned home, and did not attend the training. The hotel has since been removed from the CSBA list of conference hotels. Other, more senior board members have not attended training for some time. On January 13, 2015, a Board study session was held with the District's attorneys. The subjects included the following: an ethics overview, role of the board, Brown Act basics, and transparency in government. Sub-topics explored the issues of the use of technology during meetings, agreement on district spokesperson, and the power of an individual board member. At the February 10, 2015, Board meeting training was an agenda item. After discussion the District voted to sponsor each trustee's attendance at one eight-hour CSBA training session per year. Mr. Bronson suggested the training be mandatory. His proposal was not included in the motion. The Grand Jury learned that no administrators have received orientation on interacting with Board members. As a result, numerous incidents occurred during the last few months that allowed policies and procedures to be circumvented because staff did not understand their responsibilities. Findings
F3.1:
Only a few trustees have attended school board training in recent years preventing some trustees from having a common understanding of their role and responsibilities
F3.2:
A lack of understanding by staff of the role of Board members has caused serious problems
F4.1:
Board by-laws Sections 9000, 9005, 9010, and 9011 were violated by the Board members as described in this report.
F4.2:
By-laws changes dealing with the Board were added or updated as a result of Board member behavior Conclusion The Grand Jury found that inappropriate and disrespectful behavior by Board members has been the greatest challenge for Manteca Unified School District in many years. Disrespect for each other, for employees, and for community members has created a toxic climate. Additionally, administrators at all levels have been pressured to cut corners and ignore important policies and procedures, leading some to question their judgment. As a result, some employees are actively seeking work elsewhere. In the past Manteca Unified School District has generally served its students successfully. However, that effort may be jeopardized by the exceedingly disturbing actions described in this report. These actions must stop. If they are not stopped, the District risks further undermining its credibility with the community it serves and also risks losing some of the people who have been responsible for the District's successes. Both would severely stymie District progress. School boards have been in existence for centuries, and have a rich tradition of serving as upholders of the beliefs and values of the community they represent. Roles and responsibilities are part of that tradition. When school board members operate with respect for their appropriate roles and responsibilities, education can be strong, and great things can happen, especially for students. When Board members and administrators ignore agreed upon rules and policies, it can be as damaging as breaking the law. If trustees behave inappropriately with no regard or respect for established norms, the educational system can be seriously damaged, harming taxpayers, employees and, most importantly, students. Disclaimers Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
38 findings
F1:
1 Citing budget cuts, CCLD's fulfillment of its regulatory and oversight role has deteriorated to the point of allowing some Group Homes to go unmonitored or un-inspected for periods of up to four years.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
1 Within 90 days, CPS and Probation submit a written request to CCLD that it fulfill statutory requirements for annual Inspections of all Group Homes in San Joaquin County.
R5:
1.1 Within 90 days, HSA/CPS and Probation, in conjunction with the Department of Human Resources, initiate the establishment of an enhanced Group Home Monitoring Program in San Joaquin.
F2:
1.1 The distribution of the AFDC-FC Funds flow through HSA and are tied to a one page Placement Agreement between the Group Home Provider and HSA/CPS and or Probation Department.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
1.2 Within six months, HSA/CPS and Probation revise its current Placement Agreement with Group Homes to include a provision that HSA/CPS and Probation have a contractual right to rescind a Host Letter.
R3:
1.1 Within six months, HSA/CPS and Probation develop an enhanced Placement Agreement to include the requirement that all Group Home Administrators complete the Mandatory Reporter training program developed by CDSS and the Office of Child abuse Prevention (OCAP) (known as the Child Abuse Mandated Reporter Training).
F3:
1 An alarming number of Administrators demonstrated a lack of comprehension and/or a misinterpretation of their, as well as their staff's obligations, under the Mandatory Reporting Laws.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
1.1 Within six months, HSA/CPS and Probation develop an enhanced Placement Agreement to include the requirement that all Group Home Administrators complete the Mandatory Reporter training program developed by CDSS and the Office of Child abuse Prevention (OCAP) (known as the Child Abuse Mandated Reporter Training).
F4:
1 The contractual relationship between the Group Home Providers, HSA/CPS and Probation is the execution of a one page Group Home Placement Agreement which is inadequate to provide sufficient detail of living environment and allow for proper enforcement and oversight of the Group Home Providers and the At-Risk Youth that reside in them.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
1 Within six months, HSA/CPS and Probation develop a comprehensive and detailed Group Home Placement Agreement.
F5:
1.1 Five counties in California have instituted enhanced local oversight of the Group Homes within their jurisdictions to provide better services and protection for At-Risk Youth in an effort to fill the void created by the State's deteriorating oversight.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
1.1 Within 90 days, HSA/CPS and Probation, in conjunction with the Department of Human Resources, initiate the establishment of an enhanced Group Home Monitoring Program in San Joaquin.
F1.1:
Citing budget cuts, CCLD’s fulfillment of its regulatory and oversight role has deteriorated to the point of allowing some Group Homes to go unmonitored or un-inspected for periods of up to four years.
F1.2:
There is no indication that CCLD provides follow-up review of the Group Home’s Program Statement to assure that it is in compliance with new laws or regulations.
F1.3:
HSA/CPS and Probation do not receive copies of CCLD inspections unless they specifically request them.
F1.4:
HSA/CPS and Probation do not routinely receive copies of investigations of Group Home violations by CCLD.
F1.5:
Investigations and inspections do not take place on weekends or after regular business hours.
F1.6:
Investigations of major incidents are not always handled by CCLD in a timely manner.
F1.7:
CCLD performed unannounced audits of 21 of the 28 Group Homes under Grand Jury review between February 21, 2013, and March 20, 2013.
F1.8:
CCLD issued 34 citations to the Group Homes under Grand Jury review between February 21, 2013, and March 20, 2013.
F2.3:
Review of documents and sworn testimony revealed a number of providers were not operating in compliance with their approved Program Statements.
F2.4:
There is a lack of comprehension and/or a misinterpretation of Group Home Providers and their staff regarding their obligations under the Mandatory Reporting Laws.
F2.6:
. Caregiver’s testimony revealed they were occasionally required to care for up to six youths by themselves, which they attributed to an increase in the number of runaways during the periods of understaffing.
F2.8:
Some Group Home Providers have created their own Non-Public School (NPS) to educate the special education youth in their charge.
F2.9:
A Group Home Provider changed the educational placement of a county-placed youth without notification or consent of the placement agency.
F3.1:
An alarming number of Administrators demonstrated a lack of comprehension and/or a misinterpretation of their, as well as their staff’s obligations, under the Mandatory Reporting Laws.
F3.2:
Some Administrators responsible for multiple Group Homes throughout the County seldom visit these individual homes.
F3.3:
One Administrator, by standing practice, had delegated most of the Administrative responsibilities to an individual classified as a Facility Manager who did not possess the prerequisite education or certification, in violation of CCR’s.
F3.4:
Compliance for attendance at weekly training sessions developed to meet state mandated annual training requirements varied among the group homes.
F3.5:
Some Caregivers who worked the night shift as well as those who were employed on a part- time basis did not regularly attend the weekly training sessions provided by the Provider. Nor were they required to make-up any sessions they failed to attend in order to comply with the 40 hour annual training requirement, as required by CCR’s.
F4.1:
The contractual relationship between the Group Home Providers, HSA/CPS and Probation is the execution of a one page Group Home Placement Agreement which is inadequate to provide sufficient detail of living environment and allow for proper enforcement and oversight of the Group Home Providers and the At-Risk Youth that reside in them.
F4.2:
CPS Social Workers and/or Probation Officers are required to visit their At-Risk Youth at least once a month, but they do not always comply with that requirement.
F2.1.1:
The distribution of the AFDC-FC Funds flow through HSA and are tied to a one page Placement Agreement between the Group Home Provider and HSA/CPS and or Probation Department.
F2.1.2:
Neither HSA/CPS nor the Probation Department has the ability to rescind their original Host Letter. The only recourse a placement agency has with a non-compliant Group Home Provider is removal of the At-Risk Youth from the home and placing them elsewhere.
F2.5.1:
Many State required incident report forms reviewed were filled out incompletely; specifically, the check-off sections indicating whether or not reporting requirements had been met.
F2.5.2:
Cases reviewed reveal some incident reports were made by a supervisor, not necessarily the employee who witnessed the incident. This has resulted in delays in submitting the reports to CCLD, HSA/CPS and Probation.
F2.5.3:
Unusual Incident/Injury Reports were found not to have been signed by both the writer and reviewer, as required by CCR’s.
F2.5.4:
Some Supervisors modified reports prior to submittal to CCLD.
F2.5.5:
Many Unusual Incident/Injury Reports failed to indicate if any follow-up had been undertaken to determine why the youth had run away.
F2.6.1:
Facility Managers and staff from both large and small Group Homes were unaware of State’s minimum staffing ratio requirements.
F2.7.1:
A number of caregivers were terminated by Group Home Providers during the period of 2007 through 2012 for sexual misconduct or violations of the At-Risk Youths’ personal rights.
F2.7.2:
Group Home Providers are not required to conduct their own review of National Sex Offender registries as part of their hiring process.
F4.2.1:
CPS Social Workers and/or Probation Officers visitations with the At-Risk Youth may take place other than at the Group Home.
F5.1.1:
Five counties in California have instituted enhanced local oversight of the Group Homes within their jurisdictions to provide better services and protection for At-Risk Youth in an effort to fill the void created by the State’s deteriorating oversight.
F5.1.2:
HSA/CPS and Probation management would embrace a collaborative approach to enhancing the Monitoring of Group Home Providers.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
1 The City of Escalon has no adopted Municipal Code provision, policy or procedure related to the disposal of major capital assets stating who has authority, the methods to follow or the reporting requirements.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
1 Prior to December 2013 the City Council adopt either an ordinance or a policy detailing procedures to be used for the disposal of surplus capital assets, including who is responsible for the disposal, when City Council approval is required, notification requirements, what information is made available to the public and how such information it is to be presented.
R6:
1 The City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare no later than November 1, 2013, a comprehensive auction agreement for use by the City.
F2:
1 The surplus property policy has no reference to compliance with Government Code Sections 54220 et seq.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
1 No later than September 30, 2013 the City adopt a policy for disposition of surplus land and buildings to include when appraisals are to be conducted, required compliance with Government Code Section 54220 et seq., and a prior public disclosure of the proposed sale.
F3:
1 The staff report for land sale to the housing developer provided very little information. The public must read through an attached long and comprehensive agreement containing many legal requirements in order to obtain basic information on land sale, such as sale price versus appraisal value.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
1 No later than September 30, 2013 the City adopt a policy for disposition of surplus land and buildings to include when appraisals are to be conducted, required compliance with Government Code Section 54220 et seq., and a prior public disclosure of the proposed sale.
R3:
1 Before any future disposal of land or buildings is finalized a report is provided to the City Council in open session that includes the purpose of the sale; evidence of compliance with applicable State laws; the full identity of the purchaser; the total sale price; and, if the sale price is less than the appraised value, the reason for the difference. City of Manteca The Grand Jury received information and documentation from the City of Manteca in response to its survey and questionnaire. The Grand Jury determined there was not sufficient information provided so a thorough review could not be completed within the Grand Jury’s time constraints. Therefore, the Grand Jury makes no findings regarding the City of Manteca’s disposition of major capital assets and suggests that a future County Grand Jury conduct a thorough review of the information provided. City of Ripon The City of Ripon identifies sections of its Municipal Code for its authority and procedures for disposition of capital assets. Section 3.20.020 identifies a Purchasing Officer appointed by the City administrator responsible for administering the sale of all supplies and capital assets that cannot be used by other City departments. Section 3.20.070 of the Code requires a formal bidding process for sales of personal property, and Section 3.20.100 describes the formal bidding procedures for articles to be sold. Section 3.20.110 allows the purchasing officer to sell surplus personal property with an estimated value of less than $25,000 without first seeking sealed bids and following the formal bidding procedures. Response to the Grand Jury’s survey indicated that between 2007 and 2012 the City of Ripon had no sales of surplus land; 15 dispositions of buildings through negotiated sales; six vehicles sold through a public auction; and, one sale of major equipment through a public auction. No specific agreement with the private auction firm which conducted a vehicle sale of the City was provided. However, City Council approval of the sale with a list of vehicles to be sold was provided. Information related to the most recent property sale during the survey period included an independent appraisal and various buyer agreements. Minutes of redevelopment agency approval of the sale were also provided.
F5:
1 Ordinance No. 110 establishing provisions for purchasing and disposal of personal property and capital assets by the City of Ripon was adopted in 1958. Procedures related to the disposal are vague and do not clearly address either an adopted policy or procedure. Requirements for the sale of land and buildings are not addressed in a manner that can be easily understood by the public, nor are there clearly defined procedures.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
1 Prior to December 2013 the City Council adopt either an ordinance or a policy detailing procedures to be used for the disposal of surplus capital assets, including who is responsible for the disposal, when City Council approval is required, notification requirements, what information is made available to the public and how such information it is to be presented.
R5:
1 No later than December 1, 2013, the Municipal Code be reviewed and amended to clarify the distinction between purchase and sale of City property, and to update disposition procedures, clarifying the process for disposal of surplus vehicles and equipment.
F6:
1 Correspondence between the City and the State Department of Justice in October 2011 indicated that the State's contract agreement with private auction firms might be terminated because of state budget cuts. There was no indication if the matter has been resolved. Since the state agreement is comprehensive and benefits the City, an alternative agreement should be available for the City's use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
1 The City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare no later than November 1, 2013, a comprehensive auction agreement for use by the City.
F7:
1 The City of Tracy has no procedures manual or clearly defined procedures for the disposition of surplus vehicles and equipment. While no indications of any questionable actions were identified, the lack of clear and transparent procedures could raise concerns about the public's interest being protected.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
1 No later than December 1, 2013, the Municipal Code be reviewed and amended to clarify the distinction between purchase and sale of City property, and to update disposition procedures, clarifying the process for disposal of surplus vehicles and equipment.
R7:
1 That prior to December 1, 2013, the City adopt procedures related to the disposition of vehicles and equipment, including who is responsible for the disposal, when council approval is required, notification requirements and information made available to the public.
F8:
1 There was no indication from the County materials received that a public disclosure of the results of sales of surplus vehicles and equipment was made. Unless the Board of Supervisors was the authorizing agent for the sale pursuant to the County Administrative Manual, the process is handled completely at an administrative level.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
1 Beginning September 30, 2013 the County Administrative Officer provide a quarterly public report to the Board of Supervisors summarizing the disposals of vehicles and equipment during the preceding quarter. The report should include the amount of revenues derived from the sales.
F1.1:
The City of Escalon has no adopted Municipal Code provision, policy or procedure related to the disposal of major capital assets stating who has authority, the methods to follow or the reporting requirements.
F1.2:
The contractual agreement with the private auction firm hired by the City was a form provided by the company containing very limited information such as protection for the City and fees to be paid.
F1.3:
The disposal of land was by negotiated sale, with all discussions held in closed session. Only the minimum information required by the Brown Act was disclosed on the Agenda.
F1.4:
No information on the details of the land sale was provided to the public prior to the City Council’s public action.
F2.1:
The surplus property policy has no reference to compliance with Government Code Sections 54220 et seq.
F3.1:
The staff report for land sale to the housing developer provided very little information. The public must read through an attached long and comprehensive agreement containing many legal requirements in order to obtain basic information on land sale, such as sale price versus appraisal value.
F5.1:
Ordinance No. 110 establishing provisions for purchasing and disposal of personal property and capital assets by the City of Ripon was adopted in 1958. Procedures related to the disposal are vague and do not clearly address either an adopted policy or procedure. Requirements for the sale of land and buildings are not addressed in a manner that can be easily understood by the public, nor are there clearly defined procedures.
F5.2:
Staff reports at the time real property is sold do not contain sufficient information to inform the public about the proposed transaction.
F6.1:
Correspondence between the City and the State Department of Justice in October 2011 indicated that the State’s contract agreement with private auction firms might be terminated because of state budget cuts. There was no indication if the matter has been resolved. Since the state agreement is comprehensive and benefits the City, an alternative agreement should be available for the City’s use.
F6.2:
Stockton Code Section 3.60.010 requires the City manager to present the City Council a report on personal property sales valued under $20,000. There is no indication whether the report is to be a public document. A written response from the City indicated that in the past the information was included in a weekly newsletter provided to the City Council. No surplus property sales took place between 2008 and 2010; however, a sale that occurred in 2011 was not reported as required by Municipal Code. The City indicated they were in the process of updating their surplus property sale procedures.
F7.1:
The City of Tracy has no procedures manual or clearly defined procedures for the disposition of surplus vehicles and equipment. While no indications of any questionable actions were identified, the lack of clear and transparent procedures could raise concerns about the public’s interest being protected.
F7.2:
The agreement with the private auction firm contained limited protection for the City against claims or other possible legal actions resulting from the auction.
F8.1:
There was no indication from the County materials received that a public disclosure of the results of sales of surplus vehicles and equipment was made. Unless the Board of Supervisors was the authorizing agent for the sale pursuant to the County Administrative Manual, the process is handled completely at an administrative level.
F8.2:
The County indicated that it does not have a policy requiring independent appraisals of real property it sells because there is no requirement for an appraisal under the Government Code. This lack of information makes it difficult for the public to determine if the sale was in the public interest.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.