Gran Jurado del Condado de San Luis Obispo

2002-2003

2 informes

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: The complaint is against: a. Provide the name of the individual or organization the complaint is against. Ensure correct spelling of the name(s). b. If the complaint is against an individual in an organization, include the individual’s title or position in the organization. c. Provide the street address (not a P.O. Box), city, and zip code. d. Provide the telephone number of the organization or individual.
F2: My complaint against the above is: a. Describe the problem in your own words. b. Be as concise as possible; provide dates, times, and names of individuals involved. c. Cite specific instances as opposed to broad statements. d. Attach any available photographs, correspondence, and documentation that support the complaint. e. If you need more space to describe your complaint, attach extra sheets as necessary. Indicate on the last line of the first sheet how many additional sheets you are attaching (for example, “3 additional sheets attached”).
F3: Complainant (The grand jury will rigorously protect your confidentiality) a. Provide your name, mailing address, city, zip code, and telephone number. b. Sign the complaint. While you may file a complaint anonymously, this may make it much more difficult for the grand jury to investigate the allegations. c. Mail the complaint to the address shown on the complaint form. The grand jury will review and acknowledge receipt of your complaint. The grand jury may or may not advise you whether or not it will undertake an investigation. The grand jury may contact you during the conduct of an investigation. If you have questions, contact the grand jury secretary at (805) 781-5188. 32
F4: carefully implementing methods to help determine the order in which following implementation of the Qualified Applicant Pool system. We were we serve students.” not able to verify the statement because of time and resource constraints. 16 (20) In June 2002, the Chancellor’s Office wrote that it would provide the com- problems reported statewide may not necessarily apply to the program at Cuesta. munity colleges its recommendations on the findings of the CSS Study. In the last two years, the percentage of students who failed to complete the Cuesta The Chancellor’s Office stated recently that these recommendations would College nursing program has decreased significantly. The percentage of students be ready by the end of April, but officials at Cuesta College say that they who pass the NCLEX-RN test after completing the Cuesta College nursing pro- are not optimistic that this date will be met. gram has started to rise again. The ADN program at Cuesta College is being courageous in not waiting for recommendations from the Chancellor’s Office be- (21) Although they have not received the Chancellor Office’s recommenda- fore acting on the findings of the CSS Study. Given the pressure from both the tions, officials at Cuesta College say that they plan to implement some chancellor and the president of the Academic Senate, Cuesta is doing the best it
Recomendaciones adicionales 3

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R1: Grand Jury Validation of Testimony. At least five grand jurors inter- viewed each witness except for one interview conducted outside the county. (2) Verification of Facts. We based all findings on official records and/or the testimony by at least two independent sources. (3) Elimination of Hearsay Testimony. We rejected every hearsay state- ment (in person or in writing) unless we could validate it through official records or the testimony (in person or in writing) by at least two indepen- dent sources who were present or directly involved in the incident de- scribed in the hearsay statement. (4) Consultation with Legal Advisors. We consulted with a representative (4) The director of Environmental Health stated in September 2002 that the of the county counsel’s office on legal issues concerning the investiga- RALCCO problem fell into the third and lowest priority of nuisance com- tion. plaints and did not represent a threat to public health. Review (5) In its March 17 letter to CIWMB, the agency characterizes the site as a “threat to public health and safety” because of fire hazard and the danger (1) Throughout the course of the investigation, the grand jury—at its weekly to trespassers. meetings—received reports on the investigation’s progress and issues. Conclusions (2) The chief of police reviewed our findings and provided comment. As of March 17, 2003, some 16 months after RALCCO ceased operations, the site resembled a junkyard. Renewed inspections of the site (see below) evidently persuaded Environmental Health that a cleanup deserved a higher priority. Responsibilities RALCCO RECYCLING SITE IN NIPOMO—CLEANUP DUE
R2: My complaint against the above is: a. Describe the problem in your own words. b. Be as concise as possible; provide dates, times, and names of individuals involved. c. Cite specific instances as opposed to broad statements. d. Attach any available photographs, correspondence, and documentation that support the complaint. e. If you need more space to describe your complaint, attach extra sheets as necessary. Indicate on the last line of the first sheet how many additional sheets you are attaching (for example, “3 additional sheets attached”).
R3: Complainant (The grand jury will rigorously protect your confidentiality) a. Provide your name, mailing address, city, zip code, and telephone number. b. Sign the complaint. While you may file a complaint anonymously, this may make it much more difficult for the grand jury to investigate the allegations. c. Mail the complaint to the address shown on the complaint form. The grand jury will review and acknowledge receipt of your complaint. The grand jury may or may not advise you whether or not it will undertake an investigation. The grand jury may contact you during the conduct of an investigation. If you have questions, contact the grand jury secretary at (805) 781-5188. 32

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.