San Mateo County Grand Jury
2016-2017
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 (12)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The County of Santa Clara passed an ordinance in 2016 requiring agencies to adopt policies related to any surveillance technology before such technology is acquired or activated. The ordinance also requires agencies to issue annual reports explaining howthetechnologies are used and what theydiscovered. Response: The Cityagreeswith this finding,relying on the Grand Jury's representationsintheirreport.
F2:
The County and cities in San Mateo County have not enacted any ordinances governing their acquisition and use of surveillance technology, or the accessibility, management, or retention of the information acquired. Response: The City agrees with this finding, relying on the Grand Jury's representations in their report.
F3:
The County and cities in San Mateo County do inform residents about the use of some surveillance tools (Automated License Plate Readers and Body Worn Cameras) atpublicforums and citycouncil meetings: Cityor Town Council meeting orstaff reports posted onwebsite: Atherton, Burlingame, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco Honorable Leland Davis, III September 18, 2017 Public meeting or Town Halls: East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, Millbrae, Portola Valley, Ladera, and Emerald Hills. The City ofMenlo Park mentioned also having used social media for this purpose Response: The Cityagreeswith this finding,relying on the Grand Jury's representationsin theirreport.
F4:
With the exception of Burlingame, which borrowed ALPR technology, the cities and the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office have complied with the law requiring ALPR users to "conspicuously" post a link to the ALPR usage and privacy policy on their websites. Response: The City agrees with thisfinding, relying on the Grand Jury's representations in their report. The City website now has a link to the Automated License Plate Reader usage and privacy policy.
F5:
With the exception of the City of San Mateo, the generic ALPR policies posted by cities and the Sheriff's Office do not provide specific information that helpful toresidents. Response: The City of Burlingame has no independent basis on which to agree or disagree with the Grand Jury's findings as to other jurisdictions' policies. The City of Burlingame believes that the policy posted on the Burlingame Police Department web page is both specific and helpful toresidents. Responses toGrand Jury Recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
In addition to providing a conspicuous link to usage and privacy policies on operator websites (as required by law for ALPRs), all law enforcement agencies in the County should create an easily accessible and simply written information webpage by December 31, 2017, which lists the types ofsurveillance tools (such as ALPRs) and investigative tools (such as ShotSpotter and body worn cameras) utilized by the agency. At aminimum, such awebpage shall include these details about each tool: What is the use and purpose of the technology, such as assisting in ongoing criminal investigations, locating missing children, orlocating stolen vehicles Who isauthorized tocollect oraccess the data collected How the system ismonitored to ensure that the data are secure Who owns the surveillance technology What measures were taken toensure the accuracy ofthe data How long the data will be retained Response: This recommendation will be implemented in part. San Mateo County law enforcement agencies have already, by law, posted privacy policy information on theirwebsites as related toALPRs. The CityofBurlingamewill expand its ALPR privacy and usage policy to include additional electronic equipment where the release of such information does not unnecessarily jeopardize public safety and criminal investigations, and will place that information in a conspicuous location on its website by December 31 ,2017.
R2:
All law enforcement agencies in the County shall increase the number and types of opportunities for community members to voice support for or opposition to any proposed addition of new surveillance technologies including, but not limited to: Registeronline with the CityofBurlingame to receive regularCityupdates atwww.Burlingame.org Honorable Leland Davis, III September 18,2017 Surveying residents to better understand their concerns about law enforcement's use of surveillance tools and address those concerns in public meetings, Town Halls, Neighborhood Watch sessions and other local gatherings. Using social media platforms such as Nextdoor© to keep residents engaged and informed about surveillance technologies and its uses in your community. Response: The City of Burlingame will implement this recommendation for tools used in the conduct of basic police business such as Body Worn Cameras and ALPRs. The City of Burlingame recognizes that not all community members utilize internet and social media, and will seek opportunities atpublic meetings, including neighborhood association meetings,neighborhood watch gatherings, and publicly noticed City meetingstoshare thisinformation. This recommendation cannot be fully implemented for certain law enforcement investigative tools and techniques primarily used for complex criminal investigations without jeopardizing the ability to gather evidence for the serious crimes in question. Therefore, the City will not hold public forums or conduct similar outreach on certain investigative techniques or technology where doing so might compromise critical investigations. Checks and balances already exist through the legal system, including various warrant requirements and Fourth Amendment protections, regarding the use of these techniques. Certain specialized electronic tools are precisely aimed at members ofcriminal organizations,careercriminals,and those underinvestigation forviolent crimes,with minimal to no impact to the law-abiding public. The City does and will continue to take steps to ensure that the informational privacyofpersonswho are notsuspectsorinvolved in such investigationswill be protected. All agencies in San Mateo County have signed a data and records sharing agreement with the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC) that places data in a secure repository located in a federal facility subject to federal and state statutes and policies addressing access,storage, and disclosure.
R3:
Staff shall bring to the city or town council (in the case of a police department or police bureau) or the Board of Supervisors (in the case of the Sheriff's Office) a policy or ordinance for consideration at a public meeting byDecember 31, 2017. Such ordinances orpolicies should require, ata minimum: Plans to acquire new surveillance technology be announced at public meetings and other forums to ensure thatthecommunity is aware and engaged when new technology is under consideration, Any "use policies" related to surveillance technology be readily available and easy to access on the city or County websites. Oversight and accountability be supported by posting periodic reports on the effectiveness of the surveillance tools used in the community. Response: Existing law requires that law enforcement agencies provide information to local governing bodies when acquiring certain new technologies. Law enforcement agencies make policies that govern the use of basic police surveillance tools and technologies publicly available. Where possible, the decision to acquire and how to use new technologies will be vetted through apublic process. However, this recommendation cannot be implemented in full because it creates obstacles that could limit law enforcement's ability to adapt and evolve to criminal activity and could compromise the safety and security of residents. Lawenforcementagencies may,undercertain circumstances,be unable towaitfor regularly scheduled publicmeetingsoftheirgoverning bodies whileinpursuitofcriminals and crimesin progress. Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates atwww.Burlingame.org Honorable Leland Davis, III September 18, 2017 Furthermore, existing protections for both personal information and investigatory activities are adequate to address the Grand Jury's concerns. Existing state law, in the form of Government Code 6254(O, exempts investigative, intelligence, and security records from disclosure under the California Public Records Laws. This exception to disclosure protects the integrity of investigations and the criminal legal process, as well as allowing jurisdictions to withhold certain information regarding individuals acquired as a result of an investigation. It is not absolute, however, and the public retains adequate access to information about police activities to be able to monitor a department's overall approach. In addition to the guarantees ofthe Fourth Amendment, California law specifically protects certain kinds of personal information. For example, under California Penal Code 1546 - 1546.4, known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, law enforcement is required to obtain court orders related to electronic communications intercept surveillance under Penal Code 629.50, pen register of trap and trace device under Penal Code 630, and for electronic tracking devices court orders are required under Penal Codes 1524 and 1534. In sum, the City remains committed toan open and publicprocess regarding law enforcement techniques wherever it is feasible and will not compromise sensitive investigations into serious criminal activity. In those contexts in which a full public discussion is not possible, the City nonetheless rigorously adheres to existing legal restraints to ensure that both public safety and personal privacy are protected. Thank you forthe opportunity to respond to this report. Registeronline with the CityofBurlingame to receive regularCity updates atwww.Burlingame.org City of East Palo Alto Larry Moody, Mayor Ruben Abrica, Vice Mayor Office of the Mayor Council Members Lisa Gauthier Carlos Romero Donna Rutherford October 4, 2017 Hon. Leland Davis, III Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevech Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Email: ckresevich@sanmateocourt.org RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT: “A DELICATE BALANCE: PRIVACY VS. PROTECTION.” Honorable Judge Davis, I appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the five findings and three recommendations referenced in the Grand Jury Report filed on July 12, 2017. The City of East Palo Alto’s response to the findings and recommendations are listed below. Response to Grand Jury Findings:
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Six independent special districts have completed the requirements and been awarded the District Transparency Certificate of Excellence designation from the Special District Leadership Foundation over the past three years. Response: Do not know. The RCD has not applied for an SDLF program, certificate, recognition, or certification but cannot comment on whether other districts have.
F2:
Eight additional independent special districts have completed the requirements and been awarded the District Transparency Certificate oJExcellence. GCSD Response: We partially agree with the finding. As explained in the body of the Grand Jury report, GCSD has completed the requirements for the DTCE, but we have not applied for the certificate.
F3:
Three independent special districts have achieved the District of Distinction Designation from the Special District Leadership Foundation over the past three years. GCSD Response: We agree with the finding. Avenue Alhambra . 3 r d Floor - P. O. Bo x 335 - EI Granada. California 94018 Telephone: (650) 726-7093 - Facsimile: (650) 726-7099 - E-mail: gcsd@granada.ca.gov Response Letter to Grand Jury - Website Transparency August 18, 2017
F4:
Fifteen independent special districts have websites meeting the first tier of required components. GCSD Response: We agree with the finding. FS. Eight independent special districts websites have not met the Special District Leadership Foundation minimum requirements. GCSD Response: We agree with the finding. RECOMMENDAnONS: Rl. The eight independent special districts' websites that do not conform to the current standards set by the Special District Leadership Foundation's transparency checklist shall conform to the accepted criteria on or before December 31, 2017. GCSD Response: The recommendation is not applicable to our Agency.
F5:
Eight independent special districts websites have not met the Special District Leadership Foundation's minimum requirements. Response: Do not know. The RCD is not familiar with the websites of other special districts. Responses to Recommendations The Grand Jury directed the RCD to respond to Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 in its report and identify whether the recommendation has been implemented, has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, requires further analysis, or will not be implemented.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
All independent special districts shall take the necessary steps to maintain their websites using the current standards set by the Special District Leadership Foundation so as to provide pertinent information to their constituents and to continue to qualify for the District Transparency Certificate ofExcellence. GCSD Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The District previously met the Tier 1 requirements, and our contact information has been updated. Four items listed in Tier 2 have been added to our website.
R3:
The eight independent special districts that qualify for the District Transparency Certificat e ofExcellence are strongly encouraged to apply for it to be recognized for their efforts. GCSD Response: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented by December 2017. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury Report and to provide our input in this process. Sincerely, GRANADA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Jim Blanchard, Board President 504 Avenue Alhambra . 3 r d Floor - P. O. Bo x 335 - EI Granada. California 94018 Telephone: (650) 726-7093 - Facsimile: (650) 726-7099 - E-mail: gcsd@granada.ca.gov Highlands Recreation District HI .I-ILANOS RECREATI ON 1851 Lexington Avenu e· San Mateo,CA94402 D I S TR I T (650) 341-4251 • Fax (650) 349-9627 ES T 19 5 7 www.highlandsrec.ca.gov "W here ~ami0 1'rac!ifiol1J'Bf!Ji/1 " July 12,2017 Hon. Lisa Novak Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Honorable Ms. Novak: In response to the June 19,2017 Grand Jury Report , the Highlands Recreation District (HRD) hereby submits the following. This response was approved by the HRD Board of Directors at its July 11,2017 board meeting. General Comment: The HRD generally agrees with the findings and recommendations made in the report. The HRD engaged the services of a professional web development firm to revise our website in the latter halfof2013. Since then, the site has been continually upgraded and updated, either in house or by outsourcing to a professional. The District earned a Transparency Certificate in 2014, and again in 2017. Additional comments: 1. As stated in the District's July 2014 response to the 2014 Grand Jury inquiry, the Highlands Recreation District's website was compliant and received its transparency Certificate in 2014. Therefore, the current report's opening statement regarding 'the lack of transparency in the websites of23 independent special districts' in 2014 may be too strongly worded. Our District, for example, was already actively working on improving and upgrading its website to more fully comply with transparency recommendations, but at no time was the District completely lacking in such transparency. The District's upgrade efforts ....-cre completed by June 30, 2014. Sc while there were certainly varying degrees of transparency among special districts in the County, there was not a collective and complete lack of such transparency. 2. It is also important to note that, until recently, the cost of maintaining and updating websites on a daily or monthly basis was a burden for smaller Districts who lacked the internal technological capability and expertise to update websites. Today, such updates are much more easily and more timely done, as functionality and user-interface have been greatly simplified and are much more cost-effective. 3. The District's applied for Transparency Certificate renewal in September 2016. The renewal was confirmed in April 2017. This certificate is in effect through April 2019. A copy ofthe certificate is attached. 4. The District website includes (and has included since June 25,2014) a link to a document clearly showing District boundaries: http://highlandsrec.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/pdf boarddocs-District-Map.pdf If that is, in fact, item 2H on the Transparency Checklist on , please make that correction on the checklist to indicate compliance. (Assuming that the item listing on corresponds to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 lists on .) Thank you for your attention to the suggestions and requested corrections to the Grand Jury report. Thank you also for your time and service to the County and its residents. Sincerely, IM~ Eric Olbekson, President, Board of Directors Highlands Recreation District cc: Portor Goltz, Counsel Supervisor Dave Pine HRD Board of Directors 555 12`" Street, Suite 1500 Lauren E. Quint Oakland, California 94607 Attorney at Law tel(510)808-2000 Iquint@meyersnave.com fax (510) 444-1108 www.meyersnave.com meyers i nave November 28, 2017 Honorable Leland Davis, III Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Re: Civil Grand Jury Response Dear Honorable Leland Davis, III: I am the General Counsel of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District( "MPFPD" or the "District"). On behalf of the MPFPD Board of Directors, the District provides the following responses to the findings and recommendations of the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "Can We See You Now?" dated June 19, 2017. The Board does not have sufficient information to opine as to other special districts and will respond only to those findings and recommendations that apply directly to the MPFPD. The MPFPD Board of Directors approved this letter and instructed its delivery at its November 21, 2017 regular board meeting.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Six independent special districts have completed the requirements and been awarded the District Transparency Certificate of Excellence designation from the Special District Leadership Foundation over the past three years. . Coastside Fire Protection District . Highlands Recreation District . North Coast County Water District . Peninsula Healthcare District . San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District . Westborough Water District
F2:
Eight additional independent special districts have completed the requirements and been awarded the District Transparency Certificate of Excellence. . Coastside County Water District . Granada Community Services District . Menlo Park Fire District . Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District . Montara Water and Sanitary District . San Mateo Resource Conservation District . Sequoia Healthcare District . West Bay Sanitary District
F3:
Three independent special districts have achieved the District of Distinction Designation from the Special District Leadership Foundation over the past three years. . Coastside Fire Protection District . North Coast County Water District . San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District
F4:
Fifteen independent special districts have websites meeting the first tier of required components. . Coastside County Water District . Coastside Fire Protection District . Granada Community Services District . Highlands Recreation District . Menlo Park Fire District . Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District . Montara Water and Sanitary District . Northcoast County Water District . Peninsula Healthcare District . San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District . San Mateo County Resource Conservation District . Sequoia Healthcare District . West Bay Sanitary District . Westborough Water District . Woodside Fire Protection District
F5:
Eight independent special districts websites have not met the Special District Leadership Foundation’s minimum requirements. . Bayshore Sanitary District . Broadmoor Police Protection District . Colma Fire Protection District . East Palo Alto Sanitary District . Ladera Recreation District . Mid-Peninsula Water District . San Mateo County Harbor District . Woodside Fire Protection District
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The eight independent special districts’ websites that do not conform to the current standards set by the Special District Leadership Foundation’s transparency checklist shall conform to the accepted criteria on or before December 31, 2017.
R2:
All independent special districts shall take the necessary steps to maintain their websites using the current standards set by the Special District Leadership Foundation so as to provide pertinent information to their constituents and to continue to qualify for the District Transparency Certificate of Excellence.
R3:
The eight independent special districts that qualify for the District Transparency Certificate of Excellence are strongly encouraged to apply for it to be recognized for their efforts. Response: Sequoia Healthcare District agrees with the
R4:
The District website includes (and has included since June 25,2014) a link to a document clearly showing District boundaries: http://highlandsrec.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/pdf boarddocs-District-Map.pdf If that is, in fact, item 2H on the Transparency Checklist on , please make that correction on the checklist to indicate compliance. (Assuming that the item listing on corresponds to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 lists on .) Thank you for your attention to the suggestions and requested corrections to the Grand Jury report. Thank you also for your time and service to the County and its residents. Sincerely, IM~ Eric Olbekson, President, Board of Directors Highlands Recreation District cc: Portor Goltz, Counsel Supervisor Dave Pine HRD Board of Directors 555 12`" Street, Suite 1500 Lauren E. Quint Oakland, California 94607 Attorney at Law tel(510)808-2000 Iquint@meyersnave.com fax (510) 444-1108 www.meyersnave.com meyers i nave November 28, 2017 Honorable Leland Davis, III Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Re: Civil Grand Jury Response Dear Honorable Leland Davis, III: I am the General Counsel of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District( "MPFPD" or the "District"). On behalf of the MPFPD Board of Directors, the District provides the following responses to the findings and recommendations of the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "Can We See You Now?" dated June 19, 2017. The Board does not have sufficient information to opine as to other special districts and will respond only to those findings and recommendations that apply directly to the MPFPD. The MPFPD Board of Directors approved this letter and instructed its delivery at its November 21, 2017 regular board meeting.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Approximately 130,019 (17.8%) of the residents of San Mateo County self-report that they do not speak English "very well. "
F2:
The 17 law enforcement agencies in San Mateo County provide an impressive 170+ outreach programs. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding.
F3:
The following nine cities' police departments' websites provide access to multiple languages: • Daly City • East Palo Alto • Hillsborough • Menlo Park • Pacifica • Redwood City • San Bruno • South San Francisco • City of San Mateo The respondent agrees that the City of San Mateo Police Department's website provides access to multiple languages.
F4:
The following four cities' police departments' websites have no mention of outreach programs on their websites: • Atherton • Brisbane • Colma • Hillsborough The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding, FS All seven of the law enforcement agencies listed below consider the language needs of the attendees when planning community outreach events: • Daly City Police Department • East Palo Alto Police Department • Redwood City Police Department • San BfW10 Police Department • City of San Mateo Police Department • South San Francisco Police Department • San Mateo County Sheriffs Office The respondent agrees that the City of San Mateo Police Department considers the language needs of the attendees when planning community outreach events.
F5:
All seven of the law enforcement agencies listed below consider the language needs of the attendees when planning community outreach events: Daly City Police Department, EastPaloAlto Police Department, RedwoodCity Police Department, San Bruno Police Department, City of San Mateo Police Department, South San Francisco Police Department, and the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office.
F6:
All seven of the law enforcement agencies listed below provide an opportunity for one-on one interaction with a police offer or a Q&A session with an interpreter on site: • Daly City Police Department • East Palo Alto Police Department • Redwood City Police Department • San BfW10 Police Department • City of San Mateo Police Department • South San Francisco Police Department • San Mateo COW1ty Sheriffs Office The respondent agrees that the City of San Mateo Police Department provides an opportunity for one-on one interaction with a police offer or a Q&A session with an interpreter on site.
F7:
Of the seven law enforcement agencies listed in F6, six provide publication information in more than English: • Daly City Police Department • East Palo Alto Police Department • Redwood City Police Department • City of San Mateo Police Department • South San Francisco Police Department • San Mateo COW1ty Sheriffs Office The respondent agrees that the City of San Mateo Police Department provides publication information in more than English.
F8:
Of the seven law enforcement agencies listed in F6, five sponsor specific outreach events for non-English speaking residents: • East Palo Alto Police Department • Redwood City Police Department • City of San Mateo Police Department • South San Francisco Police Department • San Mateo County Sheriffs Office The respondent agrees that the City of San Mateo Police Department sponsors specific outreach events for non-English speaking residents.
F9:
Of the seven law enforcement agencies listed in F6, six work with other police agencies to reach non-English speaking residents for outreach events: • East Palo Alto Police Department • Redwood City Police Department • San Bruno Police Department • City of San Mateo Police Department • South San Francisco Police Department • San Mateo County Sheriffs Office The respondent agrees that the City of San Mateo Police Department works with other police agencies to reach non-English speaking residents for outreach events FlO Ofthe seven law enforcement agencies listed in F6, six provide outreach materials in languages other than English: • Daly City Police Department • East Palo Alto Police Department • Redwood City Police Department • San Bruno Police Department • South San Francisco Police Department • San Mateo County Sheriffs Office The respondent wholly disagrees with this finding. The San Mateo Police Department provides numerous outreach materials in languages other than English. We have had materials related to crime prevention and safety tips available on our website in Spanish for many years including information on how to report a crime; how to protect oneself against identity theft; what to do if you are receiving harassing phone calls; information regarding hit-and-run accidents; and answers to frequently asked questions. In addition, we provide various pamphlets and literature translated in Spanish, Tongan, and various dialects of Chinese, including information on how community members can connect with the Police Department via various forms of social media. Fll Of the seven law enforcement agencies listed in F6, six provide on-site interpreters for outreach programs: • East Palo Alto Police Department • Redwood City Police Department • San Bruno Police Department • City of San Mateo Police Department • South San Francisco Police Department • San Mateo County Sheriffs Office The respondent agrees that the City of San Mateo Police Department provides on site interpreters for outreach programs. Response to Grand Jury Recommendations: Rl All law enforcement agencies in San Mateo County shall modify their websites by including multilingual translation capability to potentially increase access and participation in outreach programs by non-English speaking residents by December 31, 2017. This recommendation has already been implemented. In a process unrelated to the Grand Jury report, the City of San Mateo has been working over the past year towards launching a newly re-designed website. The new site went live on July 10,2017, and includes a Google translate bar which provides multilingual translation capability on every page within the City's site, including all pages with content related to law enforcement and the Police Department.
F10:
Of the seven law enforcement agencies listed in Finding 6, six provide outreach materials 'in languages other than English: Daly City Police Department, East Palo Alto Police Department, Redwood City Police Department, San Bruno Police Department, South San Francisco Police Department, and the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office.
F11:
Of the seven law enforcement agencies listed in Finding 6, six provide on-site interpreters for outreach programs: East Palo Alto Police Department, Redwood City Police Department, San Bruno Police Department, City of San Mateo Police Department, South San Francisco Police Department, and the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office.
F12:
By acting now, San Mateo County may be able to reduce future costs by integrating sea level rise related projects with other programmed levee projects, and by using land use planning measures to mitigate future exposure to sea level rise. Response: Based on the information provided in the Grand Jury Report, the Town agrees with these findings .
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All law enforcement agencies in San Mateo County shall modify their websites by including multilingual translation capability to potentially increase access and participation in outreach programs by non-English speaking residents by December 31, 2017. Response: Law enforcement within the Town of Woodside is provided by the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office by contract. The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office is currently replacing its primary website - smcsheriff.com . One of the features of the new website will be multi-language support. The new site will 2 provide multi-language support through the use of language options prominently displayed in the upper right-hand corner of the new site. The Sheriff's Office anticipates having the new website up before the end of October 2017. On behalf of the Town Council, I would like to extend our thanks for the opportunity to review and respond to the work of the 2016-17 Grand Jury. Please do not hesitate to call Town Manager Kevin Bryant, at (650) 851-6790, should you require any further information. Sincerely, iLLI·L Thomas H. Livermore Mayor 3
R2:
The law enforcement agencies (Atherton, Brisbane, Colma, and Hillsborough) whose websites lack information about their outreach programs shall update their website with the outreach programs available on the home page or provide a prominent link to the outreach programs page, by December 31, 2017. This recommendation is not applicable to this respondent. This response to the Grand Jury was approved at a public meeting on August 21,2017. The City of San Mateo and the San Mateo Police Department believe that offering multilingual outreach programs is paramount to maintaining an engaged conununity, and is an effective means to increase access and participation from all segments of our diverse City. We conunend the County's endeavor to raise awareness of this issue. Respectfully, ~~.---..L- DaVId Lim Mayor - City of San Mateo September 13, 2017 The Honorable Leland Davis, III Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 County Center, 2nd Floor The Town of Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Woodside RE: 2016-17 GRAND JURY REPORT -English is Not Our Only Language Dear Judge Davis: The Town Council of the Town of Woodside wishes to thank the 2016-17 Grand Jury for its service. The Town Council has reviewed the report entitled English is Not Our Only Language; Are Local Law Enforcement Agencies Providing Multilingual Access to Outreach Programs? and reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury at its public meeting of September 12,2017, and approved the following responses:
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Approximately 130,019 (17.8%) of the residents of San Mateo County self-report that they do not speak English “very well.”
F2:
The 17 law enforcement agencies in San Mateo County provide an impressive 170+ outreach programs.
F3:
The following nine cities’ police departments’ websites provide access to multiple languages:28 • Daly City • East Palo Alto • Hillsborough • Menlo Park • Pacifica • Redwood City • San Bruno • South San Francisco • City of San Mateo
F4:
The following four cities’ police departments’ websites have no mention of outreach programs on their websites: • Atherton • Brisbane • Colma • Hillsborough
F5:
All seven of the law enforcement agencies listed below consider the language needs of the attendees when planning community outreach events: • Daly City Police Department • East Palo Alto Police Department • Redwood City Police Department • San Bruno Police Department • City of San Mateo Police Department • South San Francisco Police Department • San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
F6:
All seven of the law enforcement agencies listed below provide an opportunity for one-on- one interaction with a police offer or a Q&A session with an interpreter on site: • Daly City Police Department • East Palo Alto Police Department • Redwood City Police Department • San Bruno Police Department • City of San Mateo Police Department 28 Appendix B • South San Francisco Police Department • San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
F7:
Of the seven law enforcement agencies listed in F6, six provide publication information in more than English: • Daly City Police Department • East Palo Alto Police Department • Redwood City Police Department • City of San Mateo Police Department • South San Francisco Police Department • San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
F8:
Of the seven law enforcement agencies listed in F6, five sponsor specific outreach events for non-English speaking residents: • East Palo Alto Police Department • Redwood City Police Department • City of San Mateo Police Department • South San Francisco Police Department • San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
F9:
Of the seven law enforcement agencies listed in F6, six work with other police agencies to reach non-English speaking residents for outreach events: • East Palo Alto Police Department • Redwood City Police Department • San Bruno Police Department • City of San Mateo Police Department • South San Francisco Police Department • San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
F10:
Of the seven law enforcement agencies listed in F6, six provide outreach materials in languages other than English: • Daly City Police Department • East Palo Alto Police Department • Redwood City Police Department • San Bruno Police Department • South San Francisco Police Department • San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
F11:
Of the seven law enforcement agencies listed in F6, six provide on-site interpreters for outreach programs: • East Palo Alto Police Department • Redwood City Police Department • San Bruno Police Department • City of San Mateo Police Department • South San Francisco Police Department • San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All law enforcement agencies in San Mateo County shall modify their websites by including multilingual translation capability to potentially increase access and participation in outreach programs by non-English speaking residents by December 31, 2017.
R2:
The law enforcement agencies (Atherton, Brisbane, Colma, and Hillsborough) whose websites lack information about their outreach programs shall update their website with the outreach programs available on the home page or provide a prominent link to the outreach programs page, by December 31, 2017.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Additional Recommendations
18
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the councils of those cities/towns that have not adopted body-worn cameras direct their respective chiefs of police to develop an appropriate body-worn camera implementation plan and advise the public of their plan by November 30, 2016.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Sheriff develop a plan to implement body-worn cameras and advise the public of his plan by November 30, 2016.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the police departments of those cities, towns, and the Broadmoor Police Protection District that have not adopted body-worn cameras implement a body-worn camera system as soon as practicable but, in any event, no later than October 31, 2017.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office implement a body-worn camera system as soon as practicable but, in any event, no later than October 31, 2017. APPLICABLE RESPONDING AGENCY RESPONSE FOLLOW UP RECOMMENDATION
R5:
Improve information visibility on their website, including key system characteristics, rates and rate history, sewer system management plans, sanitary sewer overflows, and board member compensation. Key system characteristics would include population served, number of connections, number of miles of pipe (gravity, forced main), number of pump stations and number of pumps, average dry weather flow, and average wet weather flow. Ensure all information is up to date. Refresh website by September 30, 2016.
R6:
Implement and publish performance management metrics including but not limited to the Effective Utility Management framework, beginning with Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
R7:
Adjust rates over the next five years so that all costs are recovered from ratepayers, and the reliance on property tax is eliminated. Transition property tax revenues to neighboring cities to be used for community benefit.
R8:
Mail notices to ratepayers at least annually with an explanation of the dollar amount of sewer service charges being billed and the rationale. Provide information on the prior five years' rates for comparison purposes. Display the portion of the rate that is related to collection activities, and the portion allocated to treatment. Mail notices approximately 30 days before the mailing of the property tax bills. Initiate mailings by November 2016.
R9:
Notify ratepayers annually of elected nature of Board, role and compensation of Board members, and process for becoming a candidate. Encourage active participation by ratepayers. This notification may be included in the mailing that explains the rationale for rates. Initiate notification by November 2016.
R10:
Establish term limits for the members of their boards of directors by June 30, 2017.
R11:
Establish a procurement process for professional services to include formal evaluation of existing service providers, issuance of Request for Proposals, regular reviews of existing providers, and a structured negotiation process by March 31, 2017.
R12:
Demonstrate active participation in professional organizations focused on the work of sanitary districts, such as California Water Environment Association, by June 30, 2017. Require CWEA certification of district operators, including contractors, by June 30, 2017.
R13:
Develop plans for coordinating resources in the event of a local or regional emergency by June 30, 2017. San Mateo County's Cottage Industry Of Sanitary Districts, continued The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of Bayshore Sanitary District, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, West Bay Sanitary District, and Westborough Water District do the following:
R14:
Evaluate the benefit of changing the timing of board director elections to November of even years, when federal and state elections generate greater turnout. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Westborough Water District do the following:
R15:
Develop, publish, and track separate budgets for sewer and water services, beginning with Fiscal Year 2016-2017. The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of the Bayshore Sanitary District, Montara Water and Sanitary District, and Westborough Water District do the following:
R16:
Explore the feasibility of establishing a flat rate for capital improvements separate from the water usage rate. Report back at a public meeting by December 31, 2016. The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of the Bayshore Sanitary District and East Palo Alto Sanitary District do the following:
R17:
Reduce the daily compensation of board directors to $100 per day by December 31, 2017. Phase out all benefits for board directors over a period of time not to exceed three years. The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission do the following:
R18:
Initiate a service review of the Westborough Water District to examine whether its operations might be more efficiently and effectively run if they were consolidated with another entity's operations. APPLICABLE RESPONDING AGENCY RESPONSE FOLLOW UP RECOMMENDATION Local Agency Formation X
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The County has no record of issuing a request for proposals for the animal control agreement; Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA has been the sole vendor since 1952.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County shall issue a request for proposals or a request for qualifications for animal control services in preparation for the end of the existing agreement term (July 2020) in an effort to bring transparency and competitive bidding to the process.
F2:
The County’s oversight of the animal control agreement has been insufficient. In recent years, PHS/SPCA was allowed to miss several required reporting obligations and the County has not performed regular site inspections or performance audits throughout the history of the animal control agreement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County shall ensure that PHS/SPCA is accountable for meeting all reporting obligations and requests mandated by the agreement.
F3:
Budget constraints have delayed the new animal shelter construction project, resulting in design concessions and, consequently, extending the use of the existing shelter beyond its useful life.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County shall perform, at a minimum, annual facility and vehicle inspections to ensure a safe and healthy environment for the animals in the County’s care and the staff that take care of them.
F4:
The County currently has no plans for the new shelter to have an adoption center. The lack of an adoption center could become an issue for the County in the future if PHS/SPCA, who currently provides adoption services at their private facility, is no longer the contractor for animal control services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County shall execute routine third-party performance audits on the contracted services at logical intervals, e.g. midway through a 5-year agreement term, to ensure efficient and effective service.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
Upon completion of construction of the shelter, the County shall address the new facility maintenance and repair responsibilities in a new service agreement upon completion of construction of the shelter; some of these responsibilities shall be delegated to the contractor based on simplicity, urgency and specialization of the repair.
R6:
By December 31, 2017, the County shall identify options for handling the adoption of animals from the shelter.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The County of Santa Clara passed an ordinance in 2016 requiring agencies to adopt policies related to any surveillance technology before such technology is acquired or activated. The ordinance also requires agencies to issue annual reports explaining how the technologies are used and what they discovered.
F2:
The County and cities in San Mateo County have not enacted any ordinances governing their acquisition and use of surveillance technology, or the accessibility, management, or retention of the information acquired.
F3:
The County and cities in San Mateo County do inform residents about the use of some surveillance tools (Automated License Plate Readers and Body Worn Cameras) at public forums and city council meetings: • City or Town Council meeting or staff reports posted on website: Atherton, Burlingame, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco • Public meeting or Town Halls: East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, Sheriff’s Office • The City of Menlo Park mentioned also having used social media for this purpose.
F4:
With the exception of Burlingame, which borrowed ALPR technology, the cities and the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office have complied with the law requiring ALPR users to “conspicuously” post a link to the ALPR usage and privacy policy on their websites.
F5:
With the exception of the City of San Mateo, the generic ALPR policies posted by cities and the Sheriff’s Office do not provide specific information that helpful to residents.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
In addition to providing a conspicuous link to usage and privacy policies on operator websites (as required by law for ALPRs), all law enforcement agencies in the County should create an easily accessible and simply written information webpage by December 31, 2017, which lists the types of surveillance tools (such as ALPRs) and investigative tools (such as ShotSpotter and body worn cameras) utilized by the agency. At a minimum, such a webpage shall include these details about each tool: • What is the use and purpose of the technology, such as assisting in ongoing criminal investigations, locating missing children, or locating stolen vehicles • Who is authorized to collect or access the data collected • How the system is monitored to ensure that the data are secure • Who owns the surveillance technology • What measures were taken to ensure the accuracy of the data • How long the data will be retained
R2:
All law enforcement agencies in the County shall increase the number and types of opportunities for community members to voice support for or opposition to any proposed addition of new surveillance technologies including, but not limited to: • Surveying residents to better understand their concerns about law enforcement’s use of surveillance tools and address those concerns in public meetings, Town Halls, Neighborhood Watch sessions and other local gatherings. • Using social media platforms such as Nextdoor© to keep residents engaged and informed about surveillance technologies and its uses in your community.
R3:
Staff shall bring to the city or town council (in the case of a police department or police bureau) or the Board of Supervisors (in the case of the Sheriff’s Office) a policy or ordinance for consideration at a public meeting by December 31, 2017. Such ordinances or policies should require, at a minimum: • Plans to acquire new surveillance technology be announced at public meetings and other forums to ensure that the community is aware and engaged when new technology is under consideration. • Any “use policies” related to surveillance technology be readily available and easy to access on the city or County websites. • Oversight and accountability be supported by posting periodic reports on the effectiveness of the surveillance tools used in the community.
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable with an explanation therefore. Cityof Menlo Park 701 Laurel si., Menlo Park. CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.rnenlopark.orq
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Of the 23 San Mateo County school districts, the following 16 reported to have fields that will require replacement in the next 5 years: • Bayshore Elementary School District • Belmont-Redwood Shores School District • Brisbane School District • Burlingame School District • Cabrillo Unified School District • Hillsborough City School District • Jefferson Elementary School District • Jefferson Union High School District • Las Lomitas Elementary School District • Millbrae School District • Portola Valley School District • Redwood City School District • San Carlos School District • San Mateo Union High School District • Sequoia Union High School District • South San Francisco Unified School District 76 SportsGrass.com. http://sportsgrass.com/ 77 Cornell University, Sports Field Management. http://safesportsfields.cals.cornell.edu/grasses-for-sports-fields.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Produce written guidelines for the decision-making process involved in field installation and replacement, which shall include the following:
R1a:
Consider the uncertainty regarding the safety of tire-derived products used on school fields, particularly crumb rubber.
R1b:
Evaluate and make their decisions on policy development and field replacements based on current scientific evidence regarding the use of crumb rubber on athletic fields as it becomes available, whether or not the EPA report is complete.
R1c:
Undertake measures to increase community involvement during the field replacement evaluation process, including discussion regarding potential concerns about the safety of crumb rubber or other tire-derived products. This could be similar to the 2013 City of San Mateo study regarding the possibility of using artificial turf on its fields, which included extensive public outreach for comment, using post cards, email, website comment, community workshops and capture surveys to solicit and collect public input.
F2:
The total installation costs for each artificial turf field infilled with crumb rubber equal approximately $2.5 million - $3.7 million; the total installation costs for each natural grass field are approximately $2.0 million - $2.5 million. The annual maintenance costs for each artificial turf field infilled with crumb rubber equal approximately $10,600 per field, per year; the annual maintenance costs for each grass field equal approximately $2850 per field, per year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Consider (among other factors) the following when selecting materials for their athletic fields and playgrounds: 1. Safety to humans and animals 2. Suitability based upon the location’s intended use and frequency of use 3. Cost (of installation and lifecycle requirements) and manufacturer warranty.
F3:
High demand for field use by schools and community groups is one reason why some school districts favor the installation of artificial turf fields instead of grass.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Impose a moratorium on the utilization of artificial turf with crumb rubber infill until the Environmental Protection Agency concludes its study or until all the policies listed above have been implemented.
F4:
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “studies to date have not shown an elevated health risk from playing on fields with tire crumb rubber, but these studies have limitations and do not comprehensively evaluate the concerns about health risks from exposure to tire crumb rubber.”
F5:
The San Mateo County Office of Education reported that it is the responsibility of each school district’s Board of Trustees and Superintendent to develop policies regarding the issue of athletic field installation or replacement.
F6:
The San Mateo-Foster City School District and the San Mateo Union High School District have written policies regarding school construction and renovations, but neither has written guidelines or policies governing the decision-making process for constructing or replacing athletic fields.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Based upon Grand Jury interviews and examination of the IT Service Catalog, the Information Services Department cross-charging method appears complex, difficult to manage, and subject to time-consuming error correction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County Manager’s Office and Information Services Department shall: • Centralize the budgeting, cost-incurrence, personnel, operations, and responsibilities for backbone infrastructure and general-purpose hardware support not managed by user departments and all software support (including nonstandard, special mission applications) within the Information Services Department; • Discontinue actual charging of services to user departments and replace with a memorandum-charging system to mimic the current cross-charging method for continued grant reimbursement; • Continue inclusion of costs for supplies, capital, and leasing of hardware and software in departments using them, as is currently done.
F2:
Data security vulnerabilities arise because of the varied responsibilities of the Information Services Department and user departments for software patches and upgrades and hardware encryption under different arrangements supported in the current cross-charging method.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Information Services Department shall schedule replacement of the existing cross- charging method with the memorandum charging system for July 2018.
F3:
The current cross-charging method complicates the budget process because it causes difficulties for both the Information Services Department in forecasting alternative modes of service that departments may elect, and also for departments in forecasting their Information Services Department charges.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Information Services Department shall assume single-point responsibility and accountability for all software security compliance throughout the County.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Of the 21 recommendations made by the 2003-2004 San Mateo Civil Grand Jury and the 2009 Operational Review by the Controller’s Office, which the Procurement Division agreed were valid, only four have been fully implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Procurement Division should develop a timeline for the implementation of recommendations from the 2003-2004 Grand Jury and the Controller’s 2009 Operational Review, as well as any recommendations resulting from the Controller’s Office’s and PCC’s current reviews. This timeline should include regular updates from the Procurement Division directly to the County Manager.
F2:
San Mateo County’s Procurement Division does not have full-time experienced procurement leadership.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County Manager’s Office should strengthen the Procurement Division with full-time procurement-experienced leadership.
F3:
County departments have expressed dissatisfaction with the service provided by the Procurement Division.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Procurement Division should provide training and involve procurement staff (both in the Procurement Division and in County departments) in developing, understanding, and implementing professional performance standards.
F4:
County departments use inconsistent purchasing procedures that may not follow procurement best practices.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Procurement Division should develop best-practice procedures for purchasing that all County departments must follow.
F5:
The Procurement Division does not have the necessary systems in place to manage or monitor the purchasing process properly.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Procurement Division should work closely with the Controller’s Office to develop reports necessary to manage and monitor procurement.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
Procurement should review expired Vendor Agreements for cost savings opportunities. 2010: Not implemented. Management Response: 1) All expired vendor agreements, current vendor agreements, and possible new vendor agreements are reviewed with each buyer monthly. Purchasing updates expired vendor agreements as buy time allows; 2) Purchasing has responded to the list provided by IA (internal audit); 3) Buyers notes, communication, and vendor price offerings are maintained in the vendor agreement file. 2015: Although there is no formal documented process for the review of expired VAs, please see above for the informal process. This will be a project for the PUG/PCC. Not Implemented: Formal documented process does not exist for review of expired VAs. As of yearend 2014, 20% of VAs were expired.
R7:
Procurement should implement a formal documented process for vendor evaluation. 2010: Not implemented. Management Response: A formal process has not been addressed. Purchasing does not agree that failure of having a formal evaluation process of all vendors undermines our ability to comply with laws and to have fair and open competition. 2015: There is no formal documented process for vendor evaluation. This will be a project for the PUG/PCC. Not Implemented: Formal documented process does not exist for vendor evaluation.
R8:
Procurement should establish clear guidelines for vendor selection and retention of bid/selection documentation. 2010: Not implemented. Management Response: A formal process has not been addressed. Purchasing does not agree that failure of having a formal evaluation of all vendors undermines our ability to comply with laws and to have fair and open competition. 2015: There is no formal documented process for vendor selection and retention of bid/selection documentation. This will be a project for the PUG/PCC. Not Implemented: County departments set their own guidelines/criteria for selecting vendors on their projects.
R9:
Ensure pricing information is available to facilitate checking to invoiced prices. 2010: In Process. Purchasing Manager has communicated to his staff that invoices should have sufficient detail to facilitate price checking. Management Response: Purchasing includes prices for vendor agreements depending on what makes sense: order release forms in AVAS such as [vendor name], web site contract prices such as [vendor name], formula pricing such as [vendor name], and retail prices such as [vendor name]. 2015: Specific pricing information to facilitate checking to invoiced prices is not included in all VAs. This will be a project for the PUG/PCC. This recommendation has been partially implemented.
R10:
Evaluate buyer performance on quantitative measures that contribute towards Procurement’s overall goals and objectives. 2010: Not implemented. Management Response: Development is pending. 2015: Per DDHR, self-evaluations were completed by staff in October 2014. Annual evaluations are being delivered now. Goals are being set in the Collaborative Performance Management System (CPMS) system for 2015 and will include quantitative measures like days to complete Purchase Orders (POs), customer satisfaction, total POs processed, etc. Additionally, Procurement staff participates regularly with California Association of Procurement Officers (CAPPO)16 meetings/trainings/list servers. Staff has attended the last two annual conferences where 35-40 hours of training / continuing education were provided by CAPPO. Two Procurement members will sit for the Certified Public Procurement Officer (CPPO). Implemented however no Procurement members are yet certified as Certified Public Procurement Officers.
R11:
Procurement should post guides and manual on the Intranet. 2010: Not Implemented. Management Response: Intranet not currently available. 2015: Not implemented. Per DDHR, PCC will update and post the manuals on the Intranet. Has been implemented.
R12:
Automate and streamline Procurement processes where possible so that the necessary monitoring and control capabilities are available to Procurement and other units to proactively manage countywide Procurement and maximize cost saving opportunities. 2010: Not implemented. Management Response 3rd party software has not be explored. Purchasing advocates the development of the IFAS Purchasing module to streamline the process. 3rd party software is costly and lacks the interface with IFAS for encumbrances and reporting. If IFAS is not a logical choice for future use the RFP process should be used to find a solution. Purchasing will include the Controller and ISD in the development and evaluation of any RFP. 2015: Not implemented. The DDHR agrees that this will be the function of the PCC and PUG. There has been a great deal of work done around the evaluation and selection of a bid-quote system with vendor management. A system for Procurement will be selected shortly after the contracting system has been selected. Not Implemented: The planned selection and implementation of a countywide e-Procurement system will include tools and reports to help monitor and manage procurement activities. In addition, the September 2015 update to IFAS will include 102 new reports and plans for the future include installing an ad hoc report writer all of which should further help Procurement to manage the purchase of goods across the County. Issued: July 13, 2015 16 CAPPO was formed in 1915 as a nonprofit organization dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of professional behavior and ethical conduct in public procurement. As the oldest public procurement association in the United States, CAPPO works to provide tools to buyers in the public sector that will help them develop their professional skills for their benefit and the benefit of their agencies. http://www.cappo.org/overview.
* 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.