Gran Jurado del Condado de San Mateo
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 (10)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
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: [email protected] 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.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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: [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
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
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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 [email protected] 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.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
12 hallazgos
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 .
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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:
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
11 hallazgos
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
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
While the Supreme Court of the United States has validated the constitutionality of plea bargaining, it did not set out the procedure to be followed, and different jurisdictions have developed different processes.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The San Mateo County District Attorney’s Victim Services Division should revise the form letter it initially sends to victims to include: a. A basic summary of victims’ rights, including the right to deliver a statement. b. A basic description and timeline of early hearings in criminal cases in a manner sufficient to communicate to victims that important rights may be lost if they do not act, including to deliver written impact statements, early enough in the process. (Appendices A and B are not intended for this purpose.) c. A link to the Victim Services website. This information should be written in a manner that the general public can easily understand. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2019.
F2:
The San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office does not provide printed materials or information on its website describing the County’s plea bargaining process.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The County District Attorney’s office should develop its own explanation of the County’s plea bargaining process in a manner that the general public can easily understand (Appendices A and B are not intended for this purpose), and make it available to the public in brochure form and on its website. This explanation should include at least the following: a description of routine court hearings in criminal cases relevant to the plea bargaining process, a timeline of these hearings, a description of the roles and responsibilities of participants at each of these hearings, and a description of the critical stages where participants, including victims, have a role to play that could influence a case’s outcome. A link to this website should be included in the initial form letter that Victim Services sends to victims. This recommendation should be implemented by March 31, 2020.
F3:
Oral victim statements have less of an impact on charges and sentencing of misdemeanors when they are delivered after the plea bargain is concluded and the sentence decided, while written statements delivered to the District Attorney’s Office before the plea bargain is developed are more likely to have an effect on the outcome of the case.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The San Mateo County District Attorney, using input from Victim Services, should develop and place on the District Attorney’s Office’s website a video showing a simulation of the portion of the plea bargaining process that takes place in the judge’s chambers. As an alternative, the District Attorney’s Office could consider using a video such as “Victims of Violence: A Guide to Help Bring Justice” produced by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), or some similar video, as a resource to share with victims. This recommendation should be implemented by June 30, 2020.
F4:
Victims of crime are afforded the right to participate in a meaningful way in the criminal justice process, but they are not likely to be able to exercise their rights if they are not informed of them early enough. The form letter, Marsy’s Rights Card, and brochure that the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Victim Services Division uses to make initial contact with a victim do not include any timeline or understandable explanation of key procedures. A victim might not know they have a right to make a statement, and if they wanted to make a statement, they would not know when.
F5:
The form letter that the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Victim Services Division uses to make initial contact with a victim does not include a link to its website.
Recomendaciones adicionales
18
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Information Services Department shall assume single-point responsibility and accountability for all software security compliance throughout the County.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The Procurement Division should work closely with the Controller’s Office to develop reports necessary to manage and monitor procurement.
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.