Santa Barbara 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 (30)
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F3:
Recommendation 3 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – Informational Copy – No Response Required 28 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury BODY CAMERAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS BODY CAMERAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS The Eye of the Camera SUMMARY Across the nation, law enforcement body cameras are becoming a valuable tool in evaluating disputed actions on the part of both police officers and the public. Recorded footage is sometimes critical in ascertaining guilt or innocence. What the camera records can be played in courts and in the media. The public is now highly media conscious and often insists on seeing what has been caught on camera in the interest of fairness and transparency. This tool is becoming more available to law enforcement throughout California. The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) looked into a citizen’s question about the use of body cameras by County law enforcement agencies. Within Santa Barbara County (County), law enforcement agencies have discussed body cameras and reached different conclusions. No law enforcement agencies, with the exception of the Isla Vista Foot Patrol Sheriff’s Substation and Guadalupe Police Department, have taken the action of supplying cameras for all its officers or deputies. For those agencies that permit the individual use of body cameras, the cost of purchasing and maintaining the cameras may fall on the law officers themselves. It appears that in the future body cameras will become a standard part of the law officers’ equipment as much as dashboard cameras are now. While not failsafe, the data provided by cameras can offer protection for both the officers and the public. The cost of the cameras and supporting technology will be expensive and the implementation will be complex. The Jury proposes that each law enforcement agency that utilizes body cameras have a policy for the use of and storage of their recordings in addition to existing policies for dashboard cameras. This policy must be transparent. BACKGROUND Twenty-five years ago, law enforcement officers used only written reports to record contact with the public. Rapid advances in technology have introduced other means of documenting evidence. Recordings, either audio or visual, became welcome tools in disputed court proceedings. County law enforcement agencies began using dashboard cameras and by 2011, only the Santa Barbara and Guadalupe Police Departments had not installed them in patrol cars. This fact led to a report by the 2010-11 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury. Subsequent to that report, the Santa Barbara Police Department and the Guadalupe Police Department installed dashboard cameras. With the evolution of technology, body cameras are becoming the next tool for law enforcement. 2016-17 BODY CAMERAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS METHODOLOGY The Jury spoke with a number of law enforcement officers in Santa Barbara County. While not all heads of the departments were available to the Jury, members spoke with a representative sample of officers in the field who would use the cameras. Additionally, the Jury researched a number of studies, reports and media sources about body camera use by law enforcement agencies in California and across the United States. OBSERVATIONS Body cameras are used by only two local agencies in Santa Barbara County. Guadalupe Police Department and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Substation in Isla Vista have supplied body cameras to their patrol personnel. No other department has offered to purchase cameras. In 2014, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department purchased body cameras, at a cost of $300 to $550 each, assigning them to the Isla Vista Foot Patrol. Their time is typically taken up with face-to- face encounters with the residents of Isla Vista, who often have their own cameras and are using them more and more to record their interactions with law enforcement. Some University of California Santa Barbara Police officers have also been using body cameras. In 2015, the Santa Barbara Police Department Chief purchased five cameras, at a cost of $600 to $900 each, to test. While the results of the test have not been made public, a financial report was prepared for the City of Santa Barbara with a proposal. To date, the Jury is unaware of any action being taken. The Santa Maria and Lompoc Police Departments have decided not to use body cameras at this time. As one officer stated to the Jury, “They are not a tried and true technology as of yet. Many agencies that have them discontinue use due to expense as well as technical problems. The storage space is very expensive…. I would prefer the technology evolve and the technology and storage issues be worked out by other police agencies before I adopt these cameras.” Elsewhere in the county, individual police officers and Sheriff’s deputies have purchased cameras at their own expense. The pros and cons of body cameras can be listed in three main areas of concern: financial, practical, and ethical. Financial Concerns If the department does not provide body cameras, individual officers may purchase their own if department policy allows. If officers choose to purchase their own camera, this is an out-of-pocket expense. The Jury learned that individual camera units could cost between $500 and $1000. Providing cameras to an entire department could be a major financial impact. The cost of securely storing data is, in fact, an inhibiting factor in deploying body cameras for each department. In 2014, the former Santa Barbara Police Chief estimated $70,000 for digital storage and access software. At this point, there is no one system that is universally used for storage. Another issue is the problem of obsolescence of the technology. As tech companies enter this field, some equipment comes with flaws or is found to be inadequate. In fact, the Sheriff’s Department had to return a large number of the first group of body cameras because of “issues” in 2014, according to the Sheriff’s 30 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury BODY CAMERAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS Department’s spokesperson1. Upgrades can be costly. Moreover, any camera purchased could easily become unsupported by newer back-up systems. Local departments would benefit if the uploading and storing of data could be managed by the existing systems already in place for dashboard cameras. Not only is the immense quantity of material a storage problem, but also time and security can be an issue. In some departments, officers can upload their data into their department’s storage facility. Some departments have data from their dashboard cameras automatically stored in a secure location but this is not available for body camera data that must be uploaded separately. There would be administrative costs, not the least of which would be hiring a full-time person to upload, store and track the recordings. Given the current restricted financial situation in Santa Barbara County and its cities, budgeting for body cameras would take a financial commitment and long-term planning. It has been suggested that the costs of cameras and storage would be offset by fewer financial losses due to lawsuits. Practical Concerns Dashboard cameras have been valuable in many cases. Their recordings are often useful in discerning what actually occurred. Body cameras could also have as much value, but there are some inconveniences. First, the cameras themselves are usually high definition, draining their battery quickly. But as a result of the high definition, the quality of the picture tends to be better than that of a dashboard camera. Unfortunately, night vision images are blurry, as reported by several officers. There are also contradictions regarding the range of vision of body cameras. Like the dashboard cameras, the vision of the body camera is limited to the direction faced by the officers; if something occurs to the left or right of the officer, the camera will not pick it up if they turn only their head. However, some cameras have wide-angle lenses, offering a broader view. In addition, the fact that the officer can turn his body offers an advantage that the static dashboard camera does not have. Further, in situations that become more intense, the officer himself could obstruct the view of the camera. One officer demonstrated how pulling out his weapon and pointing it at a suspect blocked the view from the lens. Lastly, in cases of physical confrontation, such as in a scuffle, the body camera could easily be dislodged. There are also some unfinished discussions as to where to place the camera on the body. Body cameras are not automatically turned on, as are dashboard cameras. Officers have to manually turn them on. In tense situations, having one more piece of equipment to manually adjust could impede the officers in carrying out their work in a fast and efficient manner. In many cases, the Jury was told, there is not enough time to immediately turn on the camera, thereby not recording all events in an incident. In the heat of the moment, the officer might not be able to turn on the camera, or doing so would put the officer at risk. Ethical concerns Ethically, body cameras have advantages and disadvantages. In discussions with the Jury, some officers preferred having a recording of every contact with the public just as a matter of policy, 1 Brugger, Kelsey. “Body-Cam Bill Stalls: Legislature Divided on Wearable Video Cameras for Law Enforcement.” Santa Barbara Independent. August 2015. Web. 2016-17 BODY CAMERAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS officers preferred having a recording of every contact with the public just as a matter of policy, while other officers believed that body cameras provide only a small slice of what they do. In either perspective, the body camera offers one more perspective, and this can be useful. Even with all the limitations and drawbacks to the cameras themselves, some officers feel that it is better to have the data from body cameras than have no data at all. Body cameras can offer decisive evidence in court cases. Suspects are more easily seen and identified by a camera closer than one mounted in a patrol car. Such evidence can deter many lawsuits against officers and departments, saving both time and money. Body cameras are reported to encourage good behavior on the part of officers, deputies and members of the public, knowing that they are being recorded. One deputy that the Jury spoke with suggested that officers are less susceptible to misconduct when they wear cameras. There have been several studies on body cameras including two in 2012, in Rialto, California and Mesa, Arizona, and more recently, a 2017 internal report on body cameras by the San Diego Police Department. All studies found that officers with body cameras used force less often; this reduced the number of complaints of police misconduct. Body cameras also have a dampening effect on suspects during the incident; many suspects will calm down when they know that they are being recorded. One local deputy said that his colleagues feel protected with their body cameras; cameras tell their side of the story. This is especially true when dealing with difficult subjects. It’s “like insurance,” as one officer told the Jury. CONCLUSION The use of body cameras by law enforcement officers has been shown to have a positive effect on the operations of the men and women involved in being the peacekeepers of our communities. Although some consider body camera technology to be in its infancy, most officers interviewed are of the opinion that a body camera is a good tool that helps them in their work and interactions with the public. The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury concludes that the use of body cameras has the potential of providing greater transparency for both the public and law enforcement. Is it time for Santa Barbara County law enforcement agencies to adopt policies and procedures to incorporate this new visual technology to enhance the evolving role of police officers and sheriff deputies in our changing, technological society? Under California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, this activity report does not require a response. 32 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA MARIA HIGH SCHOOL SANTA MARIA HIGH SCHOOL A School Community in Transition SUMMARY The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) received several complaints about the educational practices and the work environment at Santa Maria High School (SMHS). The Jury focused its investigation on allegations of mismanagement of about $16 million from a Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) state grant; on communication conflicts between the Santa Maria Joint Union High School District (District), site administrators and teachers; on concerns regarding school safety and on the implementation of anti-bullying procedures required by Assembly Bill 9 (Seth’s Law). The Jury found most concerns to be the result of an educational program in transition. The QEIA grant recordkeeping followed state accounting procedures and the funds were used according to the grant requirements. Without a doubt, poor communication and conflicting educational practices existed between site administrators and teachers. The Jury found the conflicts to be associated with the new direction that the SMHS Principal, with the support of the District administration, had taken to address the unique needs of the student population. The introduction of the Common Core curriculum, schedule changes, and union contract-related issues exacerbated the conflicts. To enhance safety and security, the school is surrounded by security fences and has strategically placed cameras. Additionally, the District has adopted procedures required to address bullying issues. These policies are published on the District website, and the “bully button” link for reporting incidents is on the District and SMHS websites. The Jury found that relations between administrators and teachers are improving and encourages them to continue working together respectfully for the benefit of the students. BACKGROUND Santa Maria High School is one of three comprehensive public high schools in the city of Santa Maria and surrounding area. Located in the heart of the city, it is the oldest high school in the Santa Maria Valley and is part of the Santa Maria Joint Union High School District, the oldest high school district in California. In 2007, SMHS became a closed campus, meaning students are not allowed to leave school grounds for lunch. The only exception to this rule is for seniors with passing grades and no outstanding school debts. 2016-17 SANTA MARIA HIGH SCHOOL The high school has a student body of 2,515, including 290 special education students. There are six administrators, 136 certificated teachers and counselors, and 87 support staff. The student population is 97 percent Hispanic, of which 38 percent are classified as English language learners. The current principal, a Santa Maria native, joined the school in 2010. METHODOLOGY The Jury visited the school, and interviewed teachers, Faculty Association (union) staff, and administrators from both SMHS and the District. The Jury also reviewed the QEIA financial audit, results from a union-sponsored teacher climate survey, and documents provided by various complainants. The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) accreditation reports from March 3-6, 2013 and February 22-23, 2016, the school’s Parent Handbook and the District’s Seth’s Law anti-bullying procedures and report form all provided valuable information. OBSERVATIONS The Jury narrowed its investigation to three areas of concern. The first related to the management of funds that came from a State of California QEIA grant. As outlined in the Principal’s Message in the Student/Parent Handbook of 2013-14, the focus of this seven-year, multi-million dollar grant, that started in 2009, was “to improve student achievement, reduce class sizes in Math, English, Science and Social Sciences, to increase attendance, to provide a 300:1 ratio of students to counselors and to increase graduation rates.” To achieve these goals, additional teachers and counselors were hired and portable classrooms added. As a result, the majority of the funds were expended on teacher and counselor salaries and lease fees for the additional portable classrooms. All funds were spent by June 30, 2016. The Jury determined that the funds had been spent in accordance with the provisions of the state grant and generally accepted accounting practices. The second area of investigation concerned poor communication and conflict between administrators and teaching staff. In 2015 a district-wide climate survey was conducted by the Faculty Association. Out of the 136 members at SMHS, only 70 responded. Of these, 78.79 percent did not feel that they had a meaningful role in decision-making at the school, 66.66 percent did not feel supported by the school’s administration and 56.06 percent did not feel valued by administration. Also, 55.38 percent of respondents thought that morale at the school had deteriorated in the previous year. As indicated in the WASC Report of February 22-23, 2016, the change in the schedule from a block schedule to a traditional seven-period day, like the other two high schools, created conflict. The decision came from the district office to operate all three comprehensive high schools on the same schedule. Disagreement over the process of making the decision to change the schedule heightened tensions between the SMHS faculty, the school and district administrations. Since arriving at the school in 2010, the principal has been working to change the culture of the school from being “teacher-centric” to being “student-centric” and currently is becoming a 34 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA MARIA HIGH SCHOOL “community-centric” school. As stated in an article on transformative leadership, “SMHS is in the early stages of moving to an organizational culture that embraces transformative leadership through our understanding of, and work toward, cultural proficiency.”2 This refocus has required teachers and staff to attend training sessions to become more culturally proficient. As evidenced through interviews, this has been met by resistance or failure to recognize the need for change. Finally, the Jury reviewed the school’s safety and anti-bullying procedures. The school is surrounded by a tall security fence and there are cameras strategically placed around the campus. Most students must stay on campus during the school day. Moreover, the District has adopted anti- bullying policies to be implemented in each high school in the district. Both the SMHS and District websites have “bully buttons” on their home pages linking to forms for reporting incidents of bullying. The District and High School administrators have procedures in place to follow up on each report. In addition, the District’s 2016-17 Parent-Student Handbook, in English and Spanish, includes bullying under its section on Discipline Policy outlining reasons for suspension or expulsion. Additionally, the California National Guard (CNG) has been presenting a program, called “We All Rise Guardians – Declaring W.A.R. on Bullying One Student at a Time,” at SMHS for several years. The W.A.R. Guardians program is specially designed to deal with all aspects of bullying and targets the specifics of the four major types: verbal, physical, social and cyber. The CNG brochure states that, “by using their awareness program and rehabilitation program, the school can specifically target the four types of bullying by turning the offender into a defender.” The CNG provides this program during a school assembly each year, as well as a six-week program especially for students identified by the school as needing additional training. The Jury concluded that SMHS has adopted adequate procedures and practices in accordance with Assembly Bill 9, Seth’s Law. CONCLUSION The 2016-2017 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury observed strained relations between the teachers and school leadership emanating from changes to the union contract, introduction of the Common Core curriculum and procedural and schedule changes made by the District and the school’s principal, but posits that poor communication was a two-way problem. However, the new school schedule and curriculum are now in place. A new union contract was negotiated in 2016 and there was also a change in Faculty Association leadership that year. Consequently, it appeared to the Jury that relations between school administrators and teachers are improving and encourages them to continue working together respectfully for the benefit of all students and the community. Under California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, this activity report does not require a response. Flores, Peter and Domingues, Joseph. “Leading from the Strawberry Fields: Transformative Leadership in Santa Maria.” Association of California School Administrators Leadership, January/February 2017, pp 18-19. 2016-17 SANTA MARIA HIGH SCHOOL This Page Intentionally Left Blank 36 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA POLICE HIRING
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – Informational Copy – No
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
La Cumbre Mutual Water Company– 90 days
F2:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office has radio dead spots in the Santa Maria Valley that threaten public safety.
F3:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Deputies in the Cuyama area are operating in a rural area with extremely poor radio communications.
F4:
Most public safety agencies in Santa Barbara County are not using the 700 MHz radio band.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office ensure that the radio tower scheduled to service the Casmalia and Tanglewood areas be installed as soon as possible.
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office complete the radio tower, proposed for Mount Solomon, as soon as possible.
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office join with the Santa Barbara County and Ventura County Fire Departments in the installation of a radio tower to be located in Kern County that will ensure that all agencies are able to communicate throughout the Cuyama area.
R4:
That Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors upgrade all Santa Barbara County public safety radios to the 700 MHz band as recommended by the Federal Communications Commission and the State of California. 104 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
R9:
Santa Barbara County Water Agency– 90 days
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office did not conduct performance reviews of the medical service provider at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
F2:
Medical accreditation at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail was allowed to lapse.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1a:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office establish procedures to conduct performance reviews of the medical service provider at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
R1b:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office conduct periodic performance reviews of the medical service provider at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office establish procedures to regain and maintain medical accreditation at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F4:
Funding availability for Main Jail repair, replacement and repurposing will be problematic based on current budget forecasts.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors identify alternative funding resources for Main Jail repair, replacement and repurposing such as using a portion of the Strategic Reserve, new tax initiatives, General Obligation Bonds or creation of a specific reserve account or any combination of these.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The City of Santa Maria has stated that its new Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety will be confined to youth-serving agencies within the city limits of Santa Maria.
F2:
The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria’s exclusive control of the strategic plan’s design and implementation may cause costly delays.
F3:
The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria initially refused to collaborate with the 5th District Santa Barbara County Supervisor in utilizing the $75,000 allocation from the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for the hiring of an executive level coordinator for the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety.
F4:
The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria have not yet identified reliable, permanent sources of funding needed to maintain the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety programs and staff.
F5:
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors has shown support for the development of an at-risk youth program in North County by allocating $75,000 in budget year 2016-17, of which approximately $50,000 remains.
F6:
The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria have not included representatives at the policy-making level of parents and at-risk youth who would be directly affected by the services of the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria expand the service area of the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety to include youth-serving agencies in the entire Santa Maria Valley.
R2:
That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria delegate certain discretionary authority for routine operational decisions in order to avoid costly delays to the implementation of the strategic plan. 2016-17 YOUTH SAFETY IN SANTA MARIA
R3:
That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria strengthen their collaboration with the 5th District Santa Barbara County Supervisor and the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to expand their ongoing support for a regional program under executive-level leadership.
R4:
That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria within the next six months identify reliable, permanent sources of funding for the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety programs and staff.
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors commit to reserving the remaining approximately $50,000 allocation and continue with annual financial support for the at-risk youth program in North County.
R6:
That the Mayor and City Council of Santa Maria include parents and at-risk youth representing the diversity of the community in the first tier of the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force from the beginning of the planning and decision-making process. 68 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Barbara County General Services Department have not developed a prioritized list for repair projects at the Main Jail.
F2:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Barbara County General Services Department have not developed a prioritized list for replacement projects at the Main Jail.
F3:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Barbara County General Services Department have not developed a prioritized list for repurposing projects at the Main Jail.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1a:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff develop a prioritized list for repair projects at the Main Jail within the next six months.
R1b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County General Services Department to provide cost estimates for these repair projects.
R2a:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff develop a prioritized list for replacement projects at the Main Jail within the next six months.
R2b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County General Services Department to provide cost estimates for these replacement projects.
R3a:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff develop a prioritized list for repurposing projects at the Main Jail within the next six months.
R3b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County General Services Department to provide cost estimates for these repurposing projects. 2016-17
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Radio reception in some areas patrolled by the deputies working out of Santa Barbara County Substations is poor with many dead spots.
F2:
There is a Custody Deputy shortage in the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department.
F3:
Internal surveillance cameras at the Santa Maria Police Department have not been installed.
F4:
Not all Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Custody Deputies have been trained in the use of various restraint systems being used by different agencies throughout the County.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office upgrade its radio system ensuring coverage in all areas, which will help protect deputies and citizens.
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department hire more personnel to fill these vacancies.
R3:
That the City of Santa Maria complete the installation of the cameras.
R4:
That all Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Custody Deputies receive training in various restraint systems used by different agencies throughout the County. 2016-17
R15-20:
minutes before being transported to the Main Jail. The cells and hallways have cameras. 2016-17
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
No single entity has decision or enforcement power within Santa Barbara County to lead regional planning.
F2:
Additional supply sources such as desalination and recycled water are available to localized agencies but there is no concerted effort to develop them regionally.
F3:
The South Coast Conduit pipeline system is unable to accommodate peak water demand levels and is susceptible to single point failure.
F4:
The Upper Reach Reliability Project portion of the South Coast Conduit pipeline was not completed as originally planned.
F5:
Critical pipeline infrastructure, including redundancy, has not been developed throughout southern Santa Barbara County.
F6:
Funding under Propositions 50, 84 and 1E has not yet been granted to the County of Santa Barbara for the Cooperating Partners of Santa Barbara County Integrated Regional Water Management’s prioritized list of water supply projects.
F7:
The meetings of the Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board do not adequately reveal to the public the competing and conflicting objectives.
F8:
The Tecolote Tunnel is a single point failure location that is in urgent need of maintenance and reinforcement.
F9:
None of the Santa Barbara County south coast water purveyors has established capital replacement accounts.
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Water Agency be designated as the permanent lead agency of the Santa Barbara County Cooperating Partners and granted enforcement power to ensure reliability of Santa Barbara County water supplies.
R2a:
That Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with San Luis Obispo County, explore the Diablo Canyon desalination plant as a source of water.
R2b:
That the Montecito Water District and Carpinteria Valley Water District develop more cooperation in water recycling efforts.
R3:
That a redundant (parallel) pipeline system be built from the existing South Portal of the Tecolote Tunnel through Carpinteria to minimize the possibility of single point failure.
R4:
That the Upper Reach Reliability Project portion of the South Coast Conduit pipeline be completed.
R5:
That critical pipeline infrastructure, including redundancy, be developed throughout southern Santa Barbara County. 2016-17 MANAGING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES
R6:
That the funding applied for by the County of Santa Barbara on behalf of the Cooperating Partners of Santa Barbara County Integrated Regional Water Management is actively pursued.
R7a:
That all Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board meetings be telecast live on community channels.
R7b:
That Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board meetings be digitally recorded and posted on their website for greater transparency.
R8:
That Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board develop and implement a plan to maintain and reinforce the Tecolote Tunnel.
R9:
That each Santa Barbara County south coast water purveyor establish and fund a restricted capital replacement account. 86 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
No single entity has decision or enforcement power within Santa Barbara County to lead regional planning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Water Agency be designated as the permanent lead agency of the Santa Barbara County Cooperating Partners and granted enforcement power to ensure reliability of Santa Barbara County water supplies.
F2:
Additional supply sources such as desalination and recycled water are available to localized agencies but there is no concerted effort to develop them regionally.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2a:
That Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with San Luis Obispo County, explore the Diablo Canyon desalination plant as a source of water.
R2b:
That the Montecito Water District and Carpinteria Valley Water District develop more cooperation in water recycling efforts.
F3:
The South Coast Conduit pipeline system is unable to accommodate peak water demand levels and is susceptible to single point failure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That a redundant (parallel) pipeline system be built from the existing South Portal of the Tecolote Tunnel through Carpinteria to minimize the possibility of single point failure.
F4:
The Upper Reach Reliability Project portion of the South Coast Conduit pipeline was not completed as originally planned.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Upper Reach Reliability Project portion of the South Coast Conduit pipeline be completed.
F5:
Critical pipeline infrastructure, including redundancy, has not been developed throughout southern Santa Barbara County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That critical pipeline infrastructure, including redundancy, be developed throughout southern Santa Barbara County.
F6:
Funding under Propositions 50, 84 and 1E has not yet been granted to the County of Santa Barbara for the Cooperating Partners of Santa Barbara County Integrated Regional Water Management’s prioritized list of water supply projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the funding applied for by the County of Santa Barbara on behalf of the Cooperating Partners of Santa Barbara County Integrated Regional Water Management is actively pursued.
F7:
The meetings of the Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board do not adequately reveal to the public the competing and conflicting objectives.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7a:
That all Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board meetings be telecast live on community channels.
R7b:
That Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board meetings be digitally recorded and posted on their website for greater transparency.
F8:
The Tecolote Tunnel is a single point failure location that is in urgent need of maintenance and reinforcement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board develop and implement a plan to maintain and reinforce the Tecolote Tunnel.
F9:
None of the Santa Barbara County south coast water purveyors has established capital replacement accounts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
That each Santa Barbara County south coast water purveyor establish and fund a restricted capital replacement account.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Barbara County General Services Department have not developed a prioritized list for repair projects at the Main Jail.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1a:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff develop a prioritized list for repair projects at the Main Jail within the next six months.
R1b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County General Services Department to provide cost estimates for these repair projects.
F2:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Barbara County General Services Department have not developed a prioritized list for replacement projects at the Main Jail.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2a:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff develop a prioritized list for replacement projects at the Main Jail within the next six months.
R2b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County General Services Department to provide cost estimates for these replacement projects.
F3:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Barbara County General Services Department have not developed a prioritized list for repurposing projects at the Main Jail.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff develop a prioritized list for repurposing projects at the Main Jail within the next six months.
R3b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County General Services Department to provide cost estimates for these repurposing projects.
F4:
Funding availability for Main Jail repair, replacement and repurposing will be problematic based on current budget forecasts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors identify alternative funding resources for Main Jail repair, replacement and repurposing such as using a portion of the Strategic Reserve, new tax initiatives, General Obligation Bonds or creation of a specific reserve account or any combination of these.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Radio reception in some areas patrolled by the deputies working out of Santa Barbara County Substations is poor with many dead spots.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office upgrade its radio system ensuring coverage in all areas, which will help protect deputies and citizens.
F2:
There is a Custody Deputy shortage in the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department hire more personnel to fill these vacancies.
F3:
Internal surveillance cameras at the Santa Maria Police Department have not been installed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the City of Santa Maria complete the installation of the cameras.
F4:
Not all Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Custody Deputies have been trained in the use of various restraint systems being used by different agencies throughout the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That all Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Custody Deputies receive training in various restraint systems used by different agencies throughout the County.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The City of Santa Maria has stated that its new Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety will be confined to youth-serving agencies within the city limits of Santa Maria.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria expand the service area of the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety to include youth-serving agencies in the entire Santa Maria Valley.
F2:
The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria’s exclusive control of the strategic plan’s design and implementation may cause costly delays.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria delegate certain discretionary authority for routine operational decisions in order to avoid costly delays to the implementation of the strategic plan.
F3:
The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria initially refused to collaborate with the 5th District Santa Barbara County Supervisor in utilizing the $75,000 allocation from the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for the hiring of an executive level coordinator for the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria strengthen their collaboration with the 5th District Santa Barbara County Supervisor and the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to expand their ongoing support for a regional program under executive-level leadership.
F4:
The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria have not yet identified reliable, permanent sources of funding needed to maintain the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety programs and staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria within the next six months identify reliable, permanent sources of funding for the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety programs and staff.
F5:
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors has shown support for the development of an at-risk youth program in North County by allocating $75,000 in budget year 2016-17, of which approximately $50,000 remains.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors commit to reserving the remaining approximately $50,000 allocation and continue with annual financial support for the at-risk youth program in North County.
F6:
The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria have not included representatives at the policy-making level of parents and at-risk youth who would be directly affected by the services of the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the Mayor and City Council of Santa Maria include parents and at-risk youth representing the diversity of the community in the first tier of the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force from the beginning of the planning and decision-making process.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Siltation is continuing to decrease the storage capacity and the safe yield of Lake Cachuma as defined in United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995.
F2:
Downstream water rights are protected in the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 and must be considered when calculating the safe yield.
F3:
The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 was written prior to the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion and does not include the requirement to release water under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act.
F4:
The 2011-2016 drought is far worse than the “design drought” of 1947-1952 used in the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 for Lake Cachuma.
F5:
The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 extending from 1995 to 2020 (25 years) is too long a period and includes no review and revision clauses to recalculate the “safe yield” of the Cachuma Project.
F6:
Safe yield from Lake Cachuma in the current United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 is based on a static volume per year.
F7:
The Montecito Water District does not have an updated Urban Water Management Plan.
F8:
Conservation policies and drought declarations differ from one member unit to another, possibly confusing water users.
F9:
The City of Santa Barbara has started to rebuild its desalination facility and has been in intermittent discussions with the Montecito Water District on sharing use of the facility.
F10:
The Carpinteria Valley Water District no longer participates in the Cachuma Conservation Release Board yet continues to reap the benefits of negotiations paid for by the remaining agencies.
F11:
Member units approve new water service by issuing, can and will serve letters, intent to serve letters, water service availability documents, or other documents, without expiration dates to citizens and developers.
F12:
Member units utilize can and will serve letters, intent to serve letters, water service availability documents, or other documents to grant new water service that are approved based on water availability during a “normal” year’s water supply.
Additional Recommendations
16
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the safe yield from Lake Cachuma as defined in United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995, be recalculated and used in the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency taking into account lost storage capacity due to siltation.
R2:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency must continue to emphasize the importance of downstream water rights and be used in the calculations of the safe yield. LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE 66 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
R3a:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include the required water releases for the protection of fish habitat under the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion.
R3b:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency add language to include the amount of water that will be required to be released by the new Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Services when it is released.
R4:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency calculate new water entitlements for member units using the current 2011-2016 worst case drought as its “design drought”.
R5a:
That the term of the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency be less than 25 years in length.
R5b:
That the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include periodic mandatory review and revision clauses on the order of every five or six years to recalculate the “safe yield” of Lake Cachuma and to make any other necessary contract changes. LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE 2015-16
R6:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include a new safe yield in Year One after Lake Cachuma spills, and, in subsequent years, use either a sliding scale or specify mandatory reductions.
R7:
That the Montecito Water District update its Urban Water Management Plan.
R8a:
That the member units, in conjunction with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency, create consistent policies and procedures that govern conservation efforts especially during times of a severe drought and that these are documented in the subcontracts between the Santa Barbara County Water Agency and the member units.
R8b:
That the policies and procedures in Recommendation 8a be announced to the community by all member units at the same time.
R9:
That the City of Santa Barbara and the Montecito Water District continue discussions on options that could optimize the desalination facility as a regional one.
R10:
LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE 68 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury That the Carpinteria Valley Water District, as a benefiting party, rejoin and participate in the Cachuma Conservation Release Board.
R11:
That all member units include expiration dates for their water service approval documents.
R12:
That member units change their policies to begin approving new water service on the water available during a “worst case” drought year.
R29-15:
Governor of CA issues Executive order for mandatory reductions for urban water suppliers May 2015 Stage 2 Stage 3 Carpinteria Valley Water District City of Santa Barbara and Goleta Water District Sept 2015 Stage 2 Santa Ynez Water Conservation District ID No. 1
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
A Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education member twice voted on pay increases that benefited his spouse.
F2:
The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education does not have adequate control of how 5 http://www.localethics.fppc.ca.gov/login.aspx LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 130 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury expenditures of the General Fund are being allocated and tracked.
F3:
A Lompoc Unified School District employee traveled to a conference with her spouse, a Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education member, and she failed to reimburse expenses as required by “Travel Expenses” AR 3350.
F4:
The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education has allowed a hostile work environment to exist.
F5:
The Lompoc Unified School District does not adequately account for the presence of its staff and management during work hours.
F6:
The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education does not include its members in the “Employment of Relatives” Policy BP 4112.8/4312.8 (See Appendix D).
F7:
Members of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education are not required to receive ethics training.
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1a:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education require that the spouse’s pay increases be reimbursed to the Lompoc Unified School District.
R1b:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education members recuse themselves from discussing and voting on issues that give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest.
R2:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education obtain an independent, specific audit of the General Fund expenditures to clarify the use of public funds.
R3a:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education enforce the Lompoc Unified School District travel policy as required by “Travel Expenses” AR 3350.
R3b:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education prepare appropriate forms or put in place a tracking system so that the business office has a method to collect pre-paid travel expenses from employees.
R4a:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education add a policy prohibiting all District employees, Board members, and officials from engaging in abusive conduct as defined in Government Code section 12950.1, subdivisions (b) and (g)(2) [“conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include … verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.”]
R4b:
That, after the Lompoc Unified School District adopts the policy described above, the District post, distribute, and provide training on that policy throughout the organization, and enforce it.
R5:
That the Lompoc Unified School District enforce an attendance policy for staff and management to ensure they are present and accounted for during work hours. LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2015-16
R6:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education revise its Policy, BP 4112.8/4312.8, to include members of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education.
R7:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education adopt a policy to require ethics training for Board members on par with AB1234 “Local Ethics Training” requirements.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
No evidence could be found that a performance review of the contract was ever conducted.
F2:
4 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury PARKING CITATION PAYMENT PROBLEMS There is no option to pay in person or with cash.
F3:
Parking citations are not processed in a timely manner.
F4:
Some citations were sent to a debt collection agency even though payment was made within statutory guidelines as required by California Vehicle Code § 40207.
F5:
The most recent annual contract renewal with the vendor, CN13914, expired June 30, 2013.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office conduct regular performance reviews of the parking citation processing contract.
R2:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office, in recognition of the need of some citizens to pay in cash, initiate a mechanism to pay in person or with cash.
R3:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office develop procedures to ensure parking citations are processed in a timely manner.
R4:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office develop procedures to ensure that parking citations paid within statutory timelines are not sent to debt collection agencies.
R5:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office enter into a new contract with a qualified vendor that will consistently process parking citations expeditiously.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff is using an antiquated paper system for maintaining inmate medical records at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
F2:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff Staff, has not always followed procedures, policies, and protocols pertaining to the intake process of arrestees.
F3:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff does not have adequate oversight methods in place for ensuring Corizon Health staff are following their medical intake procedures at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail before the inmate is transferred to custody officers for classification.
F4:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff medical intake prescreening questionnaire is now being conducted by Corizon Health registered nurses; however, the Medical Process Overview Chart does not reflect this.
F5:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Custody Operations Policy and Procedures Manual regarding the intake process needs revision.
F6:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff staff has not always confirmed arrestees were medically cleared by Corizon Health staff prior to classification and placement into the Jail population.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff implement a computerized medical record system for maintaining inmate medical records at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff follow the established procedures, policies, and protocols pertaining to the intake process of arrestees.
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff update Appendices A and B and add two signature blocks, one for medical clearance staff the other for the custody officer prior to classification at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail. .
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff continue to use Corizon Health registered nurses to conduct all medical intake screening of arrestees entering the Jail and include this provision in all future contracts and in the Medical Process Overview Chart.
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff update the Custody Operations Policy and Procedures Manual to reflect the new changes being implemented to the intake process. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL 2015-16
R6:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff initiate a procedure to ensure that all medical intake procedures are properly completed prior to classification and that inmate classification not be allowed to occur without verification of the completion of medical evaluation and clearance.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office did not conduct performance reviews of the medical service provider at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1a:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office establish procedures to conduct performance reviews of the medical service provider at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
R1b:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office conduct periodic performance reviews of the medical service provider at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
F2:
Medical accreditation at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail was allowed to lapse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office establish procedures to regain and maintain medical accreditation at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office has radio dead spots in the Casmalia and Tanglewood areas that threaten public safety.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office ensure that the radio tower scheduled to service the Casmalia and Tanglewood areas be installed as soon as possible.
F2:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office has radio dead spots in the Santa Maria Valley that threaten public safety.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office complete the radio tower, proposed for Mount Solomon, as soon as possible.
F3:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Deputies in the Cuyama area are operating in a rural area with extremely poor radio communications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office join with the Santa Barbara County and Ventura County Fire Departments in the installation of a radio tower to be located in Kern County that will ensure that all agencies are able to communicate throughout the Cuyama area.
F4:
Most public safety agencies in Santa Barbara County are not using the 700 MHz radio band.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors upgrade all Santa Barbara County public safety radios to the 700 MHz band as recommended by the Federal Communications Commission and the State of California.