Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
2017-2018
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 (15)
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Internal Audit Division of the Santa Barbara County Auditor-Controller’s Office had a funded and filled staff of 10 FTE prior to the 2008 recession. Just prior to the discovery of the 2017 fraud, the funded staff had fallen to 5 FTE, and only 2.5 of those were filled.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Auditor-Controller maintain the number of Internal Audit Division staff at the funded level.
F2:
The financial management guidelines issued by the County of Santa Barbara Auditor-Controller are not applied consistently in operational departments, nor is compliance with those guidelines routinely audited by the Auditor-Controller.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2a:
That County Board of Supervisors direct staff to use the consistent application of financial guidelines issued by the Auditor-Controller’s Office as part of the annual personnel management process.
R2b:
That the Auditor-Controller’s Office establish an audit schedule for County administration at all levels to ensure their proper compliance with the County financial management guidelines.
R2c:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff, District Attorney, Auditor-Controller, Clerk Recorder- Assessor-Registrar of Voters and Treasurer-Tax Collector-Public Administrator require consistent application of financial guidelines issued by the Auditor-Controller’s Office as part of the annual personnel management process.
F3:
Knowledge of financial management and risks by managers in some departments in the County of Santa Barbara is insufficient.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3a:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct staff to require training in financial management (including County financial guidelines, FIN, and reporting and accountability procedures) for all department and program heads.
R3b:
That the County Board of Supervisors direct staff to make successful completion of this training a part of staff evaluations.
R3c:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff, District Attorney, Auditor-Controller, Clerk Recorder- Assessor-Registrar of Voters and Treasurer-Tax Collector-Public Administrator direct all program managers to require mandatory training in financial management (including County financial guidelines, FIN, and reporting and accountability procedures) for all department and program heads.
F4:
Knowledge of potential conflicts of interest among some senior County of Santa Barbara employees is inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Board of Supervisors develop procedures for the conduct of annual training on conflict of interest policy for all relevant categories of employees.
F5:
There is no consistent policy of requiring program heads, division heads, or department heads within Santa Barbara County departments to account for spending under their control to their superiors and/or to the CEO through an annual formal and written statement.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5a:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct all program heads, division heads, and department heads to sign annual statements to their managers, stating that all funds under their control have been managed in compliance with County financial management guidelines and the County’s Internal Control Policy.
R5b:
That The Santa Barbara County Sheriff, District Attorney, Auditor-Controller, Clerk Recorder- Assessor-Registrar of Voters and Treasurer-Tax Collector-Public Administrator direct all program managers to sign annual statements to their supervisors, stating that all funds under their control have been managed in compliance with County financial management guidelines and the County’s Internal Control Policy.
F6:
The Jury found that the importance of the work of the Internal Audit Division within the Office of the Auditor-Controller and of internal controls generally has a low priority across County government.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the Board of Supervisors direct staff to incorporate performance measures into the budget process to highlight the importance of internal controls for every department in County government.
F7:
It was stated by senior staff that a comprehensive investigation into the strengths and weaknesses of the internal controls in the County would be conducted by an outside consultant after the fraud; no such investigation took place.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That the Board of Supervisors direct staff to contract a complete independent evaluation and audit of internal controls, including the issuance of an opinion on the effectiveness of such controls and recommendations for improvement.
F8:
The Jury found that the actions taken by Santa Barbara County management in response to the 2017 fraud in the Department of Public Works were slow and inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct staff to issue a public report stating the steps taken and their effective dates to strengthen public financial management in the County following the 2017 Department of Public Works fraud.
F9:
The Financial Information Network is an insufficient and inefficient system with many weaknesses that have caused most departments to create, or to have created, complementary financial software. Some of the weaknesses in FIN may have contributed to the 2017 Department of Public Works fraud.
Related Recommendations (3)
R9a:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct staff to commission an independent evaluation of the benefits and costs of acquiring, installing and maintaining Enterprise Resource Planning software from a major vendor. The evaluation should: • be procured competitively and should exclude any firm or individual that has previously worked with the County to avoid conflicts of interest; • compare major software options, analyze where such options have been used in governments of comparable size to the County; • present a full analysis of the costs of and benefits of current financial management software used in the Auditor-Controller’s Office and throughout the County Government; and • give a proper comparison to the costs and benefits of Enterprise Resource Planning software.
R9b:
That the Enterprise Resource Planning evaluation be presented at an open session of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to allow public comment.
R9c:
That all Santa Barbara County staff using FIN, or its eventual successor, submit annual financial disclosure.
F10:
The Jury found that minimum professional and academic qualifications for financial staff positions are not standardized nor consistent throughout departments in Santa Barbara County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
That policy throughout Santa Barbara County be standardized with respect to the minimum academic and other professional qualifications of financial staff.
F11:
Some Santa Barbara County staff commented that there might be significant other potential financial risks in Santa Barbara County, including management of property tax reimbursements and warrant payments through the Sheriff’s Civil Bureau.
Related Recommendations (2)
R11a:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct staff to commission an independent audit of the property tax reimbursements made through the Santa Barbara County Assessor’s Office during the past 10 years.
R11b:
That the Board of Supervisors direct staff to commission an independent audit of civil warrant payments made through the County Sheriff’s Office during the past 10 years.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
At this point only the income from Lompoc Valley Medical Center operations is available to service the debt obligations of the Cal-Mortgage revenue bond, which will require at least a $1 million per year repayment until 2042.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1a:
That the Board of Directors of the Lompoc Valley Medical Center report to its constituents how they propose to repay the Cal-Mortgage revenue bond.
R1b:
That the Board of Directors of the Lompoc Valley Medical Center explain to its constituents how the repayment to Cal-Mortgage will affect its existing operations.
F2:
The Lompoc Valley Medical Center leadership did not provide a full explanation to its constituents for the failure of the Champion Center.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Board of Directors of the Lompoc Valley Medical Center provide a clear and detailed explanation of the failure of the Champion Center to its constituents, consistent with its stated core principle of transparency.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Identifying odors and locating their source is a challenging process that can involve county and local agencies, making it difficult to mitigate the odors.
F2:
There is no clear point of contact for citizens to make odor complaints on the City of Santa Maria’s website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the City of Santa Maria create a section on its website that clearly directs citizens where to lodge complaints about odors.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The General Fund balance of the City of Guadalupe has improved slightly over the period 2015-16 to 2017-18 compared to the period 2012-13 to 2014-15 fiscal years.
F2:
The total primary government balance – the sum of the General Fund balance and the Enterprise Fund balance – has also improved because of better financial results from the City of Guadalupe’s enterprises.
F3:
The ratio of current assets to current liabilities in the City of Guadalupe General Fund averaged 3.5 over the period 2015-16 to 2016-17, which is an improvement over the period 2012-13 to 2014-15.
F4:
Guadalupe does not generate enough General Fund revenue from the sources on which most cities rely (property, sales and transient occupancy taxes) to provide basic administrative and safety services while maintaining a positive General Fund balance.
F5:
Inadequate General Fund revenue necessitates continuous transfers from Guadalupe’s Enterprise Funds. Given the slow growth of population and of per capita income in Guadalupe and the limited new investment in housing and business, it is unlikely that public revenue can eliminate the dependence of the General Fund on transfers from the Enterprise Funds.
F6:
Following the March 13, 2018 Guadalupe City Council meeting, at which the Draft City Audit of 2016-17 was discussed, the City may have used restricted monies from Measure A and Gas Tax funds to finance its General Fund and other fund deficits.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6a:
That the City Council of Guadalupe analyze the Measure A, Gas Tax, and Enterprise Funds to determine if those fund(s) were used to loan monies outside the Cost Allocation plans for 2016-17 and 2017-18, to the General Fund, Library Fund, Wastewater Treatment Fund and Solid Waste fund.
R6b:
That once the amounts in Recommendation 6a are determined, the City Council of Guadalupe pass a resolution and a repayment plan to repay any questioned funds.
F7:
The City of Guadalupe is considering several recommendations to improve its financial condition, in light of material deficiencies found in previous audits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That the Guadalupe City Council formally consider, in an open session of the City Council, all recommendations it has received to improve its financial condition and to issue a written statement to the public about its decisions on each recommendation.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The impact of mandatory overtime on custody deputies is unknown.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Sheriff’s Office conduct a survey of custody and law enforcement deputies to gauge sentiment on mandatory and voluntary overtime policies and assess the impact on morale, performance, health, retention, and productive hours.
F2:
Recruiting is a low priority for the Sheriff’s Office.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2a:
That the Sheriff’s Office consult a professional recruiting firm to review current recruiting practices and provide recommendations, including on incentive programs.
R2b:
That the Board of Supervisors direct staff to have a market survey conducted to determine how recruiting and personnel policies, including incentives, in the Sheriff’s Office compare to local police forces in Santa Barbara County and Sheriff’s Departments in other counties.
F3:
The Sheriff’s Office has not considered all possible measures that could help reduce the mandatory overtime requirements in the short term.
Related Recommendations (4)
R3a:
That the Sheriff’s Office review budget allocations with County auditors and accountants to identify potential cost savings that could be shifted to recruiting and personnel.
R3b:
That the Sheriff’s Office review the assignment of custody deputies to non-line positions to assess whether any of these non-line duties can be performed by civilian employees, contractors, or retired former deputies.
R3c:
That the Sheriff’s Office conduct an assessment of alternative business models, such as cross- training law enforcement deputies to work rotations in custody positions, to enlarge the available pool of custody personnel.
R3d:
That the Board of Supervisors direct staff to conduct a comprehensive staffing study of the Sheriff’s Office to provide a clear understanding of staffing requirements, shortfalls, and costs, including: • the allocation of positions to law enforcement and custody • how the average of 1578 productive hours compares to other law enforcement entities • the number of additional custody deputies required to eliminate the standing mandatory overtime policy • the projected costs of funding additional positions
F4:
The Jail Operations Division’s Transportation Unit is particularly understaffed, creating acute mandatory overtime requirements.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4a:
That the Board of Supervisors direct a near-term assessment of the timeline and costs to the County of implementing video arraignments at the Main Jail and the Northern Branch Jail once open and the impact on custody deputy staffing requirements.
R4b:
That based on the results of this assessment, the Board of Supervisors seek agreement from the Court to implement video arraignments as soon as possible.
F5:
The impact of the 2019 scheduled opening of the Northern Branch Jail on existing overtime requirements is unknown.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Sheriff’s Office produce a study on the projected impact of the opening of the Northern Branch Jail on overtime requirements for custody deputies, assuming two scenarios: 1) all funded positions are filled, and 2) recent vacancy rates remain unchanged.
Quick View
Full Details →
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
Quick View
Full Details →
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
Quick View
Full Details →
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
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.
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
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.
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
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The use of Measure U funds at the Carpinteria Children’s Project at the Main Elementary School is allowed under the terms of Measure U.
F2:
A significant part of the facilities at the Carpinteria Children’s Project at Main Elementary School is used by non-profit organizations and/or the County of Santa Barbara.
F3:
The leasing of the Main Elementary School in Carpinteria to the Hutton Parker Foundation complies with the California Education Code. Under California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, this report does not require a response. 5
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Pension solvency risks are moderate in Buellton and Goleta; pension liquidity risks, as indicated by projected years of negative cash flow under projected CalPERS actuarial returns, are nil.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
That in view of the 12 Findings, the governments of the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang and of the County of Santa Barbara analyze capital spending, employer/employee contribution rates, staffing levels, and all existing taxes and revenue sources under their control to identify potential revenue gains and cost savings.
R2:
That the governments of the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang and of the County of Santa Barbara issue public reports, to be discussed at open sessions of their respective governing bodies, on the potential revenue gain and cost-saving measures that may be necessary to ensure continued adequate funding of their pension plans. 10
F2:
In Carpinteria, Guadalupe and Solvang, pension solvency risks are minimal to moderate, except in the closed Carpinteria Safety Plan. Pension liquidity risks in those cities are higher, with several years in all three cities having projected negative cash flows under projected CalPERS actuarial returns.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
That in view of the 12 Findings, the governments of the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang and of the County of Santa Barbara analyze capital spending, employer/employee contribution rates, staffing levels, and all existing taxes and revenue sources under their control to identify potential revenue gains and cost savings.
R2:
That the governments of the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang and of the County of Santa Barbara issue public reports, to be discussed at open sessions of their respective governing bodies, on the potential revenue gain and cost-saving measures that may be necessary to ensure continued adequate funding of their pension plans. 10
F3:
In Lompoc, Santa Maria and the City of Santa Barbara, solvency risks are high in the pre-PEPRA plans that have most of the Actuarial Liabilities in the municipal plans.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
That in view of the 12 Findings, the governments of the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang and of the County of Santa Barbara analyze capital spending, employer/employee contribution rates, staffing levels, and all existing taxes and revenue sources under their control to identify potential revenue gains and cost savings.
R2:
That the governments of the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang and of the County of Santa Barbara issue public reports, to be discussed at open sessions of their respective governing bodies, on the potential revenue gain and cost-saving measures that may be necessary to ensure continued adequate funding of their pension plans. 10
F4:
In Lompoc and the City of Santa Barbara, liquidity risks are high as measured by projected years of negative cash flow. Managing those risks will require employer’s pension contributions of 40 percent of payroll in Lompoc and 50 percent in the City of Santa Barbara at least until 2030.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
That in view of the 12 Findings, the governments of the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang and of the County of Santa Barbara analyze capital spending, employer/employee contribution rates, staffing levels, and all existing taxes and revenue sources under their control to identify potential revenue gains and cost savings.
R2:
That the governments of the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang and of the County of Santa Barbara issue public reports, to be discussed at open sessions of their respective governing bodies, on the potential revenue gain and cost-saving measures that may be necessary to ensure continued adequate funding of their pension plans. 10
F5:
While the City of Santa Barbara does not have a “PEPRA Police Plan,” it does respect the 2013 PEPRA Law for those hired after December 31, 2012. Therefore, the absence of a “PEPRA Police Plan” does not adversely affect the funded ratio or other risk indicators for the City of Santa Barbara system.
F6:
Liquidity risks in Santa Maria are lower than in Lompoc and the City of Santa Barbara, in that Santa Maria projects no years of negative cash flows. However, Santa Maria would have negative cash flow if CalPERS investment returns fall below their projected actuarial values. Managing that liquidity risk requires that Santa Maria maintain high total employer contributions to its pension plans until at least 2034.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
That in view of the 12 Findings, the governments of the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang and of the County of Santa Barbara analyze capital spending, employer/employee contribution rates, staffing levels, and all existing taxes and revenue sources under their control to identify potential revenue gains and cost savings.
R2:
That the governments of the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang and of the County of Santa Barbara issue public reports, to be discussed at open sessions of their respective governing bodies, on the potential revenue gain and cost-saving measures that may be necessary to ensure continued adequate funding of their pension plans. 10
F7:
The City of Santa Maria faces greater pension risks because of its comparatively low General Fund revenue per capita, which is less than 50 percent of that of the City of Santa Barbara and less than 67 percent of that of Lompoc. Santa Maria has taken steps to end employer contributions in lieu of employee contributions in its pension plans; this step moves some of the burden of repaying its unfunded pension liabilities from the City to its active employees.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
That in view of the 12 Findings, the governments of the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang and of the County of Santa Barbara analyze capital spending, employer/employee contribution rates, staffing levels, and all existing taxes and revenue sources under their control to identify potential revenue gains and cost savings.
R2:
That the governments of the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang and of the County of Santa Barbara issue public reports, to be discussed at open sessions of their respective governing bodies, on the potential revenue gain and cost-saving measures that may be necessary to ensure continued adequate funding of their pension plans. 10
F8:
The 12 PEPRA plans in the cities of the County of Santa Barbara have a funded ratio of 0.90 and the 20 non-PEPRA plans have a funded ratio of 0.68. This is a small, but positive, sign that the 9 PEPRA law is having the intended effect of strengthening the security of pension benefits in the County.
F9:
Funded ratios of the municipal pension systems in Santa Barbara County are sensitive to the discount rate applied by CalPERS. A cut in that rate to 6 percent, from the 2018-19 rate of 7 percent, would push the funded ratios of several municipal systems close to 0.5 and might impose further increases in the employer’s contributions in Lompoc, in the City of Santa Barbara and in Santa Maria.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
That in view of the 12 Findings, the governments of the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang and of the County of Santa Barbara analyze capital spending, employer/employee contribution rates, staffing levels, and all existing taxes and revenue sources under their control to identify potential revenue gains and cost savings.
R2:
That the governments of the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang and of the County of Santa Barbara issue public reports, to be discussed at open sessions of their respective governing bodies, on the potential revenue gain and cost-saving measures that may be necessary to ensure continued adequate funding of their pension plans. 10
F10:
It is unlikely that the largest municipal plans - Lompoc Safety; City of Santa Barbara Miscellaneous; City of Santa Barbara Fire; City of Santa Barbara Police; and City of Santa Maria Miscellaneous - can apply the revised CalPERS amortization schedule of 20 years to all their unfunded liabilities without higher new employer’s contributions. Such new contributions would be particularly problematic in Lompoc and in the City of Santa Barbara given the high employer’s contribution rates that already apply in those cities.
F11:
The solvency risks to the SBCERS plans are moderate and manageable. The SBCERS decision to apply an accelerated amortization schedule to the unfunded liabilities generated during the 2007- 09 period of low asset returns is appropriate because it will shorten the period in which high employer contributions are necessary.
F12:
The SBCERS policy of not participating in the CalPERS risk pool is appropriate because SBCERS has achieved portfolio returns comparable to those of CalPERS over the past 25 years.