Santa Clara County Grand Jury
2002-2003
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
of 5 APPENDIX F SPECIAL DISTRICTS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY NAME GOV'NT ADDRESS BUDGET Notes Los Altos Mediation Program Listed by Los Altos Hills as special district, but may be joint powers Los Altos Senior Center Listed by Los Altos Hills as special district, but may be joint powers Los Gatos Community Development Grant City Los Gatos Town Hall 1.8M May be grant not special distict Los Gatos Internal Services City Los Gatos Town Hall Finance and construction Los Gatos Land and Lighting City Los Gatos Town Hall 118K Lighting and light maintenance Los Gatos Solid Waste Management City Los Gatos Town Hall 370K Waste disposal Los Gatos Storm Drain City Los Gatos Town Hall 112k Waste disposal Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Elect Recreation and parks Milpitas Dixon Landing Bus Park LID Milpitas City Hall Finance and construction Milpitas Land and Light City Lighting and light maintenance Milpitas Los Coches/Sinclaire Frontage Land Milpitas City Hall Lighting and light maintenance & Light Dist Milpitas McCandless Tech Park Improvement Milpitas City Hall Finance and construction Dist Milpitas McCarthy Bus. Park, McCarthy Blvd Milpitas City Hall Finance and construction #12 LID Milpitas McCarthy Bus. Park, McCarthy Blvd Milpitas City Hall Finance and construction #9 LID Milpitas N McCarthy Blvd #18 LID Milpitas City Hall Finance and construction Milpitas N McCarthy Blvd #20 LID Milpitas City Hall Finance and construction Milpitas N. McCarthy Blvd Land & Light Milpitas City Hall Lighting and light maintenance Dist Milpitas N.Abbott Ave LID Milpitas City Hall Finance and construction Milpitas Public Funding Agency Finance and construction Morgan Hill Waste Water Facilities Financing Other Finance and construction Corp Mountain View Capital Improvement Fin & Admin Dir, MV. City Hall Finance and construction Financing Auth Mountain View Shoreline Regional Park City 21.8M Recreation and parks Next door Other 4.3K Shelter for victims of domestic violence may be grant or joint powers agency Northern California Community College Pool Other Self Insurance Overlook Road Maintenance County Street and roads construction and maintenance Palo Alto Electric Services City Electric enterprise
F2:
of 5 APPENDIX F SPECIAL DISTRICTS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY NAME GOV'NT ADDRESS BUDGET Notes Palo Alto Gas Services City Gas enterprise Palo Alto Golf Course Corporation Other Finance and construction Palo Alto Public Improve. Corp Other Finance and construction Palo Alto Refuse Services City Waste disposal Palo Alto San Francisquito Creek Flood Includes San Mateo and Santa Clara entities Control Palo Alto Storm Drainage Services City Waste disposal Palo Alto Wastewater Collection City Waste disposal Palo Alto Water Services City Water Project Sentinel Ann Marquart 430 Sherman Ave, Ste 308 Landlord-Tenant Mediation Services may be joint powers PA 94306 Purissima Hills Water Other Water Rancho Rinconada Rec. & Park Other Recreation and parks Reclamation No. 1663 Other Drainage and drainage maintenance (Inactive) Regional Water Quality Control City of PA, 250 Hamilton, PA Waste disposal Rose-Andrews Street Lighting City Lighting and light maintenance San Jose Berryessa Project Corp Other Financing and construction (Inactive) San Jose City Parking Authority City Finance and construction San Jose Civic Improvement Authority Other Financing and construction (Inactive) San Jose Financing Authority City Finance and construction San Jose Public Facilities Financing Corp Other Finance and construction San Jose-Santa Clara Clean Water Financing Other Finance and construction Authority San Martin County Water Other Water Santa Clara Cities Assn Exe Dir, 505 W Olive, Ste 630, Su 94086, May be joint powers agency 730-7770 Santa Clara City Convention Center - City Finance and construction Maintenance Santa Clara City Convention Ctr - City Finance and construction Improvement Santa Clara City Mission College/Mercado City Finance and construction Improvement Assessment District Santa Clara City Parking Dist City Parking Santa Clara City Traffic Mitigation City Finance and construction
F3:
of 5 APPENDIX F SPECIAL DISTRICTS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY NAME GOV'NT ADDRESS BUDGET Notes Santa Clara County Abandoned Vehicle Other 777 N First St, SJ 95112-6311 Government services Service Authority Santa Clara County Building Authority Other Finance and construction Santa Clara County -El Camino Hosp. Dist. Other Financing and construction (Disolved 10/31/1992) Facilities Authority Santa Clara County Finance Authority County Finance and construction Santa Clara County Open-Space Authority Other Recreation and parks Santa Clara County Public Facilities Corp. Other Finance and construction Santa Clara County Transit County Transit, now VTA (Still active per State Controller) Santa Clara County Vector Control County Pest control Santa Clara Valley Water District Other Flood control, water conservation, and water enterprise. Santa Clara Valley Water District Public SCVWD Facilities Financing Corp. Santa Clara Valley Water District Zone East SCVWD Water enterprise Santa Clara Valley Water District, Zone North- SCVWD Flood control and water conservation Central 1 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Zone West SCVWD Water enterprise 1 Santa Clara Water Valley District Zone SCVWD Water enterprise Central Santa Clara Water Valley District Zone SCVWD Water enterprise Northwest Santa Clara Water Vally District Zone South SCVWD Water enterprise Saratoga Cemetery Elect Cemetery Saratoga Community Development City 13777 Fruitvale Ave, Sa 95070 316K Saratoga Fire Protection Elect Fire protection Saratoga Lighting and Land City 13777 Fruitvale Ave, Sa 95070 208K Lighting and lighting maintenance Saratoga Park Development City 13777 Fruitvale Ave, Sa 95070 3.2M Recreation and park School Alliance for Workers Comp Other Self insurance may be joint powers agency Senior Nutrition Program County Probably not special district, but a county wide activity coordinated by SCC
F4:
of 5 APPENDIX F SPECIAL DISTRICTS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY NAME GOV'NT ADDRESS BUDGET Notes Silicon Valley Library System Other Dir. Franklin St. MV 94041 (650) 903- May be joint power agency but listed as Special Library 6337 District Silver Creek Valley Country Club Geo Elect 24665 Glenwood Drive, LG, 95033 Drainage and soil conservation Hazard Abatement Dist South Bay Area Schools Ins Auth Other Self insurance may be joint powers agency South Santa Clara County Fire County Fire protection South Santa Clara Valley Conservation Board Other (Inactive - part of SCCVW) South Santa Clara Valley Memorial Other Memorial Sunnyvale Financing Authority City Mary Bradley, Sunnyvale Dept. of Finance, Finance and construction City Hall Sunol Sanitary Other Waste disposal West Valley Sanitation of Santa Clara County Other Waste disposal Sunnyvale Community Facilities District City Nasi Rassan, Sunnyvale Dept of Finance, Finance and construction City Hall Sunnyvale Schools Finance Corp SSD Bob Roberts, 819 W. Iowa Ave, Su Finance and construction 94086(408) 522-8200 Ext.209
F5:
of 5 APPENDIX G GENERAL DEFINITION OF TERMS The following are general definitions of terms used within this report. They are not legal definitions, but general statements to aid in comprehension of this report. Contributory Agreement: Contributory Agreements are agreements between a government entity and a private organization where the government entity contributes money and/or facilities to the efforts of the private organization in order to provide a service or otherwise satisfy the needs of the community. Other than the fiscal oversight to assure public money is spent for the designated usage, the government entity has no management responsibilities. Social welfare, mental health, cultural enrichment and recreation are the predominate activities in this category. The majority of the private organizations are non-profit organizations. Co-sponsorship Agreement: This is an agreement between a government entity and a private organization to jointly sponsor an activity or community service. In this type of agreement, the government entity does share in management oversight. Enterprise Funds: Under the management of a government entity, enterprise funds provide services or supplies to citizens for a fee. Joint Powers Agency: Agencies established by government entities to combine the authority of individual entities to meet a common objective or provide a common service more efficiently and effectively. These agencies are governed by a board of designated members from the elected officials of the participating agencies. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority is an example of a JPA. Liability Minimizing Agencies: A type of joint powers agency established to minimize the costs to individual government entities while providing expertise that would be costly to duplicate at each entity. Insurance programs and retirement programs are typical of these agencies. G-1 of 2 APPENDIX G GENERAL DEFINITION OF TERMS Maintenance and Operations Agreements: These are agreements between a governmental entity and private organizations for the operation and maintenance of publicly owned facilities while supplying a service to the community. The private organization is generally a nonprofit organization that can take advantage of private contributions and fundraising. The Tech Museum of Innovation is an example of this type of agreement. The oversight responsibilities of the government entity is in the use of the money contributed (if any), that the facilities are being maintained or improved in accordance with the agreement, and that the community services provided by the operators is as specified in the agreement. Special Districts: Often called special tax districts, these districts are single purpose districts that are not tied to city boundaries, but to the area served. They have taxing authority for specific purposes within the geographical boundaries of their district. These districts are generally formed to raise capital for the construction and maintenance of elements of the community infrastructure. Sewer and water systems, roads and parking facilities or fire districts are examples of special districts. The board of directors must be elected by the general public. If the district is completely contained within a city, the city council may, and often does, act as the board of directors of that district. The Santa Clara Water District is the largest special district in the county. G-2 of 2
FI:
No succinct definition of a non-profit organization under PC 933.6 was available to the Grand Jury. Therefore, confusion exists as to the Grand Jury’s oversight 2 responsibilities regarding organizations that were established principally to engage in Maintenance and Operations Agreements with a government entity or to provide a specific service to the community.
FII:
The City of San Jose did not make available for the Grand Jury a list of the joint powers agencies of which it is a member. In addition, persistent follow-up efforts were required with most other entities to obtain the current listing found in Appendix C. In all cases, the information requested by the Grand Jury had to be prepared by the entity after receipt of the request.
FIII:
Information on non-profit organizations associated with specific entities, or entities providing community services, was not readily available. It was prepared only in response to the Grand Jury’s request for information. There is no opportunity for either public administrators or the general citizenry to evaluate information about these entities. For example, the San Jose City Auditor’s Report Number 02-12 identifies three non-profit organizations, assigned and using 3 government facilities, that have not had an agreement or lease for several years. These solicitations were additionally complicated by the lack of a definition of non-profit as covered under PC 933.6. If this information is not available to the Grand Jury, it is not available to the general public.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F2003:
Fred de Funiak Foreperson Ron R. Layman Foreperson Pro Tem Patricia L. Cunningham Secretary
FI:
The internal auditor for the City of Sunnyvale reports to the city manager. Two management/performance audits were terminated in the early stages because of the need for major restructuring of the departments under audit. These were the audits of the Transportation Operations Department and the Roadside and Median Right-of-Way Services Department. Since the audits were terminated without the public receiving the information that would have been available with a direct report to the city council by an independent internal auditor, the public has limited ability to evaluate the operations of the departments and the effectiveness of the restructuring. Not reporting to the city council in open forum provides an opportunity for public perception of a cover up, which negates the value of internal auditors as independent evaluators.
FII:
The City of Santa Clara has designated a city auditor function and assigned it to the city clerk, who is independently elected. Current auditing activities are limited to verification of expenditures and associated documentation.
FIII:
Seven cities/towns did not provide the Grand Jury with management reports or process audits. They are: • Campbell • Gilroy • Los Altos • Los Altos Hills • Los Gatos • Monte Sereno • Santa Clara Milpitas submitted a single audit on internal financial controls. The failure of the smaller cities/towns to perform regular management reports or process audits is understandable. However, for our more moderate-sized or larger cities, such as Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas and Santa Clara, to ignore these tools of good management is to overlook potential improvements in providing high quality, efficient services to their citizens.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
FI:
There are a number of unresolved problems at the Children’s Shelter, notably the runaways, the physical abuse perpetrated upon the staff and other residents, the children sexually abusing each other, the recidivism rate, and the lengthy stays for many teenagers.
FII:
Despite the fact that a full-time deputy sheriff and a detective from the Sheriff’s Office are now assigned to the Shelter, they cannot stop youth from running away because the Shelter is not a locked facility.
FIII:
Based on the incident reports, the Grand Jury found that there are children at the Shelter who are severely emotionally disturbed.
FIV:
Congregate care is not developmentally normative. Living in an institutional setting establishes this as a frame of reference for the children as they adapt to the institution. The congregate care of children who have been abused and/or neglected provides the opportunity for the abused to become an abuser.
FV:
The estimated cost for the overall operation of the Children’s Shelter in Fiscal Year 2003 is approximately $19,000 per month per child, based on an average daily population of 60, with questionable outcomes for these children. 7
FVI:
The Management Audit prepared for the Board of Supervisors in 2001 and past Grand Jury Reports highlighted the many problems that have existed at the Shelter and offered possible remedies. Social Services has addressed some of these issues, but despite past efforts to implement solutions, it is obvious that the problems still exist. Recommendation The Grand Jury learned that the problems at the Children’s Shelter are serious and complex in nature. Therefore, the Grand Jury strongly recommends that the Board of Supervisors appoint a Blue Ribbon Task Force consisting of national, state and local experts in child welfare and child development. It should also include a representative from the Juvenile Court and a mental health expert who has experience with abused and neglected children. This Task Force should provide an in-depth study of the needs of our children who are taken into protective custody, and identify the optimum programs and/or new approaches for their care. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 27th day of May, 2003. ____________________________________ Fred de Funiak Foreperson ____________________________________ Ron R. Layman Foreperson Pro Tem ____________________________________ Patricia L. Cunningham Secretary 9 References Documents Child Development, Children’s Mental Health and the Juvenile Justice System: Principles for Effective Decision-Making. Vol. 14.1, David E. Arredondo, M.D., Medical Director of the Office of Child Development, Neuropsychiatry and Mental Health and EMQ Children and Family Services. Children’s Shelter FY 2003 Staff & Operation Analysis as of February 16, 2003. EMQ Children & Family Services Matrix Children’s Shelter Program Practice Handbook. Grand Jury Santa Clara County Final Report 1997-1998. Grand Jury Santa Clara County Final Report 1999-2000. Institutions vs. Foster Homes: The Empirical Base for a Century of Action, Richard P. Barth, Ph.D., Jordan Institute for Families, School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2002. Management Audit of the Department of Family and Children’s Services of the Social Services Agency, October 2001. Mental Health Law Reporter, Vol. No. 4, April 2003. Off Agenda Report to the Children and Families Committee on the Status of the Out of Home Care Placement Initiatives, October 2002, Will Lightbourne, Director, Social Services Agency, County of Santa Clara. Santa Clara County Children’s Shelter, Incident Reports, October 2001 through March2003, Inclusive. Technical Assistance Brief, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, December 2002. Questions Every Judge and Lawyer Should Ask About Infants and Toddlers in the Child Welfare System, Joy Osofsky, Ph.D., Candice Maze, J.D., Judge Cindy Lederman, Justice Martha Grace and Sheryl Dicker, J.D. The US Department of Justice Child Delinquency Bulletin Series, March 2003, Treatment, Services and Intervention Programs for Child Delinquents, Barbara J. Burns, James C. Howell, Janet K. Wiig, Leena k. Augimeri, Brendan C. Welsh, Rolf Loeber, and David Petechuk. When Interventions Harm: Peer Groups and Problem Behavior, American Psychologist 54 (9): 755-764, Dishion, T.J. McCord, J., and Poulin, F. 1999. Interviews Chief Financial Officer, Social Services Agency, Santa Clara County, April 3, 2003. Cottage Manager, Santa Clara County Children’s Shelter, October 24, 2002. Deputy Director, Santa Clara County Children’s Shelter, February 19, 2003. Director, Department of Family and Children’s Services, County of Santa Clara, December 9, 2002. Director, Santa Clara County Children’s Shelter, November 18, 2002 and April 2, 2003. Director, Social Services Agency, County of Santa Clara, January 22, 2003. District Attorney’s Office, April 15, 2003. District Attorney’s Office, September 9, 2002. Division Director, Santa Clara County Services, EMQ Children & Family Services, April 10, 2003. Executive Director, Orangewood Foundation, March 18, 2003. Executive Director, Silicon Valley Children’s Fund, February 19, 2002. Medical Director, EMQ Children & Family Services, and the Office of Child Development, Neuropsychiatry and Mental Health, March 3, 2003 and April 10, 2003. President and CEO, EMQ Children & Family Services, March 3, 2003. Senior Mental Health Program Specialist, Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System, February 19, 2003. Social Work Supervisor, Department of Family and Children’s Services, Santa Clara County Children’s Shelter, October 24, 2002. Social Worker Community Care Facilities, Department of Family and Children’s Services, County of Santa Clara, October 24, 2002. Social Worker, Department of Family and Children’s Services, County of Santa Clara Social Services Agency, February 19, 2003. Supervising Judge, Dependency Court, Superior Court, State of California, County of Santa Clara, September 23, 2002, October 10, 2002, and February 28, 2003. 11
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
FI:
The requirement that a position be considered filled as long as the former employee is on terminal vacation upon retirement does not allow the department to hire a suitable replacement early enough for overlap training, and often results in a key position being left vacant for a long period of time. .Recommendation I-1 The Grand Jury recommends that when it is known that an employee in a key position will soon retire, or leave for any other reason, the director of his/her 3 department should be allowed to post that position immediately, and hire a replacement as soon as a qualified person is found.
FII:
When there is a succession plan in place, or when there is a deputy to the departing employee, there is someone available to immediately assume the functions of the vacated position. Even if that individual is not later selected to fill the position, the organization can continue to function smoothly with that individual temporarily filling the vacancy until the recruiting process is complete.
FIII:
When a long-term employee retires and chooses to take payment for his/her vacation and sick leave in a lump sum, the department faces the possibility of a significant budget overrun. It is possible for an employee who has been with the county for over 20 years to have 66 working days (or approximately 13 weeks) of vacation accumulated. It is also possible for a 30-year employee to have as much as 360 days of sick leave. The first 60 days will be paid on the basis of 50% of normal salary; the remaining 300 days will be paid on the basis of 12½ % of normal salary. Thus, the sick leave payment will be equivalent to another 13 weeks. This means that a long-term employee could be paid up to 26 weeks of salary, or half of his/her annual compensation. 4
FIV:
The Grand Jury learned that there are no standard guidelines in the county personnel procedures to address the problem of replacing key personnel.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
FI:
In the school districts and associated schools that were interviewed, the Grand Jury discovered there are no guidelines that suggest or require the volunteers have a criminal record check using the FBI database. All credentialed teachers are checked by the FBI database. During the interviews with school and district personnel, it was learned that volunteers are fingerprinted, but only required to have a record check through the California Department of Justice database.
FII:
During the course of our interviews with the representatives from Parks and Recreation Departments, it was learned that employees and volunteers of the associated city are required to be fingerprinted. All employees and volunteers are screened only by the California Department of Justice database.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
FI:
The apparent lack of acute care beds in Emergency Psychiatric Service has been resolved with the budgetary augmentation from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors totaling $11.2 million over a period of two years. Of these funds, approximately $8.0 million, which includes $5.6 million ongoing, were utilized for contracting additional beds in the Institute of Mental Disease/Skilled Nursing Facility and a Residential Care Facility. This allowed a more systematic flow of patients from Barbara Arons Pavilion to those facilities. This, in turn, permitted Emergency Psychiatric Service to stay within the required “no more than” 24 hour care and eliminated overstays. 2
FII:
There are no inpatient psychiatric treatment facilities located in Santa Clara County for minors. There is a twenty-bed unit in the Don Lowe Pavilion that is currently unused. County Mental Health contracts for child and adolescent inpatient psychiatric services out of the area. This creates a substantial financial hardship on the families, especially those of low income, thus making it difficult for them to participate in the therapeutic treatment of their children. It also places an additional burden on the county, since ambulance fees and transport costs are added to the cost of treatment.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
FI:
The DOC Inmate Welfare Fund Committee has eight voting members: chief of correction, assistant chief of correction, deputy chief of correction, four captains, and a DOC administrative services manager. There is a three member advisory staff: lead county counsel, DOC financial services manager, and DOC inmate welfare fund manager. The committee meets monthly or more frequently if necessary. Meetings are conducted under Roberts Rules of Order and minutes of meetings are maintained. Recommendation None.
FII:
The DOC Inmate Welfare Fund draws monies from inmates’ use of a commissary, telephones, and hobby craft items. The October 22, 2002 financial report of this fund indicates an annual income for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 of approximately $3.5 million. The amount of money in this fund as of November 24, 2002 was $3.89 million. The money is appropriately used for the benefit of the inmates at the Elmwood Complex and the Main Jail Complex in San Jose. Recommendation None.
FIII:
The Department of Probation has a fund for two adult programs, Men’s Work Furlough and Women’s Residential Center, showing a combined balance of $8,344.80 as of December 3, 2002. There are seven funds for juveniles within the Department of Probation. The balances shown in the following table are as of December 3, 2002: 2 Probation Department Welfare Funds FUND NUMBER TITLE BALANCE 0200 Juvenile Traffic Fines $ 0.00 * 0313 Holden and Wright $22,707.41 Endowments 0314 James Ranch $34,283.80 0316 Juvenile Court Trust $ 5,375.82 0317 Juvenile Rehabilitation $ 4,096.68 Trust 0318 Juvenile Welfare Trust $34,129.22 0319 Men’s Work Furlough & $ 8,344.80 Women’s Residential 0320 Enterprise Fund $28,009.90 *Fund 0200 has no balance. This fund is used for the deposit and clearance of traffic fines received by the Juvenile Traffic Court. Facility managers contact the Department of Probation fiscal officer when funds are needed. When the fiscal officer at the Department of Probation completes a purchase request, the facility manager is unaware, due to the lack of routine documentation, if the cost of the purchase is taken from the welfare fund or from the general budget. There is no evidence that regular meetings are held with the managers of the funds. Recommendations
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F2003:
Fred de Funiak Foreperson Ron R. Layman Foreperson Pro Tem Patricia L. Cunningham Secretary 7 References Crime Laboratory 2001 Annual Report Facilities Needs Assessment - Final Report, April 20, 2000 ER&HDR Architects, Inc. McClaren, Wilson &Lawrie, Architects Contact Information Santa Clara County Crime Laboratory 1557 Berger Drive, Suite B-2 San Jose, CA 95112-2704 408-299-2224 [email protected]
FI:
There is a need for an improved facility There are built-in inefficiencies in the building's layout. Although response time appears reasonable, workflow is not optimal. We have no doubt that overall efficiency and response time, especially in the increasingly important DNA test results, could be improved in a facility designed to meet not just today's technology, but improvements in such technology that we can expect to come on-line in the coming years.
FII:
Certain fume hoods in the narcotics laboratory provide minimal protection for staff even though reports we examined indicate they do meet industry standards. Finding II is complex and requires further explanation: The Grand Jury is concerned for the health of all laboratory workers due to what appears to be the inadequate and technically backward ventilation system. The Grand Jury team studied this situation in greater detail on its second visit to the laboratory. The director shared with the Grand Jury team an independent assessment of the facility. One of the recommendations of this assessment dealt with the ventilation system. This factor played a large part in the decision to proceed with a new Crime Laboratory, resulting in management's deferral of planned renovations of the ventilation system and the weapons firing area. On this second tour, the director explained in greater detail the measures taken to minimize the potential hazards due 5 to the ventilation problems. The Grand Jury team believes that in many parts of the facility, the problem is being adequately addressed. For example, since the visit on October 10, one of the most toxic procedures has been moved to an area with fume hoods that vent to the outside. This has made a great improvement. However, the small desktop fume hoods used in the narcotics laboratory provided very little protection from toxic fumes because their openings are so large that very little draw of vapors actually occurs, unless the technician works well into the back of the hood. While these hoods may be adequate for storing desktop chemical vials, they do not appear adequate for actual working conditions. Moreover, the hoods themselves may be creating an unrecognized problem. These hoods use charcoal filters over which the contaminated air is passed and then vented back into the room from the rear of the hood. We noticed, and staff stated some concern, that particulate carbon, no doubt containing the very toxins they have filtered, may be entering the atmosphere to be breathed in by staff.
FIII:
The weapons test chamber has no ceiling and is open to the larger room in which it is located, allowing lead particles to escape into the larger room. Since this larger room is used for many other functions and entered by personnel on a regular daily basis, there is a potential threat of lead poisoning present. The Grand Jury team and the director discussed how this chamber could be fitted with a sealed ceiling, thereby containing lead particles within the room. 6
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2003:
____________________________________ Fred de Funiak Foreperson ____________________________________ Ron R. Layman Foreperson Pro Tem ____________________________________ Patricia L. Cunningham Secretary 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Does a disaster recovery plan exist? 2. Date it was prepared.
F3:
Date of last major update.
F4:
Date of last testing of the plan.
F5:
Are there any access controls in place? If so, please provide a summary.
F6:
Are routine access reports generated? If so, what is the frequency of their review? 7. If there is no plan in writing at this time, and if one were to be written, from whom might you seek help? 2 The results obtained from this survey indicate that only six of the fifteen cities/towns have written disaster recovery plans at this time, and that all of the selected agencies/authorities/districts have written plans. In addition, it was determined that only three of the cities/towns and all but one of the agencies/authorities/districts with written plans have tested them. For security reasons, the Grand Jury is not divulging the names of the government entities that lack formal written disaster plans. Those entities not in compliance are aware of this deficiency, based on information furnished to the Grand Jury. Finding Nine of the fifteen cities/towns in Santa Clara County do not have written disaster recovery plans for computer information systems; and not all written plans have been tested and updated.