Santa Clara County Grand Jury

2007-2008

15 reports

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: FAF Building Operations lacks written policies, procedures, rate information, training, and clear reporting of its customer charges.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: FAF Building Operations needs to develop and publish documentation to include customer policies, procedures, and rates. Customer training on procedures and costs is recommended.
F2: FAF Building Operations lacks a feedback mechanism for its customers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: FAF Building operations needs to develop a customer satisfaction feedback process.
F3: FAF building maintenance costs are above market rates, and FAF customers have been directed not to obtain the services from outside vendors.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a: FAF needs to ensure that its costs are in line with or lower than outside costs for the same services by increasing efficiency or adjusting staffing levels as appropriate.
R3b: The County Executive should reconsider the 1999 directive that County agencies must use FAF Building Operations for building maintenance and allow the agencies to use outside contractors. Key
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1a: The City Auditor found significant issues with the City Finance Department’s management of the tax exempt bond program and interfund loan processes that have resulted in foregoing interest to the City and have the potential to pose legal problems.
F1b: The City Auditor issued a report in December 2007 which listed all of the
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: Lack of battery acid ventilation is in violation of the current fire code. Technical employees have not been trained on handling batteries safely.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Ensure that ventilation for batteries is completed immediately or that current batteries are replaced with sealed-type batteries. All technical staff should be trained on the proper handling of batteries.
F2: Ceiling water-based fire extinguishing systems are currently installed in areas where equipment needed to handle emergency calls could be damaged if the extinguishers are deployed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Communications Center should install ceiling chemical-based fire extinguishing systems for the network/switch room facilities to avoid possible damage to critical electronic equipment if extinguishers are deployed.
F3: There are no wiring diagrams of the current network/switch room.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Communications Center should create a complete set of wiring diagrams to enable any network engineer to fully reconstruct the connections in case of emergency. In addition the wiring diagrams should be updated as changes are made, and copies should be stored both onsite and offsite. The location of the diagrams should be communicated to all SCCCC engineers and management to facilitate reestablishment of connectivity in case of disaster. Key References Documents “Clean Agent Fire Protection,” PyroChem.com, http://www.pyrochem.com/html/prodfm200.htm ], (accessed: May 10, 2008). County of Santa Clara, Office of the Assistant Fire Marshall to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. Email, April 15, 2008. County of Santa Clara, Office of the Chief Communications Dispatcher to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. Email, May 1, 2008. County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Executive, Communications Department to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. Email, May 13, 2008. County of Santa Clara, Office of the Fire Marshall, Report: 2008 Annual Fire and Life Safety Inspection for County Communications at 2700 Carol Drive, San Jose, CA. May 5, 2008 Interviews March 28, 2008 County of Santa Clara Occupational Safety and Environmental Compliance Manager April 14, 2008 County of Santa Clara Assistant Fire Marshall, Office of the Fire Marshall April 21, 2008 Communications Director, County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Executive, Communications Department April 21, 2008 Senior Management Analyst, County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Executive, Communications Department April 21, 2008 Assistant Communications Director, County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Executive, Communications Department April 21, 2008 Administrative Support Officer II, County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Executive, Communications Department April 21, 2008 Chief Communications Dispatcher, County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Executive, Communications Department April 21, 2008 Communications Engineer, County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Executive, Communications Department 5 PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 12th day of June, 2008. Raymond A. Blockie, Jr. Foreperson Tim Cuneo Foreperson pro tem Kathryn C. Philp Secretary 6
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: Projected project costs for the DRC project have doubled since receiving voter approval in 2000 on Measure A and RM2 in 2004. Currently, there are no additional funds committed or available to fund the increased project costs nor any plans to obtain them.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The VTA Board of Directors should not proceed with additional funding until the current alternatives analysis is complete.
F2: The DRC has yet to obtain a right of way from UPRR, which jeopardizes a significant portion of the project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The VTA should not expend any additional funds on this project until this issue is resolved by the DRC.
F3: There is serious doubt about the cost versus benefit of this project to county residents. The original assumptions of improved commuter delay times and high ridership have proven not to be correct.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a: The VTA should evaluate the MTC data and use the 2007 Regional Rail Plan as part of its overall decision to continue participation.
R3b: The VTA should evaluate the County’s $44 million commitment to the overall project in terms of benefit received. Key
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: The City of San Jose has failed in its fiduciary oversight of History San Jose. In spite of recommendations made by the Macias Consulting Group, the City Council approved a subsidy increase to HSJ this year of over $300,000 without HSJ meeting its contractual requirements for documentation.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1a: The City Council should determine based on its overall budget and priorities the appropriate subsidy level for History San Jose.
R1b: Based on its spending priorities and the subsidy level it determines to be appropriate, the City should amend its Operation Agreement to adjust its subsidy schedule with History San Jose and hold HSJ to its contractual agreements.
R1c: The responsibility for arts and cultural nonprofit oversight should reside within a City department with sufficient authority and appropriate staffing to enforce contract compliance.
F2: History San Jose’s organizational structure lacks the overall leadership, financial management, and fundraising strength to meet its contractual obligations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The HSJ Board should re-evaluate the organization’s management structure and hire a full-time CFO and full-time fundraiser. 6
F3: History San Jose’s Board is not meeting their responsibilities as outlined in HSJ’s Board Responsibilities document.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: History San Jose should recruit Board members with financial and management expertise to mentor HSJ management and oversee the turnaround of the organization. All Board members need to meet and exceed their fundraising goals, bring in additional Board members, and come up with creative means to enable HSJ to increase fundraising capabilities. Key
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: The information in the CUHSD child abuse reporting policy and administrative regulations is not understood by all District administrators, school principals, and deans.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: All CUHSD administrators, principals, and deans need to be given specific training on the mandated reporting policy and administrative regulations. Copies of the policy, administrative regulations, and DOJ reporting form should be provided to each trainee.
F2: The Superintendent or designee(s) responsible for training CUHSD employees have not been overseeing the provision for training per Board Policy, either as a part of new employee orientation or annual training. No District training materials are available, and training rosters have not been maintained.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2a: All new employees must receive specific training on mandated reporting, to include copies of the District policy and procedures and the DOJ form to be completed, as part of their new employee orientation. The same training must be given to both classified and certificated employees.
R2b: All current District employees are to be given specific training annually on mandated reporting, to include copies of the District policy and procedures and the DOJ form to be completed. Both classified and certificated employees are to receive this training.
R2c: CUHSD should modify their policy and procedures to include a procedure to create training records, including training dates, materials provided, and attendance records. These records should be maintained by the District. 4
F3: The Santa Clara County DFCS has developed a training program for mandated reporters, to ensure that a consistent set of procedures is used when child abuse is suspected.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: CUHSD should use the Santa Clara County DFCS training program as a resource.
F4: CUHSD volunteers are not provided training on mandated reporting.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: CUHSD should include volunteers in mandated reporter training. The Findings in this report were reviewed by CUHSD and Santa Clara County DFCS. Key
Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: DFCS has failed to deliver HEP binders to foster parent caregivers in 10% of child placements. This was found for both initial placements, and for subsequent changes of placement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: DFCS needs to determine the cause for failing to deliver HEP binders for all placements and take corrective action to eliminate this problem.
F2: DFCS has failed to meet the mandated time schedule for delivery of HEP binders to one-third of the foster parent caregivers. This was found for initial placements as well as for subsequent changes of placement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: DFCS needs to determine the cause for late delivery of HEP binders, and to take corrective action to ensure compliance with mandated requirements.
F3: Caregivers are generally aware of the correct forms to be used by medical providers for updating the child health information. However, there is a lack of knowledge of who should receive copies of these forms, and that the caregiver needs to put copies in the HEP binders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: DFCS should increase instruction in procedures and preparation of caregivers to ensure that caregivers are aware of their responsibility to maintain and update the HEP binder in their possession, and that the caregivers know the correct procedure for forwarding medical information back to DFCS. 9
F4: The comments sent in by the respondents contain a number of suggestions for improvements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: DFCS should review the comments with the caregivers, and evaluate them to determine if there are useful improvements that should be incorporated. Key
F5: After each medical or dental visit, to whom do you return the copy of the form so this information can become a part of the child’s official medical records? (Please check all that apply) Social Worker Public Health Nurse (CHDP) DFCS Other
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: After each medical or dental visit, to whom do you return the copy of the form so this information can become a part of the child’s official medical records? (Please check all that apply) Social Worker Public Health Nurse (CHDP) DFCS Other
F6: The DFCS requires that you receive a copy of the child’s medical records after each update of information. How often does this occur? Usually Sometimes Seldom 19
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: The DFCS requires that you receive a copy of the child’s medical records after each update of information. How often does this occur? Usually Sometimes Seldom 19
F7: Is DFCS responsive to your request for action or information regarding the health needs of the child (children)? Usually Sometimes Seldom
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: Is DFCS responsive to your request for action or information regarding the health needs of the child (children)? Usually Sometimes Seldom
F8: Do you have any recommendations to improve the procedures regarding updating medical records and ensuring that the caregiver has the most current medical information? (attach additional pages if necessary) Thank you for your time and effort in completing this questionnaire. Please return no later than Friday, April 11, 2008 in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope addressed to: Attention: Mr. Ray Blockie, Foreperson Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Superior Court Building 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113 20 APPENDIX D Caregiver Category Definitions Shelter: A facility where children are brought if no placement is located. Court-Specified Home: A home where children are placed under court direction. Foster Family Agency Home: A home that is certified through a private agency to provide foster care services. Foster Family Home: A home that is licensed through Santa Clara County to provide foster care services. Group Home: Group homes provide the most restrictive out-of-home placement option for children in foster care Guardian Home: A home where the caregiver decides to become the legal guardian of a foster child. Relative/Non-Relative Extended Family Member: Relative caregivers are blood related and non-related caregivers have a bond with the child (godparents, a significant adult in the child's life, etc.) Small Family Home: A home that is licensed through Community Care Licensing to provide specialized foster care services 21 APPENDIX E Summary of Questionnaire Comments Positive Comments “Our foster daughter's Public Health Nurse, is wonderful! She is very responsive, helpful and supportive! When I questioned the accuracy of our Foster Daughter’s Immunization record, she accessed the CAIR website (California Immunization Record) and found an error. She explained that many people input data into foster children's HEP binders and mistakes can occur. I don't have any recommendations on how to ensure the accuracy of each HEP binder, but for future placements, I plan to ask the Public Health Nurse to compare the child's immunization record in the HEP binder to the CAIR database.” “I am happy w/ California's newest social worker.” “Very satisfied” “I think the system is working fine.” “The system was good, not great but good.” “I was impressed with the binder and forms that were given to me because it was a very organized and comprehensive system (I thought).” “Great Job!” “My last social worker has been up to date by getting the information I needed for the Foster child that is here in my home.” “We have been very satisfied with the information we have received” “In time I had foster children in my home HEP booklet came after child place back to parent into another country. The HEP booklet is very helpful when you don't know children allergy or what.” “The first time I had my granddaughter … I had help from …. She is a relative support team member. When things didn't happen fast enough she persisted and got results. She is a dedicated worker. … is a very dedicated social worker. She has and is doing everything to help my granddaughter.” “I am satisfied with the procedures regarding updating medical records. Do not have any
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: Do you have any recommendations to improve the procedures regarding updating medical records and ensuring that the caregiver has the most current medical information? (attach additional pages if necessary) Thank you for your time and effort in completing this questionnaire. Please return no later than Friday, April 11, 2008 in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope addressed to: Attention: Mr. Ray Blockie, Foreperson Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Superior Court Building 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113 20
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: The authorization of two more payroll clerks for IHSS time card processing was badly needed and overdue. Due to projected future case load growth and ongoing budget issues, there is potential for a similar crisis to occur in the future, resulting in late paychecks for Providers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors and IHSS should agree on a trigger or triggers for action so that payroll administration issues do not create undue hardship for Providers.
F2: The department has not had needed tools and technology to help track process performance and to manage change resulting from growth, funding issues, statutory changes, or new technology.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: As funding allows, IHSS should continue to manage for growth and efficiency, including implementation of the PCG recommendations, development of operational metrics and procedures for planning and scheduling, and further utilization of available technology to improve payroll processing. . Key
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R40-60: minutes 13% 60 minutes+ 13% Although SEIU had been working with IHSS, SEIU decided to contact members of the County Board of Supervisors. The issue was agendized at the regular January meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Children, Senior and Families Committee, where SEIU was joined by Providers and Clients. The result was approval of two “extra-help” payroll staff that later became permanent positions. The corrected software was reactivated on February 4, 2008. By mid-February, the department had finally eliminated the backlog and was processing time cards the day they were received. Business Process Improvement Study The County Social Services Agency diverted some time from a business process consulting group working elsewhere in the agency, to look at IHSS processes and to suggest improvements. The consultant, Public Consulting Group (PCG), completed the study in April of 2008 and provided information on how the department has functioned since the addition of the two extra staff and the improved version of the time card scanning software. PCG reported that For time cards with NO exceptions, the time frame – from the receipt of timecards by IHSS payroll to upload of time card information into CMIPS – takes 2 business days to complete. Upon input into CMIPS, the State Comptroller takes approximately 2 days to process check. Delivery of mail via USPS is estimated to take three to five business days. Total of 7 to 9 business days for Provider to receive paycheck. PCG also reported that 6000 replacement/supplemental time cards per month are still generated locally, and since they cannot be scanned by the new system, they must be manually entered. PCG recommended a number of process changes to improve accuracy and efficiency, which IHSS expects to be implementing. PCG further provided information and references regarding: - two possible methods, used in San Bernardino and Fresno Counties, to eliminate the 6000 manually entered replacement cards. - a customizable Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) service to help manage call volume and to provide helpful information to callers. - an Integrated Voice Response (IVR) System to provide access to time card information. Conclusions A high growth rate under long-term budget constraints brought about the issues of late paychecks, long telephone delays, and poor customer support. Late paychecks can be devastating to Providers who frequently live from paycheck to paycheck. IHSS payroll administration has struggled through years of growth with insufficient staffing, and antiquated computer and telephone systems. Further, the agency’s newly found relief may be short-lived. At the time of this writing, the Governor of California has planned an 18% cutback in domestic and related services to IHSS clients and a 10% cutback in administrative funding. The 18% cut would be done automatically by CMIPS starting July 1, 2008. Reassessments will be moved to an 18-month schedule rather than 12 months, on the theory that less frequent reassessments will reduce the administrative load. According to a February 2008 Legislative Analyst paper, however, clients will be able to appeal the cutback, and inevitably, the processing for any related data base changes could increase the administrative burden. The Business Process Engineering study from PCG provided helpful suggestions, and their report indicates that IHSS has been moving forward productively despite a difficult situation. Automation is critical for managing growth and change with minimal staff, particularly with repeated transactions such as time cards. Findings and Recommendations Findings have been reviewed with the subject agency. Finding 1 The authorization of two more payroll clerks for IHSS time card processing was badly needed and overdue. Due to projected future case load growth and ongoing budget issues, there is potential for a similar crisis to occur in the future, resulting in late paychecks for Providers. Recommendation 1 The Board of Supervisors and IHSS should agree on a trigger or triggers for action so that payroll administration issues do not create undue hardship for Providers. Finding 2 The department has not had needed tools and technology to help track process performance and to manage change resulting from growth, funding issues, statutory changes, or new technology. Recommendation 2 As funding allows, IHSS should continue to manage for growth and efficiency, including implementation of the PCG recommendations, development of operational metrics and procedures for planning and scheduling, and further utilization of available technology to improve payroll processing. . Key
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: The revenue-sharing formula between South Bay and the participating community colleges as defined in the JPA Bylaws, (Section IV), has not changed since the inception of the program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The South Bay Board should review its current funding formula to ensure that the split between South Bay and the participating member colleges is based on a fair, equitable distribution as it relates to responsibilities and services provided. Similarly, the Board should review the revenue-sharing plan with participating public safety agencies.
F2: Misunderstandings about the revenue-sharing plan exist between South Bay and some agencies even though South Bay provides quarterly revenue-sharing statements to each agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Agencies with training accounts need to take responsibility and request a review of the status of their account when so desired.
F3: There is confusion regarding the use of one course title for all FTP courses offered and the transcripts as related to these courses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: South Bay needs to eliminate the generic FTP program titles. 7
F4: In the fall of 2007, South Bay staff bypassed their standard enrollment procedures and registered five students from the Basic Academy Class #82 in a Field Training Program. Although these students had verbally agreed to the enrollment, official registration forms were never completed or signed by the students as required.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: South Bay must ensure that all students enrolled in any courses must personally complete the appropriate registration forms.
F5: Students are initially enrolled in a given college but South Bay may ultimately assign the class to a different college for purposes of apportionment and credit. Sometimes this causes confusion when students request transcripts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: South Bay needs to explain clearly to the students that the initial enrollment may ultimately be assigned to a different college and inform students accordingly. It is also the responsibility of the students to determine which community college is assigning the final credit.
F6: The Grand Jury did not find any evidence that either transcripts or hours of credit generated had been falsified.
F7: The current Executive Director understands the training needs of public safety agencies and has been able to bridge the public safety and higher education cultures. He has created a new sense of confidence in South Bay, and as a result, agencies are returning to South Bay. References California Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training. www.post.ca.gov (accessed April 3, 2008). South Bay Regional Public Safety Training Consortium. Bylaws, revised: June 21, 2001. South Bay Regional Public Safety Training Consortium. Governing Board Meeting Agenda, August 27, 2007. South Bay Regional Public Safety Training Consortium. Joint Powers Agreement, revised: October 16, 1996. South Bay Regional Public Safety Training Consortium. Membership Prospectus for Monterey Peninsula College, Summer 2007. South Bay Regional Public Safety Training Consortium, Memorandum. State of the South Bay Regional Public Safety Training Consortium, August 15, 1996. Interviews December 19, 2007 Member, Office of the Sheriff, County of Santa Clara January 29, 2008 Director and Officer, South Bay Regional Public Safety Training Consortium February 6, 2008 Member, Office of the Sheriff, County of Santa Clara February 6, 2008 Member, Office of the Sheriff, County of Santa Clara February 6, 2008 Member, Office of the Sheriff, County of Santa Clara February 6, 2008 Member, Office of the Sheriff, County of Santa Clara February 6, 2008 Member, Office of the Sheriff, County of Santa Clara February 6, 2008 Director and Officer, South Bay Regional Public Safety Training Consortium February 13, 2008 Administrator, Santa Clara Police Department February 13, 2008 Former Administrator, Gilroy Police Department February 13, 2008 Administrator, San Jose Police Department February 22, 2008 Staff, South Bay Regional Public Safety Training Consortium February 22, 2008 Staff, South Bay Regional Public Safety Training Consortium February 25, 2008 Former Member, Office of the Sheriff, County of Santa Clara March 5, 2008 Administrator, Gavilan College March 5, 2008 Administrator, San Jose/Evergreen Community College District March 25, 2008 Independent Accountant 10 PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 1st day of May, 2008. ______________________________ Raymond A. Blockie, Jr. Foreperson ______________________________ Tim Cuneo Foreperson pro tem ______________________________ Kathryn C. Philp Secretary 11
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: The FCMAT report’s description of deficiencies at Los Gatos Union School District, along with FCMAT’s recommendations for addressing those deficiencies, may help other school districts in the county address deficiencies in their own districts and avoid them in the future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Each school district in the county and the County Office of Education should review the FCMAT report and the FCMAT follow-up report to determine if the report’s recommendations may be appropriate for that district.
F2: Most school districts in the county do not follow appropriate state/federal guidelines with respect to frequency and method by which equipment must be inventoried.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2a: After study of the FCMAT report, each school district in the county and the County Office of Education should review relevant law and guidelines and their own policies concerning frequency and method of inventories.
R2b: The Board of Trustees of each school district in the county and the County Office of Education should require the Superintendent of the district to report (i) if the district complies with all specific recommendations and suggested procedures in CASM 410 and the requirements of California Education Code section 35168, and (ii) the reasons why the district does not comply if it does not do so. 6
F3: Some school districts in the county do not follow state law with respect to minimum value of equipment that must be inventoried.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: After study of the FCMAT report, each school district in the county and the County Office of Education should review relevant law and guidelines and their own policies concerning minimum value of equipment that must be inventoried.
F4: Clear policies concerning the accountability of persons responsible for lost or misplaced property and equipment can help reduce loss. Some school districts in the county do not hold their employees accountable for property and equipment under their care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: After study of the FCMAT report, each school district in the county and the County Office of Education should review and enact policies under which they hold district employees accountable for lost property or equipment.
F5: Some school boards in the county are not advised of results of inventories despite the fact that board members are ultimately accountable to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: After study of the FCMAT report, each school district in the county and the County Office of Education should review and enact policies under which its board is informed of the specific results of inventories, particularly with respect to any loss of property or equipment. 7
F6: Some school districts in the county do not have appropriate board policies regarding acquisition, inventory and disposition of property and equipment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: After study of the FCMAT report, each school district in the county and the County Office of Education should review, and enact as appropriate, board policies regarding acquisition, inventory and disposition of property and equipment.
F7: Some school districts in the county do not have appropriate administrative regulations regarding acquisition, inventory and disposition of property and equipment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: After study of the FCMAT report, each school district in the county and the County Office of Education should review, and enact as appropriate, administrative regulations regarding acquisition, inventory and disposition of property and equipment. Key
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F2007: Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, Security Assessment Report, “A Review of SCVMC’s Infant Security Program,” pp 29-39, A07.059, Revised July 25, 2007. The Joint Commission, Division of Accreditation and Certification Operations, Letter to SCVMC, August 28, 2007. Interviews October 22, 2007 Chief Executive Officer, Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System November 2, 2007 Executive Director, Hospital and Ancillary Services Santa Clara Valley Medical Center November 2, 2007 Director, Performance and Outcomes Management Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System November 2, 2007 Nurse Manager, Maternal Child Health-3W Mother Infant Care Center, Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System December 13, 2007 Executive Director, Ambulatory Care Service and Managed Care, Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System 4 PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 7th day of February, 2008. Raymond A. Blockie, Jr. Foreperson Tim Cuneo Foreperson pro tem Kathryn C. Philp Secretary
Page 1
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: Gustavo De La Cruz was not a resident of LBSD and improperly failed to resign from the LBSD Board upon moving out of his residence in the District. During the time that he continued to serve on the Board while failing to fulfill the residency requirement under California law, he collected his monthly stipend and cash in lieu of health benefits from the District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Grand Jury recommends that LBSD pursue legal means to recover all compensation, with interest, that was paid to Mr. De La Cruz during the time that he no longer resided within the District but continued to serve on the LBSD Board of Trustees.
F2: The LBSD Board failed to carry out its responsibility to comply with the requirements of the California Education Code by allowing a nonresident Board member to continue to serve on the Board. Key References Documents California Education Code, Sections 35010(b) and 35107(a). California Government Code, Section 1770. California School Boards Association. District/COE/ROP Roster Update, November 19, 2007. Concerned Citizens of Burbank, to President, Luther Burbank School District Board of Trustees. Letter, October 20, 2006. De La Cruz, Gustavo, to Santa Clara County Board of Education. Subject: Resignation as Board Member of LBSD, March 7, 2008. Luther Burbank School District Board of Education. Minutes of Meeting, November 14, 2006. State of California, Office of the Attorney General. Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 287, 288 (1992). State of California, Office of the Attorney General. Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 243, 245 (1996). State of California, Office of the Attorney General. Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 94, 98, 101 (1998). State of California, Office of the Attorney General. Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 181 (2002). Interviews February 12, 2008 Superintendent, Luther Burbank School District 4 PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 17th day of April, 2008. Raymond A. Blockie, Jr. Foreperson Tim Cuneo Foreperson pro tem Kathryn C. Philp Secretary 5
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F2: SCVMC transmittals to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Deloitte Implementation Contract consistently asserted that there were no fiscal implications. The rationale was that the costs would be covered by the financial benefits obtained from the engagement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: If a contract proposal is the subject of the transmittal, its anticipated cost should be made clear in the transmittal.
F3: The County approval and review processes for the Implementation Contract failed to note the violation of Board Policy Section 5.5.3.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The County needs to ensure that all parties involved with reviewing contracts are aware of and follow County contracting policies and the principles behind them. 8
F4: Processes are inadequate to ensure that procurement policies and procedures are followed by departments under a Board Delegation of Authority or for board executed contracts.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4a: A periodic external audit of contracts executed under a Board Delegation of Authority and board-executed contracts should be performed, with contracts selected according to the amount of financial or other risk involved.
R4b: Responsibility for following County procurement procedures should be specifically designated in the approval processes for all county contracts.
F5: Board Policy does not address the problem of having the same vendor who was hired to make a recommendation being subsequently hired to implement the
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The County should review Board Policies regarding issues similar to those covered under California Public Contract Code Section 10365.5 to clarify best practices for Santa Clara County regarding assessment contracts leading to implementation contracts.
Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: SCVMC needs to ensure that all its staff, particularly its management, understands and follows the Board Policy Manual.
R6: The Board of Supervisors needs to revise and clarify contract procedures used in the Board Policy Manual and the County Contract Manual and ensure that they are followed consistently by all agencies throughout the county and for all contract dollar levels. 9
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: The Park Charter has a fiscal impact on the County; however, no analysis of fiscal impact by the county auditor appeared in the June 2006 ballot or Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet when the Park Charter was extended to the year 2021.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should establish a policy by which the Board will request a fiscal analysis from the county auditor with respect to each and every county measure placed on the ballot in the future. This analysis should include direct and indirect potential effects of every county measure, even where the text of a measure does not directly affect county revenues or expenditures. This recommendation is intended to apply to all county measures and is not limited to future modifications and extensions of the Park Charter.
F2: The Park Charter funds are based on a percentage of assessed property value rather than a percentage of total property tax revenue available to the County, therefore the existence of the Park Charter means that the County has less tax revenue available to it than it would otherwise have for general purposes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors should place a measure on the ballot proposing that the Park Charter be modified so that the Park Charter funds are calculated based on a percentage of total property tax revenue available to the County for general purposes. 5
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: The Grand Jury finds that the County has not implemented appropriate security measures despite numerous requests from the DOC and recommendations from past Grand Juries.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County needs to elevate the importance of funding the DOC-requested security measures and complete implementation within the next 18 months.
F2: As a result of the November 2007 inmate escape, a significant issue regarding perimeter security was revealed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: DOC management should work with FAF management immediately to implement a solution to this problem.
F3: The presence of the FAF workshop at Elmwood represents an entire function over which Elmwood’s administrators have little to no control and detracts from the facility’s security. Additionally, supervision of FAF staff appears to be inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: FAF management should ensure that their employees assigned to Elmwood are supervised appropriately. FAF should consider eliminating or reducing the scope of the Elmwood workshop, and Elmwood DOC staff should have control of this structure. 6
F4: The substantial activity created by the entrance and exit of FAF personnel is very staff intensive for Elmwood personnel as FAF vans need to be inspected at each transition. The current number of FAF vehicles, staff, and tools entering and leaving the facility represent a threat to the security of the institution.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: DOC management should review FAF’s access to the Elmwood facility and implement a procedure that will result in a more stringent requirement for access.
F5: FAF employees have left tools inside the facility to which inmates have had access, thus posing a potential threat.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: DOC should implement the draft policy titled, Control of Tools and Equipment, dated April 30, 2003.
F6: A review of DOC paperwork logs revealed that, in several instances, the entries lacked accuracy and that supervisory follow-up was not taking place in accordance with department policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: DOC should implement a supervisory and management level review of all critical documentation to ensure that all procedures and records are being followed and documented in line with departmental policy. 7