Santa Clara County 2010-2011 - California Grand Jury Reports

📋August 17, 2011 — Grand Jury Report: Mental Health Support at Youth Ranches

9 pages 3 findings 4 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: Various mental health providers demonstrate a lack of coordination and communication, which compromises the effective delivery of those services. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F2: Communication among individual professionals about mental health needs is limited and inefficient and is exacerbated because separate records, such as medical charts and progress notes, are maintained. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F3: Metrics are available but are not used to evaluate whether mental health needs are being met, whether needs are increasing, or whether the various CBO providers are being used in the most efficient manner. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1c: Probation leadership at the Ranches should evaluate communication systems currently in use by providers at each of the facilities, and they should work to ensure that open communication Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman. George Shkakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report — Mental Health Support at Youth Ranches Gary A. Graves, Chief Operating Officer July 20, 2011 and file sharing programs are put into place. In addition, the frequency of site-wide team meetings or other programs should be increased in order to ensure that various team members know one another and are familiar with the treatment programs for all minors under their care. Response: The recommendation is in the initial process of implementation. Probation, SCVHSS, CMH, DADS and CBOs have begun discussions around improved communication and sharing of information. All partners recognize the value of each others insight and observations in the treatment of our clients. Verbal exchanges are often shared and at times written documentation as well. Recently implemented has been a higher level quarterly meeting amongst all the stakeholders where policies and practices are discussed. A vision of regularly scheduled multi-disciplinary case conferences at the worker level appears to be a strategy welcomed by all. Discussions around the frequency and logistics are still being worked out. However, certain federal regulations (notably C.F.R. 42 part 2, which provides strong privacy protections for individuals in treatment for substance abuse disorders) around the sharing of some information supersede even the Standing Order referenced and signed by the presiding judge. Still, all agencies understand the spirit and intent of the recommendation and continue to contemplate and seek legal counsel on avenues for a shared file.

R2: Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System should institute one chart or one recordkeeping system, such as the UNICARE system already in place, and require its use by CMH, Custody Health, DADS, and the relevant CBOs. Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. SCVHHS is at the initial stages of discussion and design of an electronic database to maintain records which would be used to share information. This project is still in its embryonic stage and may not come to fruition for another couple of years. In the interim, the CBOs will provide copies of each minor's records to the Medical Department for placement Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report — Mental Health Support at Youth Ranches Gary A. Graves, Chief Operating Officer July 20, 2011 in the minor's Medical Record. The CBOs documentation will be maintained in a separate section of the Medical Record but it will be accessible to all parties which have legal access to minor's health information. The documentation completed by the Psychiatrists of the Mental Health Department is currently maintained in Medical Records maintained by the Medical Department. DADS is seeking legal directive on its federal regulations around the sharing of information, while the CBOs are upbeat to this idea as they also review policies and practices. It is estimated that resolution to many of the obstacles will be forthcoming, which will enable us to implement some form of a shared information system within the next 90 days.

R3a: Probation and CMH should agree on benchmarks to identify which minors in custody should receive mental health or social services counseling. Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the near future. The Probation Department will be implementing the Juvenile Assessment and Intervention System tool late this fall. The JAIS is one of the best evidence-based, gender-specific assessment and supervision systems in corrections. It is a valid and reliable risk assessment tool with proven supervision strategies to guide case planning, treatment, and supervision. The JAIS complements the professional judgment of Probation Officers by providing insight into the reasons causing a youth to act out and identifies strategies that emphasize public safety, rehabilitation, and accountability while focusing on criminogenic needs. The JAIS has two components; a screening section as well as a more thorough assessment component to identify areas of concern around substance abuse, mental health and or trauma. The entrance multi-disciplinary team will share the results of the JAIS to inform the treatment plan. Within each treatment plan individual goals will be set for each youth and monitored to ascertain progress and/or the need for modification. Implementation is scheduled for late fall 2011. Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report - Mental Health Support at Youth Ranches Gary A. Graves, Chief Operating Officer July 20, 2011

R3b: Probation and CMH should agree on which metrics are necessary to plan staffing needs, and review those metrics at regular communication meetings. Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Probation Department and CMH are at the initial stages of discussion around the utilization of the JAIS. Training on the interpretation and results will take place in early fall. Once implemented, an assessment of workload and caseload will be required to determine staffing needs for the ranch populations. Data around number of contacts per youth, hours of service in therapy versus crisis intervention are already being collected and presented at the higher level quarterly meeting. More discussion needs to be had around the qualitative measures of progress and how this information can be quantified. The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the original. ATTEST: Maria Marinos Clerk of the (cid:9)BBoard oard 13P Deputy Clerk Date: (cid:9) AUG 0 9 2011

📋August 17, 2011 — Grand Jury Report: Santa Clara County Fairgrounds Management Corporation

77 pages 5 findings 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: "The County established FMC as a non-profit to operate the Fairgrounds; however, FMC has not been successful. FMC has operated at a loss and has required County bailout in all but one of the past sixteen years." (cid:9) Santa Clara County (cid:9) Response to 2011 Civil Grand Jury Report July 22, 2011 Fairgrounds Management Corporation Response to Finding 1: The County established FMC as a non-profit entity to manage and operate the Fairgrounds. However, the Fairgrounds historical lack of profitability has as much to do with County's frustrated efforts to secure new private investment and to implement a Fairgrounds revitalization program, as it does with FMC management. The County anticipated that its efforts to implement a program of major new investment and construction would have both created the economic engine to finance new private development on the site and finance reinvestment in Fairgrounds exposition facilities and infrastructure, whether at the current Fairgrounds location or at a new site. The County has undertaken two major revitalization efforts described below, both of which were stymied by factors outside of the County's control, House of Blues (1998-2006) and a developer RFQ/RFP selection process (2007-2009). The County currently has established an Ad Hoc Committee of stakeholders to gather community input and to review and analyze past Fairgrounds proposals and provide the Board with policy recommendations on future redevelopment. House of Blues (1998-2006). In April 2000, the County entered into a Ground Lease with House of Blues for development of an entertainment and performing arts complex, which would have created an 8,300 seat performing arts venue with $32 million of private financing. The County would have invested $7.5 million of its share of proceeds from the House of Blues Ground Lease into a new parking structure and backbone infrastructure. Phase Two of this project would have included County construction of a new 175,000-200,000 square foot, multi- purpose Expo Center and a 60,000 square foot recreational facility to be operated by FMC. The County would have financed the $35+ million cost of these improvements through sale and development of hotel, retail, office and/or housing on the 14-parcel across Tully Road. However, in 2004 this project was suspended by litigation between the City of San Jose and the Downtown Business Association and the County. On August 29, 2006, the Board of Supervisors terminated the project as infeasible in the absence of the County injecting $15 million to cover cost increases arising from delay caused by the litigation (litigation, it should be noted, in which the County ultimately prevailed). Given the lack of a viable Fairgrounds revitalization project in 2006 and 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved a total of $5.5 million of funding for FMC to undertake repair of deferred maintenance and other infrastructure improvements. Fail-wounds Redevelopment 2007-2009. In 2007, the County began soliciting interest of developers through a Request for Qualifications process in order to implement a real estate development project at the Fairgrounds site. The process never progressed to the point of making decisions regarding ultimate uses. However, development options included two scenarios: (cid:9) Santa Clara County (cid:9) Response to 2011 Civil Grand Jury Report July 22, 2011 Fairgrounds Management Corporation 1. Scenario (A) included four elements involving housing on Umbarger Road, commercial development on Monterey Road, and continued public use in the central core area of the Fairgrounds. 2. Scenario (B), "blank canvas" scenario, involved all Fairgrounds acreage, but also would have provided for continued public use of some of the Fairgrounds property as a gathering place for community festivals and similar events, or it would have provided revenue to relocate the Fair to a new south County location. At its meeting of December 16, 2008, the Board of Supervisors approved entering into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Catellus Development Group. This effort, however, was terminated by the withdrawal of Catellus in early 2009 due to economic decline of the real estate market. At its meeting of June 9, 2009, District 2 Supervisor Shirakawa proposed, and the Board of Supervisors approved, formation of an Ad Hoc Committee of stakeholders, chaired by Supervisor Shirakawa, to gather community input and to: (1) review and analyze current and past Fairgrounds proposals; (2) hold public hearings to determine community needs; and, {3) provide the Board with policy recommendations on future re-development. Santa Clara County Response to 2011 Civil Grand Jury Report July 22, 2011 Fairgrounds Management Corporation

Page 8

F2: "In the last sixteen years, the FMC Board has not commissioned — nor has the County requested the Board to commission -- an independent performance audit of FMC, even though FMC's poor performance warrants this type of audit." Response to Finding 2: The County agrees that it has not during the term of the Management Agreement requested the FMC Board to commission an independent performance audit. The County has, however, undertaken its own evaluation of management and operations at the Fairgrounds, as noted above under Response to Recommendation 1.

Page 12

F3: "The County does not hold the FMC Board accountable for its lack of oversight in ensuring FMC meets its contractual obligations, and the FMC Board does not demonstrate the business acumen necessary to effectively oversee FMC. There is a seat vacant (to be filled by the District 4 Supervisor) on the FMC Board." Response to Finding 3: The County respectfully disagrees with Finding 3. A. Throughout the term of the FMC Agreement, the County has held FMC accountable for submitting a balanced annual budget and supporting business plan. In addition beginning in 2009, the County instituted new systems and procedures to ensure greater monitoring and control of FMC's performance, as follows: 1. Throughout the year, the County Asset and Economic Development (AED) Director from the Office of the County Executive meets as needed with the FMC Executive Director and/or the Chair of the FMC Board on significant issues related to operations, budget and policy, in order to anticipate, discuss and resolve issues of concern, often prior to formal proposals being considered at the FMC Board or the County Board of Supervisors level. The AED Director has always attended meetings of the FMC Board on an ad hoc basis. As of December 2009, the AED Director began monitoring FMC Board actions by attending and participating in all meetings of the FMC Board. 2. This heightened degree of County involvement, for example, led the AED Director in early 2010 to initiate discussions with the Chair of the FMC Board around developing a strategy for Executive Director succession planning. Such discussions resulted in an early transition in FMC management. New management, and subsequent management restructuring later in the year, resulted in overall savings in 2010 and continued savings that will accrue in 2011 and beyond. Savings in personnel costs were a significant factor contributing to an operating surplus in 2010. 3. In order to provide more robust early County review and discussion with all FMC stakeholders, the County instituted a new practice in 2009 involving FMC's presentation of its proposed Budget and Business Plan to the Board of Supervisors Finance & Government Operations Committee prior to presentation to the full Board of Supervisors. As a result, the County worked with FMC in the fall of 2009 and early 2010 revising and refining FMC's Budget and Business Plan with the following positive (cid:9) Santa Clara County (cid:9) Response to 2011 Civil Grand Jury Report July 22, 2011 Fairgrounds Management Corporation outcomes, all oriented toward providing greater FMC financial accountability: • In a memorandum dated December 22, 2009, to the County, FMC Board Chair Bill Anderson reported that FMC would be formulating an FMC Dissolution Plan to outline a process, including defining key levels of reserves that would be needed, to wind down affairs of the organization in an orderly manner should the decision ever be made to cease operations. • In a memorandum dated January 4, 2010, from the FMC Executive Director, targets were identified for new revenue generation, and FMC reduced its request for financial assistance from the original request of $500,000 down to the minimum necessary to cover anticipated unrecovered costs of the Annual Youth (4-H and FFA) Fair, or $100,000. • Subsequent discussions with FMC management identified an additional $10,000 of available one-time funds held in an FMC Auction Reserve Fund. • The AED Director, with the support and assistance of FMC Management, brokered collaboration with the Clover Foundation, Inc., supporters of the Annual Youth (4-H and FFA) Event, to undertake first-time-ever fund raising efforts. The Clover Foundation set a fund raising target of $25,000, and the County subsequently relied on a minimum contribution of $10,000. • In a memo dated February 18, 2010, to the Board of Supervisors Finance & Government Operations Committee, the County Executive recommended that the County only allow use of $80,000 from the Fairgrounds Capital Project Fund to cover un-recovered costs associated with conducting the Annual Youth Fair. This

Page 14

F4: "The County, supported by the Office of the County Executive, appears to have only a "land management" concern when FMC is required by contract to pay all expenses of the fair." Response to Finding 4: The County respectfully disagrees with Finding 4. It is true that the County has subsidized the County Fair during five of the last 16 years (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2010), and in 2007 the County approved a subsidy for both the County Fair and FMC operational costs. However, the County remains committed to revitalizing and/or redeveloping the Fairgrounds in a way that would finance and support continuation of community activities, whether at the Fairgrounds or at another location. In the meantime, the County expects FMC to operate without subsidy from the County, as demonstrated by the following: • While the Board of Supervisors had approved an operational subsidy of $285,000 for 2007 operations, the Board did not approve a similar request on December 11, 2007, for an operating subsidy of $675,000 for the 2008 Fair and FMC operations. • At its meeting of February 23, 2010, after having approved a one-time conversion of $80,000 of capital improvement funds as a subsidy for unrecovered costs of the 2010 County Annual Youth Fair, the Board of Supervisors gave direction to County staff that no further subsidies will be available for any event. • As noted above under Response to Finding 3, District 3 Supervisor appointed one of his own staff with business and real estate experience to a vacancy on the FMC Board in order to both monitor FMC actions and to actively participate in FMC management at a policy level. • As noted above under Response to Finding 3, the Office of the County Executive closely monitors FMC's performance including attendance at all FMC Board meetings, with the objective of intervening early on critical items. • The FMC Executive Director regularly seeks the County's advice regarding significant issues. For example, in an effort to improve event rental revenues, the AED Director worked directly with FMC Executive Director and County Counsel to revise FMC's standard event license agreement to streamline the process of event rental and permitting by the County Fire Marshall. • Similarly, the FMC Executive Director sought support and guidance from the AED Director and the Office of County Counsel in negotiating and preparing an agreement with a major new event promoter for use of the Fairgrounds arena. Santa Clara County Response to 2011 Civil Grand Jury Report July 22, 2011 Fairgrounds Management Corporation

Page 18

F8: "The County is undercharging communications tower renters, effectively diluting potential revenue to FMC." Response to Finding 8: The County agrees that renegotiating these lease rates would be desirable if it were legally possible. However, these are long-term leases, with fixed rent schedules that are not subject to renegotiation until the leases terminate.

Page 20

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R0: 56874 I Sub-total 21.29 09,402 I 2,823,860 I 10% Contingency for Contract Services' $59A43 $2,883,303 Notes:

R1: "The County should reconsider whether the non-profit model is the best way to operate the Fairgrounds." Response to Recommendation 1: The County has implemented

Page 11

R2: Development and maintenance of a park site location whereby County staff would conduct all activities associated with the Youth Fair, formally provided by the FMC. Analysis Methodology Staff conducted an inventory of space use for the Annual Youth Fair at the existing Fairgrounds; developed a sample program for a Youth Fair at another site; cataloged the tasks and staff resources needed to plan and host the Youth Fair; developed criteria to evaluate park sites; analyzed four park locations as possible sites; assembled preliminary costs to prepate/operate each site under two possible scenarios; and conducted investigation as to how other county fairs and public festivals in the area are operated. Overview of Existing Annual Youth Fair The Santa Clara County Fair has been conducted annually since the mid 1940's. Many of the structures built to support the Fair in the 1950's and 1960's at the existing fairgrounds are still in use today. To generate the revenues needed to support the facility, the Fairgrounds are operated on a year-round basis by FMC, hosting approximately 88 events per year separate from the Youth Fair. In 2008, FMC's governing board refocused the County Fair to be a youth-oriented agricultural:event. It was re-aled as the "Annual Youth Fair" at that time. Currently, Santa Clara County has 13 local 4-H Clubs, with about 650 youth members and 350 adult participants, operating under the guidance of the University of California s Cooperative Extension? The Future Farmers of America'have aPProximatelY 10,000 participants in the Central Coast region, which includes Santa Clara CountY, and an estimated enrollment of over 57,000 students throughout the state.3 Lo:vlincluah:k and school programs are active in a wide range of aarcttIi' v.i ttiheas t support youth interest in the evolving technology(cid:9) and business of age (cid:9) In addition tol smalel aandsim u(cid:9)a ananlsd d l iveSt k competitions that range from poultry and rabbits toCattlegoasttsis,sheep,. (cid:9)swine an dh orses, the Youth Fair includes non-live animal entries for competition, known a's " *II ,p which may ini clude non-perishable and perishab le stiallns entrieess.o.Trhereanare 28 divisions of categories that range from food Products to horticulture arts (cid:9) ical and electronic entries and much more. Participation in the Fair is ere are1 22 5s3tu K- dents in. . urban areas pardon *)ate in the stil llssa (cid:9) annd simmall al air I open to all residents. Mm c;toituhrgdoariyess.onTAhuis tthh es .tit twheith ae_e_nt_ri_esin the cat e (cid:9) .d• . .ons, 289 entries in small animal divisions, and 1,536 entri The Fair will be open to tthhe public for beg ,ms gust 5.th t e o s 8 "izinSag. otTaro gti_i_ C(cid:9)smiSt e t o i l ne l (cid:9) vent p g rre o epp rl aa e rr S aa • tt iioonn commencing on July 176 Th FMC staff planningg (cid:9) and organ work 1 U mon ths in advance of the event. * e Table 1: Recent Santa Clara County Fair Attendencel 2006 County Fair 34,000 2007 County Fair 58,000 2008 Youth Fair 5,0003 2009 Youth Fair 10,000 I Figures supplied by the Fair Management Corporation (FMC) 2 Figures are estimates only. Adrnionon has not been charged since 2005 and parking fees have not been charged since

Page 9

R2A: "The County should request the FMC Board to commission an independent performance audit of FMC and the FMC Board." Response to Recommendation 2A: The County concludes that requesting the FMC Board to commission a performance audit would be both unwarranted, considering the limitations under which FMC is required to operate, and the cost would be unreasonable given the added value that such a study would yield. The County's recent 2010 study by County Fleet and Facilities Department, the Parks and Recreation Department, and the Office of the County Executive was conducted over five months with hundreds of staff hours in on-site visits and interviews. While its primary purpose was to evaluate options for in-house County management of the Fairgrounds on a temporary basis, the process included many of the same components covered by management audits. For example, the County's study included independent evaluation of FMC staffing, management and possible relocation options for the Annual Youth Fair. The study evaluated current job descriptions and position responsibilities and created replacement staffing plans. On this basis, the study concluded that County labor and personnel costs would be at least 20% higher, and perhaps as much as 50% higher, than the $1.89 million that FMC expended on personnel in 2009. The estimates did not include County fixed cost allocation or the cost to cover unpaid overtime devoted by FMC staff. The analysis concluded that FMC costs are generally lower due to several factors, including: lower salary and benefit costs; the flexibility to utilize staff for multiple functions; the use of part time and casual labor according to the needs of individual events; and, the use of Public Service Program (PSP) and inmate workers. Though the process of analyzing FMC staffing, both the Fleet and Facilities Department and the County Parks and Recreation Department independently concluded that FMC efficiently uses staff and achieves significant economies with limited resources. For example, staff discussed with FMC their plans for competitive bidding of the catering contract due to expire in 2012, in order to increase revenues. In other areas, FMC achieves certain economies through (cid:9) Santa Clara County (cid:9) Response to 2011 Civil Grand Jury Report July 22, 2011 Fairgrounds Management Corporation creative cost reduction on minor projects such as asphalt surface repair and grading and landscaping by bartering for services with local businesses. The level of effort required to conduct an outside, independent performance audit has been estimated to involve between 700 and 750 hours. If such a study were undertaken, a typical Task Plan and allocation of time might involve the following: Task (cid:9) Hours 1. Entrance Conference (cid:9) 4 2. Survey interviews (cid:9) 50 3. Business Management: Concession Agreements/ site leases/ recurring events (cid:9) 50 Events planning (cid:9) 25 Marketing/Advertising (cid:9) 25 Accounting/budget/payroll (cid:9) 40 4. Operations Staffing (cid:9) 25 Contract Services (cid:9) 25 Utilities (cid:9) 25 Security (cid:9) 20 Insurance (cid:9) 10 5. Facilities Maintenance(cid:9) 20 Capital (cid:9) 20 6. Survey Counties (cid:9) 50 7. Evaluation of: New/Additional Events/Uses (cid:9) 40 Relocation Option (cid:9) 80 8. Exit Conference (cid:9) 12 9. Report Writing (cid:9) 200 Total (cid:9) 720 Hours The cost of such a study could be expected to range between $85,000 and $100,000. If a performance audit were to be required, the County could expect FMC to request that the County fund such a study. (cid:9) Santa Clara County (cid:9) Response to 2011 Civil Grand Jury Report July 22, 2011 Fairgrounds Management Corporation

Page 12

R3: Costs to replace the FMC's use of PSP/Inmateand casual seasonal labor were not Mel Board:of Supervisors: (cid:9) aid F. 'Gage George Shinikawa, Dave Corase, Ken Yeager, L County Exec:nitre: Jeffrey V. Smith (cid:9)(cid:9) Costs to replace the FMC's unpaid overtime were not Wed. Attachment B

Page 26

R3k: "District 4 Supervisor Yeager should recruit to fill the vacancy with an individual with strong business acumen." Response to Recommendation 3A: Recommendation 3A is being implemented. Supervisor Yeager plans to continue recruitment efforts to fill the vacancy with an individual with strong business acumen. Santa Clara County (cid:9) Response to 2011 Civil Grand Jury Report (cid:9) July 22, 2011 Fairgrounds Management Corporation

Page 17

R4: "The County should modify its contractual agreement with FMC stipulating that FMC be required to sustain a break-even or positive cash flow operation." Response to Recommendation 4: The County believes that implementing

Page 19

R5: The Parks Department recommends addition of a Parks Volun i community groups involved with the Fair event.

R6: Overtime costs for positions assigned to the Fair are to be determined. dinator to address volunteers Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith 6 41"44. 41.7 MALI. oyote La e - Harvey Bea r Ranch Count Par West Flat Area "IA G1101,0 1I••••••I••I• •I••••• I•••I• “Mainer et'S: Attachment D: Maps of Four County Park Sites Evaluated Coyote Lake Harvey Bear Ranch County Park, San Martin Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith / Ji ' /t?.. ' EQUESTRIAN/ I AGRICULTURAL r p4), EDUCATION /1 Cilp 1 CENTER % 1i 0 -7 j • 6 ale \irk L. '113.1j trey sC 9 JX-/5 ic'tts° —crolochoz.,0 1/lib "t) (4? Ito , I Asti .oleo liiY i ' i) ...?3.10 .., ..) i)1 0 , 0 i a' ------ - A -- • / Nal ivi, 1. ,,- a CTS Ak En': - 0 (- • ._. _... ......,... ...• LEGEND 'The Rough' PlaUvn Vegerrhon I 41 /4 i 0 Qt.) .),/S 1

R8: "The County should increase communications tower rental fees in line with local rates for similar service." Response to Recommendation 8: The County is unable to implement

Page 20

R11: Ana Enlargement I I Nora:Design or the West Fla! Area ts conceptual only and to illustrate relationsarps LOOK / of proposed elne, More aelaired design for the r I FAMILY PICNIC _ ........, _ _. OLfT West Flat and other areas of the park vall be . I AREA completed as a pan of phased j •I••I I -; ' . ,---- • . ---) , .., . • . ..4.,No.........._. ango me nt abon PARK '- :) . i J. . -", 4 '- 5--- -- ).... i r-,. :r ' .. / . . . N •••• _, .. .., / --- -- T--.......„ . ... ...... -........ BICYCLE Zr czioc, , .-) ', 142 L., , \ . \ , -1 - -,/,1,, OVERFLOW ....„er , 0 ‘,.... ,;? \,-:, ,._ .; _ PARKING • ,. .----, Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith CC3Y0 CR( N PARKWAY Coyote Creek Parkway, Morgan Hill Coyote Ranch Site Burnett Area Site Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith

R12-16: months *Parks is a Charter Fund Department and does not pay General Fund overhead. Parks pays such costs as direct charges. These cost estimates have been prepared by each department after having prepared a staffing needs assessment for current operation of the Fairgrounds. As noted in each of the attached analysis, FMC costs are generally lower due to several factors, including: lower salary and benefit costs; having the flexibility to utilize staff for multiple functions; use of part time and casual labor according to the needs of individual events; and, use of PSP and inmate workers. Costs for each department to manage the Fairgrounds are different for several reasons: • Neither department's staffing structure aligns with staffing of FMC; • Each department has certain position classifications that are unique; and, • Each department has to make different adjustments in order to staff up.

August 16, 2011 — Coxcastle Nicholson► Cox, Castle & Nicholson Llp*

6 pages 3 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: There is a lack of transparency with regard to where the El Camino Hospital District spends tax revenues. Tax revenues from the 1% tax levy, tax revenues from the 2006 bond measure, and hospital operating revenues are intermingled in published audits. The District provides no published detailed breakdown of how tax revenues are actually spent, such that the public may determine whether monies are well spent. Response to Finding 1: The District respectfully disagrees with Finding 1. As noted in the CGJ Report, all meetings of the District are open to the public, videotaped and available on the El Camino Hospital website for www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Honorable Richard J. Loftus, Jr. August 16, 2011 public review. Each tax-dollar expenditure is specifically authorized by the District at such a public meeting. In addition, separate annual budgets of the District and the non-profit El Camino Hospital Corporation (the "Hospital") are reviewed and approved by the District and Hospital boards, respectively, at videotaped public meetings. Meeting agendas, board packets and minutes are available online as well. Consolidated financial statements are required by accounting practices and are a standard for financial reporting for government agencies and others. The District's independently-audited financials are thorough, exhaustive and complete. As recognized in the CGJ Report, financial statements for both the District and the Hospital are subject to annual review by independent auditors that are made available for public review. Specifically, the District's and the Hospital's financial statements are independently audited annually by Moss-Adams, LLP, and published on the website. The audits are also published in the local newspapers of Los Altos, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. The independent audit breaks out financial information for each of the District's operating entities on an individual basis, including stand-alone financial information regarding the District which can be found in the supplemental schedules. The District is a vigilant steward of the public money it receives. The District board ensures that District funds are expended for the benefit of the District and the people served by the District. As noted in the CGJ Report, the District annually publishes a Community Benefit Report to explain how District "tax receipts are used ... for community benefit." This report includes an accounting of the District's Community Benefit programs, the numbers of persons served and the benefits paid. Moreover, the District follows best financial practices, including those pertaining to the expenditure of funds from the proper accounts, and has a compliance committee to oversee such expenditures. The District is committed, however, to ensure that such expenditures are documented in the most transparent and open manner and thus agrees with the Civil Grand Jury's recommendation to provide more detailed itemized financial information specific to the District, as discussed below.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1A: The District should develop and implement an itemized financial statement that shows how much money came in from taxes and toward which community programs the monies are spent and specifically how much. Response to Recommendation 1A: The District agrees with Recommendation 1A and, in furtherance of its commitment to open and transparent operations, the District will develop and implement a process whereby the supplemental schedules in the District's consolidated financial audits include more detailed itemized financial information describing the separate tax revenues and expenditures of the District, including expenditures for each Community Benefit program administered or funded by the District. The District intends to implement such process this calendar year. Honorable Richard J. Loftus, Jr. August 16, 2011

R1B: The District should perform an annual financial and performance audit of the District's tax revenues and expenditures, to be published separately from the Hospital revenues and expenditures. Response to Recommendation 1B: The District agrees with Recommendation 1B. As noted above, under applicable accounting standards, the District cannot conduct a financial audit of the District that does not include the Hospital, because the District is the sole voting member of the Hospital and consolidated financial statements are required. However, the District agrees that the supplemental schedules in the consolidated financial audit should include more detailed itemized financial information describing the tax revenues and expenditures of the District, separate from the Hospital revenues and expenditures. In addition, separate unaudited financial information of the District will be prepared and presented to the District Board at its regularly scheduled quarterly Board meetings and will be publicly available. The District intends to implement such process this calendar year.

F2: There is no one who is accountable to the District taxpayers as to how taxpayer monies are spent. Every member of the District board is on the Corporation board, and as such, every member of the District board is responsible for management and profitability of the Corporation. Should a conflict arise, such as the Corporation wanting to purchase and operate a facility outside of the District's SOI, it is unclear how the essentially common board would be able to successfully represent the independent interests of the District. Response to Finding 2: The District respectfully disagrees with the first sentence of Finding 2. It is not true that no one is accountable as to how taxpayer monies are spent. Indeed, there are five such people whose primary responsibility is to the District and therefore, by extension, to the taxpayers of the District – the publicly elected District board members. The elected District board members are well aware of their responsibilities to the District, and they take this responsibility seriously. The second sentence of Finding 2 is correct in stating that every District board member is also on the Hospital board. However, these boards meet separately, and when meeting as a board of the District, the board members are acting solely on behalf of the District. The Hospital is owned by the District, and ultimately by the people of the District, and it is the District board's responsibility to see that it is cared for in the most appropriate manner. The District is proud to be the ultimate owner of a District hospital that answers to the community, and knows that without community support for the Hospital (both financial and human support), the Hospital may become susceptible to being acquired by a for-profit based corporation or a chain of non-profit hospitals where decisions about local health care are made in a distant city and/or with an emphasis on profitability. The District board is 100% committed to maintaining the District's ownership of the Hospital and to do Honorable Richard J. Loftus, Jr. August 16, 2011 that, the District understands that the District's loyalty and commitment must remain with the District residents and taxpayers. The District respectfully disagrees with the last sentence of Finding 2. If an issue should arise where the interests of the District and the Hospital were in conflict, the District board is clear that its responsibility is to serve the best interests of the District. As a practical matter, there is rarely if ever any conflict of interest by having the District board members also serving on the Hospital board, because decisions that benefit the Hospital are generally also decisions that benefit the District, as the sole owner of the Hospital, and vice versa.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The District should appoint an independent manager accountable to the District who is responsible only for the detailed District financial reporting, or, alternatively, allow only a minimum number of overlapping board positions (i.e., maximum of 2) between the District and the Corporation boards. Response to Recommendation 2: The District respectfully disagrees with Recommendation 2, which is based on the premise that the District board cannot effectively serve the best interests of the District taxpayers without appointing an independent manager or allowing only a minimum number of overlapping board positions between the District and Hospital boards. The District already operates very efficiently and cost- effectively through a management agreement with the Hospital for administrative services, and establishing a separate manager would be redundant and costly. The District board will continue to periodically evaluate whether it is in the best interests of the District to modify the make-up of the Hospital board, and the addition of 2-4 new members of the Hospital board is currently under active consideration. However, as elected officials responsible to the District, the District board does not at this time believe that it would be in the best interests of the District or the people served by the District to allow only a maximum of two (2) overlapping board positions between the District and the Corporation boards. Democracy and good governance are clearly built upon the will of the people and the actions of those who are voted into office to represent them.

F3: Board members do not seem to know whether they represent a District or a Corporation, switching roles as needed and ignoring certain responsibilities of being a special district, such as communication with LAFCO. Response to Finding 3: The District respectfully disagrees with Finding 3. The elected officials constituting the District board are fully aware that their obligation as District board members is to represent the District and the people served by the District. The District board does not ignore its responsibilities as a special district, and is aware of and fulfills its obligations to LAFCO as required by applicable laws. The District board has provided the community with a world class hospital that is recognized both Honorable Richard J. Loftus, Jr. August 16, 2011 within the District and in communities afar as being a cost effective health care provider whose doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals provide quality of care and quality of experience. The Civil Grand Jury report specifically recognizes the District board and congratulates the hospital for being so successful.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3A: Going forward, the District should inform LAFCO about actions that involve activity outside the District's boundaries or SOI. Response to Recommendation 3A: The District agrees with Recommendation 3A and that it should continue to inform LAFCO about actions that involve District activity outside the District's boundaries or SOI to the full extent required by applicable law. The District will continue to work with LAFCO to discuss and evaluate the scope of such requirements. The District currently implements this practice and will continue to do so in the future.

R3B: The District should continue to work with LAFCO to understand the requirements of being a special district and to resolve previous actions taken without LAFCO approval. Response to Recommendation 3B: The District agrees with Recommendation 3B. Although the District is unaware of any past District actions taken without all required LAFCO approvals, the District appreciates Recommendation 3B's acknowledgement that the District has historically worked with LAFCO to understand the requirements of being a special district. As stated above, the District will continue to work with LAFCO to discuss and evaluate the requirements of being a special district, and to ensure that any LAFCO approvals for District actions are obtained in accordance with applicable law. This has always been, and will continue to be, District policy. Honorable Richard J. Loftus, Jr. August 16, 2011 In closing, the District reiterates its respect for the Civil Grand Jury process and is committed to implementing the actions described above. The District requests that this response be published on the Civil Grand Jury's website so that it may be easily obtained by all interested parties. Sincerely, Muyar CultyanGregory B. Caligari 62721\4093377 (by email/.pdf) cc: Wesley F. Alles, Board of Directors, El Camino Hospital District (walles@stanford.edu) Uwe R. Kladde, Board of Directors, El Camino Hospital District (kladdeu@yahoo.com) David Reeder, Board of Directors, El Camino Hospital District (dwreeder@sbcglobal.net) John L. Zoglin, Board of Directors, El Camino Hospital District (jzoglin@comcast.net) Patricia A. Einarson, M.D., M.B.A., Board of Directors, El Camino Hospital District (peinarson@stanfordalumni.org) H.E. (Ned) Borgstrom, Jr., Interim Chief Executive Officer, El Camino Hospital (Ned_Borgstrom@elcaminohospital.org)

June 23, 2011 — 2010-2011 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Burbank Revisited:

28 pages 8 findings 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: Mr. Rodriguez was overly influential in LBSD governance as a consultant. His consultant contract was overly broad and placed inadequate limits on the scope of his duties. Despite his having only a consultant status, Mr. Rodriguez was permitted to exercise direct authority over staff and was given unlimited access to confidential records.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1a: The Board should limit consultant contracts to specific purposes and specific time frames.

R1b: The Board should ensure that consultants have no direct authority over staff.

R1c: The Board should ensure that consultants have no access to confidential records, except for matters within the specific and limited scope and purpose of their contract, and in such cases only under supervision of LBSD staff. 12

F2: There is minimal security or control over financial, personnel, and other sensitive District documents and records. There are inadequate systems in place to track the movement of these records.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Board should establish a secure facility, onsite or otherwise, to store vital LBSD records, and establish a strict protocol, such as formal logs showing document removal and return with reason for request, for access to and removal of confidential documents and records.

F3: The LBSD has a record of poor management predating the 2007-2008 Grand Jury report. This situation continues to exist with minimal improvement.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3a: The LBSD Board should resolve to consolidate with another school district and take the requisite steps to begin that process. (See the 2009-2010 Grand Jury report entitled “Achieving School District Efficiency Through Consolidation”).

R3b: Alternatively, the LBSD Board should work with SCCOE to consolidate its business functions with the other one-school school districts in the county through a Joint Powers Authority.

F4: Members of the LBSD Board continue to receive inadequate training to properly fulfill their roles as board members.

Related Recommendations (3)

R4a: The District should obtain educational/training programs for the existing and all new Board members. It should be a requirement that new Board members attend this program after they are elected and before taking office.

R4b: The District should obtain continuing education on best practices for school governance for all Board members throughout their tenure in office.

R4c: The LBSD Board should attend board meetings at other districts to learn best practices for operating as a board. 13

F5: Staff and Board Members have been restricted from contacting authorized legal counsel without permission of the Board President. There is no Board Policy to support this directive.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board should develop a Policy and Procedure defining the process for authorized legal counsel contact.

F6: In response to the 2008-2009 Grand Jury Report, the LBSD made a commitment to publish an audit report on the use of Measure A funds. There is no published audit report regarding expenditures of Measure A funds, as promised.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The District should meet its commitments to the community by conducting an audit and creating an audit report regarding expenditures of Measure A funds.

F7: Mr. Rodriguez misled a Board member and members elect by suggesting that they could meet and reach consensus on matters coming before the Board. His email dated November 7, 2010 proposed meeting with Board members as a group prior to their swearing in. This email uses language which indicates an effort to circumvent the Brown Act.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: All LBSD administrators and Board members should be trained to understand their responsibilities and obligations with respect to the Brown Act and abide by them.

F8: It is difficult for the general public to reach individual Board members.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The LBSD Board should institute procedures to facilitate improved citizen communication with the Board and District officials. The Board should post email contact information on the LBSD website for each Board member.

June 20, 2011 — Luther Burbank School District Established in 1906 Jan Kaay Superintendent Sep 3 0 2011 David H. YAMASAChief Executive*

6 pages 8 findings 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: Mr. Rodriguez was overly influential in LBSD governance as a consultant. His consultant contract was overly broad and placed inadequate limits on the scope of his duties. Despite his having only a consultant status, Mr. Rodriguez was permitted to exercise direct authority over staff and was given unlimited access to confidential records.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1a: The Board should limit consultant contracts to specific purposes and specific time frames.

R1b: The Board should ensure that consultants have no direct authority over staff.

R1c: The Board should ensure that consultants have no access to confidential records, except for matters within the specific and limited scope and purpose of their contract, and in such cases only under supervision of LBSD staff. The district disagrees wholly with Finding 1. However, the district finds that all three recommendations of Finding 1 are generally good practice, and will take steps to incorporate these into policies and procedures related to all consultants as the need for consultants arises. We do however, note that "overly influential", "overly broad", and "inadequate" are subjective terms that we feel do not apply to this particular situation. At the time the consultant contract under discussion was written, the members of the Board of Trustees had, with reason, lost all confidence in the administrative staff of Luther Burbank. The Board of Trustees has the authority to word contracts (within legal parameters) the way they choose, for the purpose they are intending. In addition to the bias expressed in the decidedly judgmental nature of the wording of

F2: There is minimal security or control over financial, personnel, and other sensitive District documents and records. There are inadequate systems in place to track the movement of these records.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Board should establish a secure facility, onsite or otherwise, to store vital LBSD records, and establish a strict protocol, such as formal logs showing document removal and return with reason for request, for access to and removal of confidential documents and records. The district agrees with Finding 2. The district will review current practice, and update and communicate protocol for storing and working with confidential documents and records. The estimated date for implementation is October/November 2011.

F3: The LBSD has a record of poor management predating the 2007-2008 Grand Jury report. This situation continues to exist with minimal improvement.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3a: The LBSD Board should resolve to consolidate with another school district and take the requisite steps to begin that process. (See the 2009-2010 Grand Jury report entitled "Achieving School District Efficiency Through Consolidation").

R3b: Alternatively, the LBSD Board should work with SCCOE to consolidate its business functions with the other one-school school districts in the county through a Joint Powers Authority. The district disagrees wholly with Finding 3. The statement of "record of poor management predating the 2007-2008 Grand Jury report" is unsubstantiated, and clearly beyond the scope of this 2011 Grand Jury investigation. Although we appreciate the time and effort of the individuals of the Grand Jury, the district is not looking to consolidate at this time. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. There is little research that indicates increased effectiveness or efficiency in providing a service when the size of an organization is increased. Indeed, the Charter movement advocating for small, individualized education is gaining credence in California. The concept and execution of a JPA for Business Services could be an extremely effective use of resources during a time of shrinking funding in California.

F4: Members of the LBSD Board continue to receive inadequate training to properly fulfill their roles as board members.

Related Recommendations (3)

R4a: The District should obtain educational/training programs for the existing and all new Board members. It should be a requirement that new Board members attend this program after they are elected and before taking office.

R4b: The District should obtain continuing education on best practices for school governance for all Board members throughout their tenure in office.

R4c: The LBSD Board should attend board meetings at other districts to learn best practices for operating as a board. The district disagrees wholly with Finding 4. It should also be noted that "Board of Trustees" named in this Grand Jury report were/are two different groups of individuals. Documentation of continued inadequate training for either group does not exist. Because the decisions of a Board of Trustees are not agreeable to others, does not mean that they are uninformed. In recent years, members of the Board of Trustees of the Luther Burbank School District attended the CSBA Master's in Governance Program in 2008-2010, as well as the CSBA annual conferences along with their Superintendent. They attended a variety of workshops at the Santa Clara County Office of Education and study sessions with the Superintendent. In 2010-2011 members of the current board also attended the CSBA conference. They participated in a workshop on the Brown Act provided by the County Superintendent of Schools, learned about Form 700 disclosure rules and about conflict of interest issues. Upcoming trainings include a study session in Governance 9000 Policies, and professional development from CSBA (online, print and workshop format). The next scheduled CSBA workshop is on November 5, 2011 on the Luther Burbank campus. Pending adequate funding, trustees will be encouraged to participate in the CSBA Annual Education Conference, December 1-3, 2011 in San Diego. There are no plans to attend board meetings of other districts at this time, nor to require training before taking office, as we find these recommendations unwarranted and not reasonable, because we already take on the task of training. The district intends to continue to train board members to increase the level of knowledge of board members about educational finance, political action, academic standards and instructional programs, compliance, advocacy and more through regular sessions and by acting on "on demand" issues.

F5: Staff and Board Members have been restricted from contacting authorized legal counsel without permission of the Board President. There is no Board Policy to support this directive.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board should develop a Policy and Procedure defining the process for authorized legal counsel contact. The district agrees with part of Finding 5, and disagrees with Recommendation 5. There is no board policy about contacted legal counsel, and a board policy for this topic is unwarranted. Board members and the superintendent will discuss their roles within the district and as representatives of the district in an ongoing conversation that begins on August 9, 2011. Procedures are already in place. Authorizing regular expenditures falls under the responsibilities of the Superintendent, including when and under what circumstances to expend funds by consulting an attorney. The high cost of legal expertise makes it prudent for the Board of Trustees to be aware of, and, be able to suggest action when, or if, in the course of running the district the superintendent jeopardizes the financial health of the organization. Simply put, the Superintendent has authority over the district. The Board of Trustees has authority over the Superintendent. The Superintendent shall be the point of contact for legal representation, unless and until, the issue needing legal input is the Superintendent.

F6: In response to the 2008-2009 Grand Jury Report, the LBSD made a commitment to publish an audit report on the use of Measure A funds. There is no published audit report regarding expenditures of Measure A funds, as promised.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The District should meet its commitments to the community by conducting an audit and creating an audit report regarding expenditures of Measure A funds. The district agrees with Finding 6, and disagrees with Recommendation 6. There is no published audit report. Measure A funded construction on the Luther Burbank campus. The students, staff and community enjoy a completely new gymnasium/ cafeteria/performance arena, new field, new playground and twelve new classrooms designed and built in 2006-2009. The district feels that it is unreasonable and unwarranted to spend very limited staff resources to go back two years in time to conduct an audit, but will use this experience to take care, in future projects, to create a more inclusive oversight committee to communicate more effectively to a broader audience on all matters related to the expenditure of bond monies.

F7: Mr. Rodriguez misled a Board member and members elect by suggesting that they could meet and reach consensus on matters coming before the Board. His email dated November 7, 2010 proposed meeting with Board members as a group prior to their swearing in. This email uses language which indicates an effort to circumvent the Brown Act.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: All LBSD administrators and Board members should be trained to understand their responsibilities and obligations with respect to the Brown Act and abide by them. The district disagrees wholly with Finding 7. The Brown Act requirements apply to Board members. "In addition, any person elected to serve as a member of a legislative body (local agency) who has not assumed the duties of office shall conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the Act, and shall be treated for the purposes of enforcement of the Act as if he or she had already assumed office. (954952.1) Because the conversation referred to in the e-mail evidence submitted to the Grand Jury took place between private individuals before any election was certified there were no board-members elect, therefore no violation of the Brown Act. The district finds that the wording of "misled", "suggesting" and "language which indicates" in Finding 7, in conjunction with inaccurate information presented as "truth", along with using a specific name in a very public document highly defamatory considering that in the body of this report it is noted that no evidence of illegal activities took place. Training in the Brown Act is an annual event, and also part of a new member's orientation. The most recent training, conducted by the Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools was in January 2011. The next training will take place in November 2011.

F8: It is difficult for the general public to reach individual Board members.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The LBSD Board should institute procedures to facilitate improved citizen communication with the Board and District officials. The Board should post email contact information on the LBSD website for each Board member. The district disagrees partially with Finding 8. There are multiple ways to contact board members that are not particularly difficult and longtime practice. E-mail addresses have been updated on the district website. While, we do not know the status of non-Luther Burbank families in our community, we do know that many or even most parents of our students do not have e-mail access, so a technology solution to issues of improving citizen communication is not completely effective. Board members may be reached in four ways. By email: E-mails are linked to the district website. They consist of firstinitiallastname@lbsd.k12.ca.us By mail at: 4 Wabash Ave. San Jose CA 95128 By message: Persons may call the district office and leave a phone message, or stop by and leave a note for any of the board members. They collect their mail or we deliver it to them on a regular basis. In person: At regularly schedule meetings of the Board of Trustees held on the second Tuesday of each month in the school library. Most meetings begin at 6:15. Agendas are posted at the school site and online at the district website at least 72 hours in advance of the meetings. We, at Luther Burbank are reminded again by the June 20, 2011 Grand Jury Report that it is critical to work together and focus on the task of educating children. While disagreeing with many Findings, the district is committed to strengthening and communicating procedures, conserving resources for effective use, and building collegial relationships to provide a quality education for the young people in our care. Lorraine Garza President, LBSD Board of Trustees lgarza@lbsd.k12.ca.us Jonas Com Guadalupe Reyes Clerk, LBSD Board of Trustees lreyes@lbsd.k12.ca.us Mirna Garcia Member, LBSD Board of Trustees mgarcia@lbsd.k12.ca.us Francis Rivera Member, LBSD Board of Trustees frivera@lbsd.k12.ca.us David Thomson Member, LBSD Board of Trustees dthomson@lbsd.k12.ca.us Jan Kaay Superintendent ДV jkaay@lbsd.k12.ca.us Luther Burbank School District 4 Wabash Ave. San Jose CA 95128 408 295-2450

June 16, 2011 — 2010-2011 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Lafco’s Responsibility for Special Districts:

15 pages 4 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: The recommendations SCC LAFCO makes through its mandatory service review reports are intended to improve agency performance and may recommend special district dissolution when the services those districts were intended to provide are no longer provided or needed; however, SCC LAFCO stops short of enforcing the implementation of its recommendations either because they do not think this is within their purview or because they are afraid of potential litigation.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1A: SCC LAFCO should develop and adopt policy directives that ensure, through its service reviews, that SCC LAFCO proactively examines, oversees, and makes recommendations regarding whether special districts should continue to exist.

R1B: SCC LAFCO should adopt policies that direct LAFCO staff to exercise its enforcement authority where appropriate.

R1C: SCC LAFCO Commission should consider adopting a policy strongly encouraging Commissioners and staff who are active in CALAFCO’s legislative committee to lobby the California legislature to strengthen protections against litigation based on LAFCO actions.

R1D: SCC LAFCO staff should actively oversee that agencies address and implement recommendations made in LAFCO service review reports.

F2: Previous SCC LAFCO service reviews fall short of addressing subjects of transparency, the examination of effective service delivery by special districts, or addressing the continuing need to maintain any given district, which, together with the topics the reports do cover, would constitute a performance audit.

Related Recommendations (3)

R2A: SCC LAFCO should continue with the proposed plan to perform a service review of special districts (other than fire and water) separate from municipalities. 10

R2B: SCC LAFCO should handle the next service review for special districts as a performance audit, to include an examination of effective service delivery and an assessment of the continued need for the district, if any.

R2C: Particularly as there appears to be no urgency to its decision with respect to El Camino Hospital District (see minutes of the April 2011 meeting), SCC LAFCO should complete a thorough El Camino Hospital District service review prior to any further Commission action on the topic.

F3: SCC LAFCO has failed to initiate action to dissolve special districts that it has already determined are obsolete, such as the Saratoga Cemetery District.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Facilitated by its service review recommendations, SCC LAFCO should proceed with action to dissolve those special districts that have outlived their usefulness or that can continue to provide the same level of service without property tax revenues.

F4: SCC LAFCO Commissioners receive limited training about LAFCO and are not fully educated as to their broad responsibilities to oversee LAFCO or LAFCO’s responsibilities regarding special districts.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4A: SCC LAFCO Commissioners should initiate means to more completely understand the full range of their authority, through independent learning and more thorough staff briefings.

R4B: SCC LAFCO staff should use Commission information packets to provide “just in time” training. Examples: present a full range of options when presenting recommendations for Commission decisions, weigh the alternative options, include information on the full range of LAFCO authority, and include broader contextual information surrounding an issue on the agenda.

📋June 15, 2011 — 2010-2011 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report “can You Hear Me Now?” Emergency Dispatch in Santa Clara County

11 pages 2 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F1: Dispatch consolidation would result in more cost-effective and efficient emergency response and should be implemented throughout Santa Clara County.

F2: Radio equipment has not been standardized and impedes effective countywide communication and emergency dispatch.

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Jurisdictions which maintain their own dispatching centers – Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, the City of Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale – and all jurisdictions which use Santa Clara County Communications for dispatch—Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Saratoga— should consolidate dispatch with neighboring jurisdictions and, where appropriate, should issue RFPs to do so.

R2: Jurisdictions which maintain their own dispatching centers – Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, the City of Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale; all jurisdictions which use Santa Clara County Communications for dispatch—Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Saratoga; the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office; and Santa Clara County, should continue to work with the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Association to achieve countywide standardization of radio technology. This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 19th day of May, 2011. Helene I. Popenhager Foreperson Gerard Roney Foreperson pro tem Kathryn Janoff Secretary 11

May 27, 2011 — 2010-2011 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Sex Offender Tracking in Santa Clara County

8 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

June 08, 2010 — 2010-2011 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Errors in June 2010

8 pages 3 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: As a result of the mail distributor not following ROV procedure, 7,668 ballots were erroneously mailed to addresses not consistent with ROV records.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1A: The ROV should review its ballot-handling procedures to ensure the ballot-handling process is fully documented.

R1B: The ROV should ensure the written procedure is attached to or referenced in contracts, communicated with mailing vendors, and re-communicated periodically, depending on change in procedure or change in vendor personnel. 6

F2: Adequate measures do not exist to ensure that the mailing vendor updates addresses solely from ROV-received data.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The ROV should develop and include within its written procedures a process describing how address changes are to be updated. That process should include safeguards such as a written acknowledgment by the mail distributor that it has updated its mailing list only from the ROV list. The process should require the mail distributor to return a signed form attesting that it followed the written procedure.

F3: Instructions to voters to recast ballots are unclear. The ROV failed to communicate clearly to voters who received improper ballots that their initial ballots were voided. As a result, some voters may not have voted using the correct ballots and remained unaware that their first ballot had been voided. Thus, for some, without their knowledge their votes may not have been counted.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3A: Written communication with voters whose ballots are voided should clearly state that fact.

R3B: For those voters whose initial ballots are voided and who are still eligible to vote, correct ballots should be sent with a letter clearly stating that if they had previously voted on the incorrect ballot that they must vote again using the new ballot enclosed for their vote to be counted. This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 28th day of April, 2011. Helene I. Popenhager Foreperson Gerard Roney Foreperson pro tem Kathryn Janoff Secretary 8

📋2010-2011 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Mental Health Support at Youth Ranches

17 pages 3 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: Various mental health providers demonstrate a lack of coordination and communication, which compromises the effective delivery of those services.

F2: Communication among individual professionals about mental health needs is limited and inefficient and is exacerbated because separate records, such as medical charts and progress notes, are maintained. 9

F3: Metrics are available but are not used to evaluate whether mental health needs are being met, whether needs are increasing, or whether the various CBO providers are being used in the most efficient manner.

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R1a: Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System (SCVHHS) should continue to move toward ensuring that all therapists, whether employed by CMH or a CBO, are certified to provide counseling for “co-occurring disorders.” Furthermore, SCVHHS should pursue efforts to dismantle bureaucratic and contractual barriers to providing single-point (one counselor to one client) counseling.

R1b: Probation, CMH, and DADS should designate one person to be responsible for coordinating mental health treatment for each client.

R1c: Probation leadership at the Ranches should evaluate communication systems currently in use by providers at each of the facilities, and they should work to ensure that open communication and file-sharing programs are put into place. In addition, the frequency of site-wide team meetings or other programs should be increased in order to ensure that various team members know one another and are familiar with the treatment programs for all minors under their care.

R2: Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System should institute one chart or one recordkeeping system, such as the UNICARE system already in place, and require its use by CMH, Custody Health Services, DADS, and the relevant CBOs.

R3a: Probation and CMH should agree on benchmarks to identify which minors in custody should receive mental health or social services counseling.

R3b: Probation and CMH should agree on which metrics are necessary to plan staffing needs, and review those metrics at regular communication meetings.

2010-2011 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report El Camino Hospital District

13 pages 3 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: There is a lack of transparency with regard to where the El Camino Hospital District spends tax revenues. Tax revenues from the 1% tax levy, tax revenues from the 2006 bond measure, and hospital operating revenues are intermingled in published audits. The District provides no published detailed breakdown of how tax revenues are actually spent, such that the public may determine whether monies are well spent.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1A: The District should develop and implement an itemized financial statement that shows how much money came in from taxes and toward which community program the monies are spent and specifically how much.

R1B: The District should perform an annual financial and performance audit of the District’s tax revenues and expenditures, to be published separately from the Hospital revenues and expenditures. 8

F2: There is no one who is accountable to the District taxpayers as to how taxpayer monies are spent. Every member of the District board is on the Corporation board, and as such, every member of the District board is responsible for management and profitability of the Corporation. Should a conflict arise, such as the Corporation wanting to purchase and operate a facility outside the District’s SOI, it is unclear how the essentially common board would be able to successfully represent the independent interests of the District.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The District should appoint an independent manager accountable to the District who is responsible only for the detailed District financial reporting, or, alternatively, allow only a minimum number of overlapping board positions (i.e., maximum of 2) between the District and the Corporation boards.

F3: Board members do not seem to know whether they represent a District or a Corporation, switching roles as needed and ignoring certain responsibilities of being a special district, such as communication with LAFCO.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3A: Going forward, the District should inform LAFCO about actions that involve activity outside the District’s boundaries or SOI.

R3B: The District should continue to work with LAFCO to understand the requirements of being a special district and to resolve previous actions taken without LAFCO approval.

2010-2011 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Trace Elementary School:

17 pages 4 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: SJUSD’s post-fire recovery actions were admirable, especially its concerted effort to involve the Trace and neighborhood communities in the recovery process.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: SJUSD should continue these efforts throughout the reconstruction process.

F2: The weak link that exacerbated the damage caused by the fire at Trace was the email communication procedure.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: SJUSD should periodically review its new communication protocol and randomly test it across the District.

F3: SJUSD has an afterhours central station which monitors all burglar alarms within the district, but because this station is not UL (Underwriter Laboratories) approved, fire alarms cannot be monitored at this central station.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The District’s Central Station should be upgraded to UL certification so that it can monitor both burglar and fire alarm systems, rather than requiring the use of a third- party monitoring service.

F4: The Fire Chief for the Menlo Park Fire Protection District issued a pledge in which he is asking all elected school boards in the state of California to issue a resolution that they will use the highest standards of fire safety in all school construction regardless of funding source.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: SJUSD Board of Trustees should issue a resolution to promote the highest standard of fire safety in all school construction and modernization regardless of funding source.

2010-2011 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Santa Clara County Fairgrounds Management

76 pages 8 findings 14 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: The County established FMC as a nonprofit to operate the Fairgrounds; however, FMC has not been successful. FMC has operated at a loss and has required County bailout in all but one of the past sixteen years.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The County should reconsider whether the nonprofit model is the best way to operate the Fairgrounds.

F2: In the last sixteen years, the FMC Board has not commissioned—nor has the County requested the Board to commission—an independent performance audit of FMC, even though FMC’s poor performance warrants this type of audit.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2A: The County should request the FMC Board to commission an independent performance audit of FMC and the FMC Board.

R2B: The FMC Board should require FMC to comply with its contractual requirement to produce an annual budget and business plan and financial audit.

F3: The County does not hold the FMC Board accountable for its lack of oversight in ensuring FMC meets its contractual obligations, and the FMC Board does not demonstrate the business acumen necessary to effectively oversee FMC. There is a seat vacant (to be filled by the District 4 Supervisor) on the FMC Board.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3A: District 4 Supervisor Yeager should recruit to fill the vacancy with an individual with strong business acumen.

R3B: The FMC Board should hold the FMC Executive Director accountable for ensuring appropriate actions are taken to operate FMC as a well-run, break-even or profitable operation. 7

F4: The County, supported by the Office of the County Executive, appears to have only a “land management” concern when FMC is required by contract to pay all expenses of the fair.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The County should modify its contractual agreement with FMC stipulating that FMC be required to sustain a break-even or positive cash flow operation.

F5: FMC has not optimized its supplier contracts and has demonstrated inability to fully perform its own contract to effectively manage the Fairgrounds, costing the taxpayers in the form of County bailouts.

Related Recommendations (4)

R5A: The FMC Board should require FMC to prepare plans and implement changes geared toward increasing revenue to cover costs.

R5B: The FMC Board should require FMC to restructure the concessionaire contract to a best practices model, such as paying FMC a percentage on sales, not profits, and should seek competitive bids for this and all other contracts as a means to increase revenue and profits.

R5C: The FMC Board should require FMC to seek to increase short- and long-term use agreements to improve the positive cash operation.

R5D: The FMC Board should require FMC to be in compliance with the contractual management agreement.

F6: FMC paid bonuses to employees in 2010. The reason for these bonuses has no apparent connection to any operational decisions that would ensure continued profitability. Rather, the bonuses looked like a distribution of an unexplained windfall. 8

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The FMC Board should not permit bonuses to be paid unless FMC demonstrates the ability to consistently run a profitable operation, as measured against specific goals. To this end, the FMC Board should require FMC to develop and implement a business plan with measureable goals specifically tied to the operational success of the Fairgrounds.

F7: The FMC Board does not adequately perform its oversight function of FMC.

Related Recommendations (2)

R7A: The FMC Board should require that FMC provide a training program with orientation for current and future incoming Board members, defining roles, duties and fiduciary responsibilities. This would familiarize board members on how this nonprofit business can be managed.

R7B: The FMC Board should review and approve all requests for proposals and bid documents that would precede issuing a contract to ensure that the best interests of the Fairgrounds are reflected in such requests.

F8: The County is undercharging communications tower renters, effectively diluting potential revenue to FMC.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The County should increase communications tower rental fees in line with local rates for similar service. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 26th day of May, 2011. Helene I. Popenhager Foreperson Gerard Roney Foreperson pro tem Kathryn Janoff Secretary 76

📋Can You Hear Me

13 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋Fighting Fire or

19 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋Final Grand Jury Report: Fighting Fire or Fighting Change?

19 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.