Gran Jurado del Condado de Santa Cruz
2006-2007
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (13)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
53 hallazgos
F1:
The case studied involved one company having a large number of parcels and multiple businesses. It was necessary for the assessor, with the property owner’s eventual concurrence, to segregate the parcels and associated improvements and other assets in order to determine which parcels, improvements and other assets were related to the requested assessment reduction. Property Assessment: What’s Business Property Really Worth? - 19 2006-2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F2:
The business associated with the requested assessment reduction in this particular case is relatively unique making the use of “comparables” difficult. The Assessor’s Office, therefore, relied on the Income Method for determining the value of the property.
F3:
The initial assessment was established using base-year values adjusted per the requirements of Proposition 13 and augmented by annual valuations of equipment. Reductions under the auspices of Proposition 8 were based on multiple factors including the capitalization of the business’ five-year average income stream.
F4:
A one-year study of the business was conducted by the assessor. Industry experts were consulted to assure the assessor’s understanding of the business and the reasonableness of various valuations.
F5:
Externally audited consolidated financial reports were used as a starting point for the income analysis. Secondary financial reports, isolating the business associated with the requested assessment reduction from the consolidated financials, were prepared by the property owner.
F6:
The property owner’s accounting processes, audited consolidated financial reports and breakouts were tested by the assessor’s staff working both at the property owner’s site and in the Assessor’s Office.
F7:
An agreement stipulating the value of the property in question for tax purposes (Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release) was approved by the Assessment Appeals Board and executed by the property owner and the county.
F8:
Annual reviews by the assessor of the reduced assessment are being conducted as required. Conclusions
F9:
The results cartridges for the touch screens and memory packs for the scanners are created on a stand-alone computer at the warehouse. They are then loaded and sealed into the appropriate precinct equipment and stored until ready to be shipped to the polling place. Access to both the warehouse and office are controlled through the use of color-coded security badges. - 6 Electronic Voting 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Four Elections Department supervisors with the widest access to the county's voting machines and voting materials have their own color-coded badge. Temporary employees, who must be escorted and supervised inside the secure area, have a different color badge, as do permanent Elections Department employees, visitors and exhibitors, and voting machine vendors. Response from the Elections Officer: In addition, entrance into the secured area where voting equipment is stored and programmed is locked in a separate caged facility within the warehouse and entrance is restricted only to three people who have clearance.
F10:
The warehouse has an alarm system, provided by First Alarm. An access card is required in order to enter. The Information Systems Analyst, Department Information Systems Specialist and the Election Officer have the First Alarm access code. Response from the Elections Officer: Only the County Clerk, Assistant County Clerk and Department Information Systems Specialist have the access code and magnetic card for access.
F11:
A large door is locked from the inside. All equipment is within a caged area of the warehouse with controlled access. Response from the Elections Officer: In addition, there is 24-hour camera surveillance of the warehouse facility. C. Poll Site Security/Physical Equipment
F12:
The assigned person at each precinct picks up the voting equipment from the warehouse the day before the election. The cartridges are already in place and sealed. A poll worker takes the equipment home. On election day, they take it to the polling place and set it up. Response from the Elections Officer: We have four distribution centers: the Warehouse, Felton Fire, Aptos Library and Watsonville City Hall. In addition, we deliver equipment and supplies to the Inspectors at our Summit precincts on the Thursday before Election Day.
F13:
At the close of the polls, two designated persons break the seals on the results cartridge and the memory pack and remove them from the machines. Cartridges and seals are put in a sealable orange bag. The printer is removed from the touch screen machine for transport. The orange bag and printer are prepared by an inspector and a designated person. These items are taken to the election department, where the bags are checked, verified, and stored in the Information Systems Analyst office until ready to tally. The person who checked out the equipment and brought it to the polling site is also responsible for taking it back to the county building. All voting equipment is eventually returned to the warehouse for storage. Electronic Voting - 7 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response from the Elections Officer: There are three return centers: The County Government Center, Watsonville City Hall and Felton Fire Station. We are looking into adding more in the future.
F14:
After the November 2006 election, the above process was reviewed by election staff. It was found that there were delays in equipment check-in. Response from the Elections Officer: In the future, the number of return centers will increase in an effort to decrease the time it takes for poll workers to return equipment and supplies.
F15:
The issue of fire protection of the polling places was not addressed when the polling places were chosen. Since most poll sites are in public buildings, it was assumed that the fire protection available at the poll site location would be relied on. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F16:
The strategy to put just one touch screen at each polling place proved to be a good one. It satisfied the requirements for voter accessibility while providing more current technology for voters. The mixture of technology also provided backup. If the printer or other equipment had a problem, voters had another way to cast their votes.
F17:
Sequoia Systems is a state-approved vendor for the new voting equipment. They were chosen by Santa Cruz County to provide the voting equipment. Response from the Elections Officer: The system is federally-qualified and state-certified. On August 3, 2007, the SOS re-certified the system subject to conditions.
F18:
The touch screen voting machine has a printer which records the votes. It has 300 feet of paper inside the machine. During the last election, the paper often jammed. Response from the Elections Officer: There were a dozen paper jams on 140 units deployed. Personnel have since been trained to identify and correct most of the paper jamming problems.
F19:
During the November 2006 election, two or three scanners failed and at least 12 printers jammed. When the failed scanners were tested, it was determined that they probably had been damaged in transport. Response from the Elections Officer: Two scanners were replaced at the beginning of the day due to malfunctions. Processes were in place for replacement equipment to be rapidly deployed. There was no delay in voting. Other scanner problems occurred, but they were operator error and were resolved via phone conversations with trained staff.
F20:
The 400C Ballot Counter Machine reads the ballots very quickly. However, the catch basket, which is located outside the machine, is not large enough to hold all of the ballots. As a result, ballots can get bent or be ejected onto the floor. - 8 Electronic Voting 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response from the Elections Officer: One person operates the 400C while two people collect ballots. This system ensures the least amount of stress on the ballots, so they are easily stored in ballot storage containers. We had 2 ballots fall on the floor and they were retrieved.
F21:
The results cartridge plugs into touch screen equipment. It contains a database for capturing the votes as they are input by the voter. This cartridge cannot be removed without breaking a seal. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F22:
The memory pack plugs into the optical scanner. It also uses a database for capturing the votes as they are input when the ballot is scanned. The memory pack cannot be removed without breaking a seal. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F23:
Firmware (software imbedded in the machine) operates the machines. The Secretary of State demands the firmware be at a specific level (version). It cannot be changed after 60 days prior to election. A test is run to ensure the firmware level (version) is correct. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F24:
To ensure the reliability and accuracy of the equipment, logic and accuracy testing is conducted by the vendor and county personnel. Some experts believe that this testing is insufficient for validating the accuracy and reliability of the vote. They argue that it consists only of verifying whether the equipment is working. It does not evaluate the equipment’s security. Response from the Elections Officer: Logic and Accuracy tests are done by elections staff and a Logic and Accuracy board made up of people from our community. The vendor is not involved in this test. The test uses ballots, either paper or electronic, where the vote totals are known. The tests are run to ensure that the machines are counting correctly. An observation panel is invited to watch these tests. It is not a security test. Security is achieved through the processes and procedures we have in place as well as meeting the conditions required by the Secretary of State. Equipment security improvements are also being implemented by the vendor. Sequoia currently has voting system upgrades going through the federal qualification process that address identified security concerns.
F25:
After they are finished voting, voters who use the touch screen equipment can verify the accuracy of their votes by looking at a compilation of their votes that is displayed in a window on the machine. Electronic Voting - 9 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response from the Elections Officer: It is displayed on a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail that is under a window attached to the machine.
F26:
Following a written procedure, the designated poll worker and one other poll worker break the outer seal and assist the first voter to verify prior to his or her vote that the “total votes” displayed is zero. Both the poll worker and the voter sign an official document verifying that the vote count is zero. Response from the Elections Officer: The zero vote report is verified in writing by the first voter on the touch screen and the first voter who uses a paper ballot that is scanned into the scanner.
F27:
On 10 percent of machines, a random sample with full paper recount is taken to check that the machines are tallying correctly. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct. SOS conditions require a 100 percent manual recount.
F28:
After the November 2006 election, Capitola initiated a manual recount. Each precinct was reconciled separately. With approximately 3000 votes to count, it came out to within one vote of the machine count. The final election results did not change. Response from the Elections Officer: There was a recount requested for the Capitola City Council contest as well as the Watsonville City Council, District 5 contest. In both cases, a voter marked a vote on a paper ballot outside of the voting target area so the vote could not be read and tallied by the ballot counters. In both cases, this one ballot did not affect the outcome of the contests.
F29:
During the November 2006 election, a number of absentee ballots had to be redone due to the types of pens used. Some voters used pens that bled through the paper and could not be read by the scanner. Response from the Elections Officer: Better instruction will be provided to voters in the future. Voters are instructed to use a blue or black ink pen. Pencil also works. But when voters use a Sharpie or felt-tip pen, the mark bled through the back-side of the ballot and resulted in untended votes on contests printed on the back side. A better stock of paper could also help this situation, but could increase postage due to weight. Ballots that had to be remade to reflect voter intent were done so in accordance with the law. - 10 Electronic Voting 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F30:
Provisional ballots were being used for voters who had come to the wrong polling place. Some provisional ballots had to be redone because they were folded the wrong way. Response from the Elections Officer: There are fold marks on the paper ballots. In the future, poll workers will be trained on how to fold the ballot correctly. Ballots that had to be remade to reflect voter intent were done so in accordance with the law.
F31:
An organized training plan with documentation was provided for the poll workers and inspectors. One person at each polling site was trained and certified to use the machines. There were “rovers” who traveled between polling sites to check on machines and supplies. Response from the Elections Officer: In most cases, there were two people assigned to each polling place who were trained on the machines. In addition, there were two other people one Technical Rover and one Roving Inspector who were assigned a few sites to visit frequently during the day. In one case, one person served in both roles of the Technical Rover and Roving Inspector. The Technical Rover had additional training on how to troubleshoot problems with voting equipment at the polls. The Roving Inspector was trained on overall polling site operations and access issues. In addition, there were Runners at the elections headquarters who were trained to be dispatched where needed.
F32:
Before the November 2006 election, county staff did a lot of on-the-job training while concurrently preparing for the election because the equipment arrived late. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct. We work under very tight deadlines that cannot be extended.
F33:
The training documentation from the vendor had to be completely redone because it had to be customized to the design of the Santa Cruz County election model. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F34:
In the future, the Elections Department plans to create a professional DVD to supplement poll worker training. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct. It is currently in process.
F35:
Poll workers have documentation binders which have flip charts and checklists. Also, they are trained how to deal with the press and observers. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct. Electronic Voting - 11 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F36:
Poll workers indicated they wanted more “hands-on training” with the machines in addition to having more poll workers trained on the equipment. These machines are sophisticated computer equipment, and if something goes wrong, many poll workers don’t know what to do. (See Poll Worker Survey in the Appendix for more information.) Response from the Elections Officer: The Department offered an open lab from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday – Friday during the weeks prior to the Election with extra hours available in the evening and on the weekend upon request. Election workers were encouraged to take advantage of this extra hands-on training. Many did. In the future, we plan to move this lab to another location and better communicate to our election workers its availability.
F37:
The physical arrangement of the polling places was similar to past elections. This consistency contributed to a stable atmosphere. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F38:
The touch screen machine was positioned with the back of the machine to the wall. This placement meant that the voter’s selections could be seen by others standing nearby. Response from the Elections Officer: We wanted to protect the back side of the machine which needs to be manual activated to pull up a ballot. The machines do not lend themselves to be turned around easily. A solution to this issue is being discussed with staff and the vendor.
F39:
The county was proactive in making the touch screen machine wheel chair accessible by re-engineering the support legs. In addition, they custom designed carrying bags for the scanner. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F40:
Santa Cruz County was sued by the State Attorney General for not following Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations for polling sites. The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit without finding that the county had violated the ADA regulations. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F41:
Some polling places that were shared by more than one precinct also shared touch screen machines. This arrangement caused some confusion because voters had to identify which precinct they were voting in as the first step in the voting process, and many did not know. - 12 Electronic Voting 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response from the Elections Officer: Our plan is to purchase additional touchscreens and scanners to allow us to assign one of each to each voting precinct. This plan is on hold pending final clarification from the SOS on the conditional certification of the voting equipment and renewal of the Help America Vote Act contract to allow these costs to be covered by the federal funds. It is very possible the additional equipment will not be received in time for February 2008, but we anticipate having them in time for June 2008.
F42:
In the start-up process for the new voting system, the Department Information Systems Specialist, Elections Officer, Assistant County Clerk and the Information Systems Analyst were trained first, and then they were able to provide training for others. Sometimes training occurred simultaneously with the installation of the new equipment. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F43:
The staffing for the poll places was conducted in the same manner as in previous elections. Polling place staff is typically temporary help from the community. The polling place supervisors are relied upon to pick up the equipment at the warehouse the day before the election, keep it at their houses overnight and take it to their polling places in the morning for set up. Response from the Elections Officer: We had additional staff at the polls and had the addition of the Technical Rovers. We also rely heavily on county workers to serve in the polls. For the 2008 election cycle, the Board has agreed not to hold board meetings thereby freeing up additional county workers who can serve in the polls.
F44:
In an effort to educate the public, the Elections Department distributed thousands of voter pamphlets to the public via U.S. mail. The department personnel also gave speeches and distributed educational material at local public schools, bookstores, the Capitola Mall, and the county fair. Media promotion included television and public radio interviews and press releases. Response from the Elections Officer: In addition, a flyer introducing the new voting system was mailed to every registered voter. County Sample Ballots are also mailed to every registered voter in addition to being available on our website at www.votescount.com
F45:
Despite the education campaign, some voters were confused as to how to mark their ballots. For example, some voters who used the paper ballots did not understand how to connect the arrows to the candidate or issue they were voting on. Electronic Voting - 13 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response from the Elections Officer: We found voters were better able to follow this new voting method than when we switched from a punch card voting system to a marking system. Even with the previous Mark-A-Vote ballot, voters often circled choices or made some other mark to make their selections. We continue to try to improve ways to educate voters on how to mark their ballots.
F46:
In general, voters who used the touch screen machine seemed unaware of the importance of verifying their votes by comparing them with the compilation of their ballot that was visible through a window on the machine. Response from the Elections Officer: It’s hard to say what voters find important. Some voters mark a paper ballot so quickly they fail to vote the back side. I believe all voting takes time, care and consideration and choices whether made electronically or on paper require double checking to ensure the voter marked his/her choices as intended. Certainly checking the paper record on a touch screen unit to confirm the electronic record provides reassurance that the vote was recorded accurately, if the voter wants that reassurance. Poll workers will be asked to remind touch screen voters to verify their votes on the VVPAT.
F47:
County election officials determined that there would be one touch screen at each polling place. The new scanner would be the main voting machine. They reported that this choice proved to be a good decision. Not only did it provide the necessary accommodations for voters with disabilities, but it also ensured the reliability of the voting process. Having a mixture of technologies ensured that votes could be cast in the event of equipment failures. For example, if the touch screen printer jammed, except for those who are sight impaired, voters had an option to use a paper ballot.
F48:
A recent news release announced that Florida will shift its voting system to a system of casting paper ballots counted by scanning machines. Several counties around the country will be moving to adopt the touch screen system with the paper trail.
F49:
On election day, the Grand Jury conducted a two-part poll worker survey and collected 104 surveys for analysis. The first part of the survey covered the poll worker training (see #4 above — Adequacy of Poll Worker Training), and the second part was a critique of the election day process. While most were extremely positive as to the work of the Elections Department, they made substantive recommendations for continued improvement of the elections process including the use and placement of the equipment. [See Appendix for full results of the survey.] - 14 Electronic Voting 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses One hundred and four poll workers out of a total of 917 in Santa Cruz County were surveyed. They were asked to rate aspects of the voting experience from 1 to 5, with five being the best rating possible. The results were as follows: • Training materials: 4.3 • Overall preparation: 4.0 • Adequacy of election day staffing: 4.5 • Ease of equipment set up: 4.3 • Workers indicated they wanted more training on the machines and “hands on” practice.
F50:
The Grand Jury also conducted exit surveys with 320 voters throughout the county. (The total votes cast was recorded as 50,189 in 170 polling places.) The results of the survey are as follows: • Only about 19 percent of the sample chose to use the touch screen machines. • One hundred percent of those who chose to use the touch screen felt comfortable using it. • Ten percent of those who chose to use the paper ballot with optical scanner felt uncomfortable using it. B. Grand Jury Observations
F51:
Members of the Grand Jury made general observations while conducting the exit voter and poll worker’ surveys at the November 2006 election. They witnessed the failure of some equipment and agreed with many of the solutions suggested by the poll workers. [See Appendix for more information about the survey.]
F52:
During the November 2006 election, it was observed that most poll workers gave paper ballots to the voters and did not indicate that the touch screen method was available.
F53:
It was also observed that not all voters were offered a receipt for voting when they used the touch screen machine. Conclusions
Recomendaciones adicionales
18
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Expand the Assessor’s Office web site to include a discussion of how business assessments are conducted. Without disclosing confidential financial information, the methodology used by the Assessor’s Office should be explained for different categories of properties so that the appraisal approach is more transparent. This would enhance the public’s understanding and perception of the fairness of the assessment process. Response: The Assessor PARTIALLY AGREES. The Assessor’s web site, under Property Tax Information, has a pamphlet titled “Business Property.” It explains what we do, who must file, types of property, etc. Based on your recommendation we have added a direct link to the State Board of Equalization handbook, AH 504 Assessment Of Personal Property And Fixtures for additional reference.
R2:
When the income method is used, thoroughly investigate the ownership structure of a business to assure that the Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization (EBITDA) is not being reduced through expenses that principally benefit the owners or owner-related parties (e.g., excessive salaries, “consultancies,” travel and entertainment, gifts). If such expenses are found to have reduced the income of the business being evaluated, they should be added back into the stated EBITDA. Response: The Assessor AGREES. It is and has been our practice to review all expenses when analyzing EBITDA.
R3:
When using a business property owner’s financial statements to determine the income stream to be used in the assessment of business property, require that those statements be audited and certified by an independent external auditing firm for the applicable portion of the business. Response: The Assessor DISAGREES. The Assessor has a staff of State Certified Auditor-Appraisers who are qualified to perform all types of business audits. It would be an undue burden on the small business owners to require certification of their financial records by an independent auditing firm. Property Assessment: What’s Business Property Really Worth? - 21 2006-2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
R4:
The poll workers should continue to follow procedures established for ensuring the security of the data, which include traceable seals on the memory packs and results cartridges and procedures for handling the seals. If a seal is found broken on a machine, that machine should not be used. In addition, all machines which have a broken seal at the end of the day, should undergo a full manual count. Response: The Elections Officer AGREES. This is also included in the SOS conditions for use of the equipment. Electronic Voting - 17 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
R5:
The Elections Department should work with the vendor to solve the various problems that arose with the ballot counter damaging ballots. Response from the Elections Officer: User group meetings with the vendor are held regularly and always have been to solve various problems that come up at all elections.
R6:
The Elections Department should set up procedures for auditing the absentee ballots. Response from the Elections Officer: State law requires this and it will be done.
R7:
Because comprehensive poll worker training proved difficult to provide with a limited staff and it is important to have most poll workers trained on the machines, staffing should be increased so that the management is not stretched too far by overseeing the election process while also training other staff and temporary employees. Response from the Board of Supervisors: This recommendation has been implemented. One new Program Coordinator was added to the Elections Department in the 2006-07 budget. In addition, the training process was complicated last year due to the new system and the short planning/preparation time available due to the state process. The department will also be utilizing training videos to enhance training of poll workers. Response from the Elections Officer: The Elections Department has a new position added to our 2007/08 budget that will focus on polling places and voting equipment. The training videos will also provide a great resource to enhance our training.
R8:
In future elections, the touch screen machines should be set up to provide more privacy for the voter. The side panels should also be larger for privacy in voting. Response from the Elections Officer: We continue to work with the vendor on this.
R9:
Each precinct should have its own touch screen in the future to avoid voter confusion. Response from the Elections Officer: This will be accomplished following the SOS review and approval of the extended HAVA contracts, but it may not occur in time for the February 2008 Presidential Primary.
R10:
Because the “ledger” size of the paper ballots was too large to fit comfortably in the old polling booths, the size of the paper should be adjusted to solve this problem. - 18 Electronic Voting 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response from the Elections Officer: It was an extra long ballot. Ballots in the primary will not be so long. It also saved us from moving to a two-card ballot that can cause problems when voters lose one card or only notice one card.
R11:
Because of the common practice of storing the equipment at the polling place supervisor’s house overnight, these supervisors should be identified as far in advance as possible to allow for additional training on security procedures and the vulnerability of the equipment. Response from the Elections Officer: That is always our plan to recruit our inspectors early on and train them. However, cancellations always occur and we have to fill the position and provide last-minute training when needed. We are looking into a tamper- proof bag for the voting units and development of a security plan that will be given SOS approval so we can continue this method of equipment deployment. In the meantime, we are looking into other ways to ensure practical and secure voting equipment deployment.
R12:
The Elections Department should plan to strengthen its “advertising” campaign for future elections. It should focus on educating the voters to verify the paper trail when using the touch screen equipment. Response from the Elections Officer: Verifying correctly voted electronic and paper ballots will be stressed.
R13:
The Elections Department should review the
R14:
Since a number of poll workers dropped out the night before and morning of election day, requiring substitutes that were not trained, a pool of trained alternate poll workers should be available on election day to substitute in case of poll worker absenteeism. Response from the Elections Officer: We always have about a dozen people who are trained report to our office at 6 a.m. on Election Day to be deployed as needed. Election Code Section 12313 does allow the following: If any member of a precinct board does not appear at the opening of the polls on the morning of an election, those voters present, including members of the board, shall appoint a voter to fill the vacancy. If none of the members appointed appears at that time, the voters of the precinct present at that time may appoint a board.
R15:
The report also noted that the district’s use of outside consultants in relation to its construction projects “seems to be working well.” (Id., p.
R16:
Regarding the district’s internal controls, the report “commended” the district “for developing improved standards and procedures,” and concluded that “the business department is operating within a reasonable level of internal controls considering the extreme pressure that the employees are under to keep up with the overwhelming workload.” (Id., p.
R20:
As stated in the report, “the overall internal controls at the Pajaro district are functioning well.” (Id., p. 22.) 4. The superintendent needs to effectively manage instruction and implement a consistent plan throughout the district. Response from the PVUSD: No action will be taken to implement the recommendation. Effective management and planning in the district is already taking place. 4.1 The School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) changes, the District Alternative Governance (DAG) committee recommendations, and those of the Gold Study should be implemented as soon as possible in all the under-achieving schools in the district in order to garner consistency and measurability of the learning benchmarks. Response from the PVUSD: This recommendation is already in the process of implementation, therefore no action is required. The superintendent and cabinet initiated the Gold Study and report, and are implementing the report’s recommendations. The DAG committee is in fact made up almost entirely of the cabinet and other district staff; therefore, the implementation of recommendations was simultaneous with the DAG committee's Report Card: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - 63 2006-2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses development of same. The SAIT changes were already being incorporated into district actions as the Grand Jury investigation was being conducted. 4.2 The Nine Essential Program Components as set by the California Department of Education and used by the DAG team should be instituted in all regular elementary, middle and high schools in the District. A grid plan similar to the one developed by the DAG team should be worked out for each school using the format and benchmarks set by the DAG report and setting early attainment dates. The assistant superintendents and the superintendent should be the primary persons responsible for performing this task, and the principals and the school staffs should collaborate with one another until all of those benchmarks are set and met. Response from the PVUSD: PVUSD will not take the specific actions recommended by the Grand Jury, as they appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the DAG committee. The superintendent and assistant superintendents along with one outside consultant and several directors make up the DAG committee. The grid mentioned was developed by the DAG committee, which is an entity of the district. Therefore the district is using the grid that it developed. The assistant superintendents are currently working with other sites to set the benchmarks. 4.3 Those barriers to good education that are management-related — as spelled out in four management studies, the DAG, the SAIT, the Gold Study and the Management Audit Study — should be remedied immediately with assertive, scheduled and measured action by those persons in charge – the superintendent and whatever deputies the superintendent designates. This is a primary responsibility and must not be avoided or delayed by studies and the formation of committees. All of these actions and benchmarks should be in place for the next school year to remove any inconsistencies and failures to teach to approved strategies and goals. Response from the PVUSD: No further action needs to be taken to implement the recommendation. This process is already under way and benchmarks are being established to ensure regular, ongoing implementation. 4.4 District staff should give a monthly status report of the benchmarks accomplished and the status of those in process with scheduled dates of completion. o Those benchmarks not accomplished within the scheduled dates should be discussed and remedied and new firm dates set for accomplishment. o Those benchmarks achieved and verified should be met with much fanfare. This will contribute to credibility of the board and confidence from the community. - 64 Report Card: Pajaro Valley Unified School District 2006-2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response from the PVUSD: This recommendation requires further analysis. The deputy superintendent will review and report back to the board his recommendations within four months. Based on that report, the Board of Trustees will then determine a course of action. 4.5 In concurrence with the Gold Study, the Management Audit Report and the recommendations of many of the stakeholders, an expert curriculum specialist should be hired immediately and given the responsibility and authority to review the integrity and consistency of the district-wide curricula, texts, standards and teaching strategies. Response from the PVUSD: No further action needs to be taken to implement this recommendation, as the Board of Trustees has recently hired a deputy superintendent who is a curriculum and instruction specialist. This was done despite protests from various groups and individuals who felt this position was not needed. (Also see the above response to the Conclusion 4, regarding the district's efforts to manage and implement a consistent instructional plan.) 5. The purpose and attendance requirements of zone meetings should be clearly defined. The meetings should be well publicized and accessible to all. Agendas and minutes should be readily available. Response from the PVUSD: No action on the recommendation will be taken. The purpose of zones is already sufficiently defined. Meetings are already publicized and are accessible to all, being held at public school sites. Agendas and minutes are and have been available upon request, as explained in the district's response to Finding 21.6, above. 6. Zone management should establish a uniform method of communicating their deliberations and actions to the board. Response from the PVUSD: The recommendation requires further analysis. The newly hired deputy superintendent will review and determine if any change in practice regarding communication between the Board of Trustees and zone management are warranted, and will advise the board within six months if he believes action by the board needs to be taken.
R10-02:
Resume August 2002, Dr. Mary Anne H. Mays Ed.D 12-29-02 Newsmaker of the Year PVUSD Trustees: Board names new high school, hires female superintendent, Santa Cruz Sentinel 2003 2003 The Brown Act, Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies (The California Attorney Generals Office, 2003, p. 1.) 10-24-03 Friday Board Update, October 24, 2003, Dr. Mary Anne Mays, pg. 2 2004 4-3-04 Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, segregation no longer black and white, The San Diego Union-Tribune [Article on integration using PVUSD as an example] 10-12-04 Management Audit, Organizational and Efficiency Study, October 12, 2004, School Services Corporation 10-25-04 The Education Innovator, October 25, 2004 www.ed.gov/print/news/newsletters/Innovator/2004/1025.html 2005 2-05 Dr. Mays’ Reply to Management Audit, Planning Operational Improvements and Efficiency, February 2005, Superintendent, Dr. Mary Anne Mays 6-30-05 Watsonville “Emergency Card” OPT-OUT a Winner, Santa Cruz Indymedia 11-2-05 The Pajaro Valley Unified School District Creates Innovative Ways to Challenge Reading Skills, Graniterock Press Release for press conference [Regarding the Million Word Campaign] 2006 2006 Student Success, A Shared Vision, 2006 Report to the Community, Santa Cruz County Office of Education 2-10-06 Contentious PVUSD board race began with Superintendent’s exit, Times Publishing Group 3-24-06 PV school superintendent resigns, Santa Cruz Sentinel 4-4-06 Pajaro Superintendent Dr. Mary Anne Mays Resigns, The Mid-County Post - 66 Report Card: Pajaro Valley Unified School District
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
53 hallazgos
F1:
The specific project list which defines for the voters what they are voting on is not clear and consistent in the District Master Plan, voter pamphlet, COC Annual Report and the performance audits. Response: The Cabrillo Community College Governing Board DISAGREES. Cabrillo College has consistently met all of the reporting and compliance requirements for school bond funds. The purposes of each of the reports, 1) District Facility Master Plan, 2) COC Annual Report and 3) Proposition 39 performance audit differ from the purpose of the voter pamphlet. • The District Facility Master Plan (FMP) is a comprehensive document that sets forth a long term vision for the facility needs of the college. It includes projects funded not only by local bond funds, but also funds provided by the state capital outlay program, redevelopment agencies, and local contributions. Twice a year, the FMP is submitted to the Governing Board at a public meeting for approval and to the COC for review. This report provides a detailed summary of projects recently completed, projects under construction, and projects approved for future construction. This semi-annual report also provides recommendations for changes to FMP projects; scope, budget or schedule. In addition, a monthly FMP Project Status Report is submitted to the Governing Board and to members of the COC for their review. This report provides monthly updates on the status of major active FMP projects. • In compliance with Proposition 39, the voter pamphlet is a brief summary of portions of the Facility Master Plan which are authorized projects to be funded with Measure D funds. • The COC Annual Report contains a summary of the “results of its (COC) activities” for the prior year. (Ed. Code 15280) and a statement regarding whether the District is in compliance with state law in accounting for and expending public bond funds. Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? - 6 • The Proposition 39 Annual Performance Audit reflects only a description of the projects on which bond money was spent as authorized by Measure D and a conclusion as to whether or not bond funds were used for teacher or administrator salaries.
F2:
The district has narrowly interpreted (as reflected by the development and provisions in the by-laws) the requirement for COC independence. It meets the minimum membership requirements specified in the California Education Code. Response: The Cabrillo Community College Governing Board DISAGREES. COC “independence” means that the committee is not populated with persons who have conflicts of interest with the District, the implementation of Measure D, or the consultants who assist in the execution of Measure D. In all respects the establishment and empowerment of the District COC satisfies all Proposition 39 requirements. The COC satisfies the membership requirements of Education Code 15282, is totally independent, and satisfies Education Code 15278(b) which states: “The purpose of the citizens' oversight committee shall be to inform the public concerning the expenditure of bond revenues.”
F3:
The district limited the membership to the legally required seven members and did not pursue expanding the number of members to obtain relevant expertise on the oversight committee to provide more effective oversight. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: The Cabrillo Community College Governing Board AGREES that the membership of the COC satisfies the legal requirements, and DISAGREES that the District did not pursue expanding the membership beyond the requirements of the Education Code. Expanding the membership was discussed with the District bond counsel who advised against membership expansion on the grounds it would defeat the legislative intent of Proposition 39 and dilute the voice of members who represent groups often opposed to bond taxes, i.e. taxpayers, seniors, and business persons. The expertise of the members of the COC represents the community’s interest in providing effective and knowledgeable oversight of Measure D funds as follows: • General contractor/developer with significant number of construction projects, apartments, homes, school facilities • Local business owners: insurance, food franchise • Previous experience on school oversight committees • Public School Board Member • Local Financial Institution Board Member • Community relations • Representative of very large local employer • Santa Cruz County Assessor • Technical writer, editor • Student Senate leadership and budget management – 7 Window Dressing or Effective Oversight?
F4:
The Citizen Oversight Committee by-laws were, in effect, imposed on the committee without significant discussion or a vote by the committee members. These by-laws limited the committee’s authorized activities (only four listed activities) to less than what was communicated to the voters that is to “work with the Citizen’s Oversight Committee on prioritizing ... projects...” per the voter pamphlet. Response: The Cabrillo Community College Governing Board DISAGREES. As formulated by the Education Code, the COC is an advisory committee empowered by State law, established by the Cabrillo College Governing Board, overseen by the Governing Board and the COC is without the authority to expand its powers or establish its own bylaws. While the bylaws did not reflect the phrase from the Full Ballot Text that the “District would work with the Citizens’ Oversight Committee on prioritizing those project in the event factors beyond the District’s control require that projects be reconsidered,” such inclusion was not necessary. The District has had a successful, open dialogue with the COC regarding what projects have been selected for funding, and how those projects progress; Student Activities Center, Arts Education Classrooms, Allied Health Classrooms, Watsonville Educational Center Expansion, accessibility projects, and remodeling and renovating existing and vacated classroom, lab and office space. In fact, only one Measure D project has been deferred, the second access bridge across Soquel Drive, and the deferral of the project was discussed with the COC.
F5:
The independent performance audit reports by two CPAs did not express an opinion about whether or not there had been any misappropriation of funds. Response: The Cabrillo Community College Governing Board PARTIALLY AGREES. Proposition 39 does not provide any guidance as to the content of a performance audit. In the absence of performance audit standards, Cabrillo worked with their auditors prior to the audit to define a process that fulfills the intent of Proposition
F6:
The district has not defined and published an integrated construction quality control program document and a construction safety program document for the Measure D projects. Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? - 8 Response: The Cabrillo Community College Governing Board DISAGREES The District has defined quality control and safety program requirements in the contracts with the construction managers, architects, inspectors and contractors. The contractors are contractually responsible for the quality of their work as described in the contract documents, Section 2.3.4.2 (Construction Quality). The construction manager has the authority and responsibility to address defective or deficient construction or workmanship as stated in section 2.3.4.3 of the contract (Rejection of Work). The Inspector of Record also has responsibility for the quality of work on the site as required by Section 9-81130 of the Education Code. In addition the Architect of Record’s agreement with the District requires that the Architect shall “advise the District regarding defects and deficiencies observed by the Architect in the work of the contractors.” With regards to safety, the contractors are clearly responsible for safety on the job site as defined in section 4.9.1 of their General Conditions which states: The Contractor shall be solely responsible for initiating, maintaining and supervising all safety programs required by applicable law, ordinance, regulation or governmental orders in connection with the performance of the contract, or otherwise required by the type or nature of the Work. The Contractor’s safety program shall include all actions and programs necessary for compliance with California or federally statutorily mandated workplace safety programs, including without limitation, compliance with the California Drug Free Workplace Act of 1990 (California Government Code 8350 et seq.). Without limiting or relieving the Contractor of its obligations hereunder, the Contractor shall require that its Subcontractors similarly initiate and maintain all appropriate or required safety programs. With regards to safety each Contractor is defined as the “controlling employer” for purposes of the Multi-Employer Worksite Rules of the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (California Code of Regulations 336.10). The District has implemented more frequent safety inspections as a result of concerns from the Grand Jury. The District has contracted with Safework to conduct inspections on a twice per month basis and to insure that prior safety notices have been remedied.
F7:
One inspector of record did not agree that he had responsibility for what was called “quality control” by the construction manager. Response from The Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: The Cabrillo Community College Governing Board AGREES that the inspector of record may not have agreed to having responsibility for quality control, but DISAGREES with the inspector of record’s opinion. As mentioned in item 6 the inspector of record is responsible for the document completion on the site as is required by Section 81130 of the Education Code as follows: “(a) The Department of General Services under the police power of the state shall supervise the design and construction of any school building or the reconstruction or alteration of, or addition to, any school building, if not exempted under Section – 9 Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? 81133, to ensure that plans and specifications comply with the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this article and building standards published in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, and to ensure that the work of construction has been performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, for the protection of life and property.” The District is not aware of any other inspector on site (of which there are currently five) who agrees with the opinion of the one cited. Conclusions
F8:
The oversight of the Measure D Bond projects is more than “window dressing,” but it can be improved. Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? - 10
F9:
The results cartridges for the touch screens and memory packs for the scanners are created on a stand-alone computer at the warehouse. They are then loaded and sealed into the appropriate precinct equipment and stored until ready to be shipped to the polling place. Access to both the warehouse and office are controlled through the use of color-coded security badges. - 6 Electronic Voting 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Four Elections Department supervisors with the widest access to the county's voting machines and voting materials have their own color-coded badge. Temporary employees, who must be escorted and supervised inside the secure area, have a different color badge, as do permanent Elections Department employees, visitors and exhibitors, and voting machine vendors. Response from the Elections Officer: In addition, entrance into the secured area where voting equipment is stored and programmed is locked in a separate caged facility within the warehouse and entrance is restricted only to three people who have clearance.
F10:
The warehouse has an alarm system, provided by First Alarm. An access card is required in order to enter. The Information Systems Analyst, Department Information Systems Specialist and the Election Officer have the First Alarm access code. Response from the Elections Officer: Only the County Clerk, Assistant County Clerk and Department Information Systems Specialist have the access code and magnetic card for access.
F11:
A large door is locked from the inside. All equipment is within a caged area of the warehouse with controlled access. Response from the Elections Officer: In addition, there is 24-hour camera surveillance of the warehouse facility. C. Poll Site Security/Physical Equipment
F12:
The assigned person at each precinct picks up the voting equipment from the warehouse the day before the election. The cartridges are already in place and sealed. A poll worker takes the equipment home. On election day, they take it to the polling place and set it up. Response from the Elections Officer: We have four distribution centers: the Warehouse, Felton Fire, Aptos Library and Watsonville City Hall. In addition, we deliver equipment and supplies to the Inspectors at our Summit precincts on the Thursday before Election Day.
F13:
At the close of the polls, two designated persons break the seals on the results cartridge and the memory pack and remove them from the machines. Cartridges and seals are put in a sealable orange bag. The printer is removed from the touch screen machine for transport. The orange bag and printer are prepared by an inspector and a designated person. These items are taken to the election department, where the bags are checked, verified, and stored in the Information Systems Analyst office until ready to tally. The person who checked out the equipment and brought it to the polling site is also responsible for taking it back to the county building. All voting equipment is eventually returned to the warehouse for storage. Electronic Voting - 7 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response from the Elections Officer: There are three return centers: The County Government Center, Watsonville City Hall and Felton Fire Station. We are looking into adding more in the future.
F14:
After the November 2006 election, the above process was reviewed by election staff. It was found that there were delays in equipment check-in. Response from the Elections Officer: In the future, the number of return centers will increase in an effort to decrease the time it takes for poll workers to return equipment and supplies.
F15:
The issue of fire protection of the polling places was not addressed when the polling places were chosen. Since most poll sites are in public buildings, it was assumed that the fire protection available at the poll site location would be relied on. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F16:
The strategy to put just one touch screen at each polling place proved to be a good one. It satisfied the requirements for voter accessibility while providing more current technology for voters. The mixture of technology also provided backup. If the printer or other equipment had a problem, voters had another way to cast their votes.
F17:
Sequoia Systems is a state-approved vendor for the new voting equipment. They were chosen by Santa Cruz County to provide the voting equipment. Response from the Elections Officer: The system is federally-qualified and state-certified. On August 3, 2007, the SOS re-certified the system subject to conditions.
F18:
The touch screen voting machine has a printer which records the votes. It has 300 feet of paper inside the machine. During the last election, the paper often jammed. Response from the Elections Officer: There were a dozen paper jams on 140 units deployed. Personnel have since been trained to identify and correct most of the paper jamming problems.
F19:
During the November 2006 election, two or three scanners failed and at least 12 printers jammed. When the failed scanners were tested, it was determined that they probably had been damaged in transport. Response from the Elections Officer: Two scanners were replaced at the beginning of the day due to malfunctions. Processes were in place for replacement equipment to be rapidly deployed. There was no delay in voting. Other scanner problems occurred, but they were operator error and were resolved via phone conversations with trained staff.
F20:
The 400C Ballot Counter Machine reads the ballots very quickly. However, the catch basket, which is located outside the machine, is not large enough to hold all of the ballots. As a result, ballots can get bent or be ejected onto the floor. - 8 Electronic Voting 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response from the Elections Officer: One person operates the 400C while two people collect ballots. This system ensures the least amount of stress on the ballots, so they are easily stored in ballot storage containers. We had 2 ballots fall on the floor and they were retrieved.
F21:
The results cartridge plugs into touch screen equipment. It contains a database for capturing the votes as they are input by the voter. This cartridge cannot be removed without breaking a seal. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F22:
The memory pack plugs into the optical scanner. It also uses a database for capturing the votes as they are input when the ballot is scanned. The memory pack cannot be removed without breaking a seal. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F23:
Firmware (software imbedded in the machine) operates the machines. The Secretary of State demands the firmware be at a specific level (version). It cannot be changed after 60 days prior to election. A test is run to ensure the firmware level (version) is correct. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F24:
To ensure the reliability and accuracy of the equipment, logic and accuracy testing is conducted by the vendor and county personnel. Some experts believe that this testing is insufficient for validating the accuracy and reliability of the vote. They argue that it consists only of verifying whether the equipment is working. It does not evaluate the equipment’s security. Response from the Elections Officer: Logic and Accuracy tests are done by elections staff and a Logic and Accuracy board made up of people from our community. The vendor is not involved in this test. The test uses ballots, either paper or electronic, where the vote totals are known. The tests are run to ensure that the machines are counting correctly. An observation panel is invited to watch these tests. It is not a security test. Security is achieved through the processes and procedures we have in place as well as meeting the conditions required by the Secretary of State. Equipment security improvements are also being implemented by the vendor. Sequoia currently has voting system upgrades going through the federal qualification process that address identified security concerns.
F25:
After they are finished voting, voters who use the touch screen equipment can verify the accuracy of their votes by looking at a compilation of their votes that is displayed in a window on the machine. Electronic Voting - 9 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response from the Elections Officer: It is displayed on a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail that is under a window attached to the machine.
F26:
Following a written procedure, the designated poll worker and one other poll worker break the outer seal and assist the first voter to verify prior to his or her vote that the “total votes” displayed is zero. Both the poll worker and the voter sign an official document verifying that the vote count is zero. Response from the Elections Officer: The zero vote report is verified in writing by the first voter on the touch screen and the first voter who uses a paper ballot that is scanned into the scanner.
F27:
On 10 percent of machines, a random sample with full paper recount is taken to check that the machines are tallying correctly. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct. SOS conditions require a 100 percent manual recount.
F28:
After the November 2006 election, Capitola initiated a manual recount. Each precinct was reconciled separately. With approximately 3000 votes to count, it came out to within one vote of the machine count. The final election results did not change. Response from the Elections Officer: There was a recount requested for the Capitola City Council contest as well as the Watsonville City Council, District 5 contest. In both cases, a voter marked a vote on a paper ballot outside of the voting target area so the vote could not be read and tallied by the ballot counters. In both cases, this one ballot did not affect the outcome of the contests.
F29:
During the November 2006 election, a number of absentee ballots had to be redone due to the types of pens used. Some voters used pens that bled through the paper and could not be read by the scanner. Response from the Elections Officer: Better instruction will be provided to voters in the future. Voters are instructed to use a blue or black ink pen. Pencil also works. But when voters use a Sharpie or felt-tip pen, the mark bled through the back-side of the ballot and resulted in untended votes on contests printed on the back side. A better stock of paper could also help this situation, but could increase postage due to weight. Ballots that had to be remade to reflect voter intent were done so in accordance with the law. - 10 Electronic Voting 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F30:
Provisional ballots were being used for voters who had come to the wrong polling place. Some provisional ballots had to be redone because they were folded the wrong way. Response from the Elections Officer: There are fold marks on the paper ballots. In the future, poll workers will be trained on how to fold the ballot correctly. Ballots that had to be remade to reflect voter intent were done so in accordance with the law.
F31:
An organized training plan with documentation was provided for the poll workers and inspectors. One person at each polling site was trained and certified to use the machines. There were “rovers” who traveled between polling sites to check on machines and supplies. Response from the Elections Officer: In most cases, there were two people assigned to each polling place who were trained on the machines. In addition, there were two other people one Technical Rover and one Roving Inspector who were assigned a few sites to visit frequently during the day. In one case, one person served in both roles of the Technical Rover and Roving Inspector. The Technical Rover had additional training on how to troubleshoot problems with voting equipment at the polls. The Roving Inspector was trained on overall polling site operations and access issues. In addition, there were Runners at the elections headquarters who were trained to be dispatched where needed.
F32:
Before the November 2006 election, county staff did a lot of on-the-job training while concurrently preparing for the election because the equipment arrived late. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct. We work under very tight deadlines that cannot be extended.
F33:
The training documentation from the vendor had to be completely redone because it had to be customized to the design of the Santa Cruz County election model. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F34:
In the future, the Elections Department plans to create a professional DVD to supplement poll worker training. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct. It is currently in process.
F35:
Poll workers have documentation binders which have flip charts and checklists. Also, they are trained how to deal with the press and observers. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct. Electronic Voting - 11 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F36:
Poll workers indicated they wanted more “hands-on training” with the machines in addition to having more poll workers trained on the equipment. These machines are sophisticated computer equipment, and if something goes wrong, many poll workers don’t know what to do. (See Poll Worker Survey in the Appendix for more information.) Response from the Elections Officer: The Department offered an open lab from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday – Friday during the weeks prior to the Election with extra hours available in the evening and on the weekend upon request. Election workers were encouraged to take advantage of this extra hands-on training. Many did. In the future, we plan to move this lab to another location and better communicate to our election workers its availability.
F37:
The physical arrangement of the polling places was similar to past elections. This consistency contributed to a stable atmosphere. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F38:
The touch screen machine was positioned with the back of the machine to the wall. This placement meant that the voter’s selections could be seen by others standing nearby. Response from the Elections Officer: We wanted to protect the back side of the machine which needs to be manual activated to pull up a ballot. The machines do not lend themselves to be turned around easily. A solution to this issue is being discussed with staff and the vendor.
F39:
The critical component is to design a process that compares the amounts spent to the purposes specified in the bond language the voters approved. This type of report requires that the accountant not issue an opinion, either positive or negative. The auditors have reported in the performance audits the following for Cabrillo: “Our review of the expenditures for the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006, did not reveal any items that were paid from the general obligation bond funds that did not comply with the purpose of the Bonds as approved by the registered voters of the District on March 2, 2004.” The financial audit reports include a summary of what projects were funded with bond monies and state a conclusion whether bond money was or was not used for teacher or administrative salaries or other school operating expenses.
F40:
Santa Cruz County was sued by the State Attorney General for not following Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations for polling sites. The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit without finding that the county had violated the ADA regulations. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F41:
Some polling places that were shared by more than one precinct also shared touch screen machines. This arrangement caused some confusion because voters had to identify which precinct they were voting in as the first step in the voting process, and many did not know. - 12 Electronic Voting 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response from the Elections Officer: Our plan is to purchase additional touchscreens and scanners to allow us to assign one of each to each voting precinct. This plan is on hold pending final clarification from the SOS on the conditional certification of the voting equipment and renewal of the Help America Vote Act contract to allow these costs to be covered by the federal funds. It is very possible the additional equipment will not be received in time for February 2008, but we anticipate having them in time for June 2008.
F42:
In the start-up process for the new voting system, the Department Information Systems Specialist, Elections Officer, Assistant County Clerk and the Information Systems Analyst were trained first, and then they were able to provide training for others. Sometimes training occurred simultaneously with the installation of the new equipment. Response from the Elections Officer: Correct.
F43:
The staffing for the poll places was conducted in the same manner as in previous elections. Polling place staff is typically temporary help from the community. The polling place supervisors are relied upon to pick up the equipment at the warehouse the day before the election, keep it at their houses overnight and take it to their polling places in the morning for set up. Response from the Elections Officer: We had additional staff at the polls and had the addition of the Technical Rovers. We also rely heavily on county workers to serve in the polls. For the 2008 election cycle, the Board has agreed not to hold board meetings thereby freeing up additional county workers who can serve in the polls.
F44:
In an effort to educate the public, the Elections Department distributed thousands of voter pamphlets to the public via U.S. mail. The department personnel also gave speeches and distributed educational material at local public schools, bookstores, the Capitola Mall, and the county fair. Media promotion included television and public radio interviews and press releases. Response from the Elections Officer: In addition, a flyer introducing the new voting system was mailed to every registered voter. County Sample Ballots are also mailed to every registered voter in addition to being available on our website at www.votescount.com
F45:
Despite the education campaign, some voters were confused as to how to mark their ballots. For example, some voters who used the paper ballots did not understand how to connect the arrows to the candidate or issue they were voting on. Electronic Voting - 13 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response from the Elections Officer: We found voters were better able to follow this new voting method than when we switched from a punch card voting system to a marking system. Even with the previous Mark-A-Vote ballot, voters often circled choices or made some other mark to make their selections. We continue to try to improve ways to educate voters on how to mark their ballots.
F46:
In general, voters who used the touch screen machine seemed unaware of the importance of verifying their votes by comparing them with the compilation of their ballot that was visible through a window on the machine. Response from the Elections Officer: It’s hard to say what voters find important. Some voters mark a paper ballot so quickly they fail to vote the back side. I believe all voting takes time, care and consideration and choices whether made electronically or on paper require double checking to ensure the voter marked his/her choices as intended. Certainly checking the paper record on a touch screen unit to confirm the electronic record provides reassurance that the vote was recorded accurately, if the voter wants that reassurance. Poll workers will be asked to remind touch screen voters to verify their votes on the VVPAT.
F47:
County election officials determined that there would be one touch screen at each polling place. The new scanner would be the main voting machine. They reported that this choice proved to be a good decision. Not only did it provide the necessary accommodations for voters with disabilities, but it also ensured the reliability of the voting process. Having a mixture of technologies ensured that votes could be cast in the event of equipment failures. For example, if the touch screen printer jammed, except for those who are sight impaired, voters had an option to use a paper ballot.
F48:
A recent news release announced that Florida will shift its voting system to a system of casting paper ballots counted by scanning machines. Several counties around the country will be moving to adopt the touch screen system with the paper trail.
F49:
On election day, the Grand Jury conducted a two-part poll worker survey and collected 104 surveys for analysis. The first part of the survey covered the poll worker training (see #4 above — Adequacy of Poll Worker Training), and the second part was a critique of the election day process. While most were extremely positive as to the work of the Elections Department, they made substantive recommendations for continued improvement of the elections process including the use and placement of the equipment. [See Appendix for full results of the survey.] - 14 Electronic Voting 2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses One hundred and four poll workers out of a total of 917 in Santa Cruz County were surveyed. They were asked to rate aspects of the voting experience from 1 to 5, with five being the best rating possible. The results were as follows: • Training materials: 4.3 • Overall preparation: 4.0 • Adequacy of election day staffing: 4.5 • Ease of equipment set up: 4.3 • Workers indicated they wanted more training on the machines and “hands on” practice.
F50:
The Grand Jury also conducted exit surveys with 320 voters throughout the county. (The total votes cast was recorded as 50,189 in 170 polling places.) The results of the survey are as follows: • Only about 19 percent of the sample chose to use the touch screen machines. • One hundred percent of those who chose to use the touch screen felt comfortable using it. • Ten percent of those who chose to use the paper ballot with optical scanner felt uncomfortable using it. B. Grand Jury Observations
F51:
Members of the Grand Jury made general observations while conducting the exit voter and poll worker’ surveys at the November 2006 election. They witnessed the failure of some equipment and agreed with many of the solutions suggested by the poll workers. [See Appendix for more information about the survey.]
F52:
During the November 2006 election, it was observed that most poll workers gave paper ballots to the voters and did not indicate that the touch screen method was available.
F53:
It was also observed that not all voters were offered a receipt for voting when they used the touch screen machine. Conclusions
Recomendaciones adicionales
18
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
For bond measures, the district should develop a clearly numbered specific facilities project list for the voter pamphlet and use that specific list in future tracking and reporting. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented. The District Facility Master Plan is a detailed and comprehensive report, expanding on the COC Annual Report. This report is submitted as an action item to the Governing Board and Citizens’ Oversight Committee twice a year approving changes in scope, budget and/or scheduling. It tracks all of the Measure D projects to date and includes other projects funded by other sources as well. In addition, the FMP is submitted monthly to the Governing Board and Citizens’ Oversight committee for review and discussion on the status of active projects.
R2:
For future Citizen Oversight Committee annual reports, the committee should develop a specific facilities project list that translates all of the Measure D project categories to a project list and identifies those projects for which Measure D funds are planned but have not been expended to date. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented. The Education Code (15280) requires that “the citizens’ oversight committee shall issue regular reports on the results of its activities. A report shall be issued at least once a year.” The activities of the committee, as defined in Education Code 15278(b) are to review expenditures of bond funds, satisfy themselves that such expenditures were made for voter-approved purposes and that no money was applied to teacher or administrative salaries or other school operating expenses and then to inform the public concerning the past expenditures of those funds. The Governing Board and staff tracks all projects for which Measure D funds are planned but have not been expended to date.
R3:
The independence of the oversight committee should be strengthened. The committee should be more proactive and take the following steps with the district’s concurrence and cooperation: • Review, recommend changes to the district, if any and, formally adopt the by-laws, with or without comments. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented. The recommendations are not consistent with the requirements of the Education Code or are currently permitted by the operation of the committee. As previously stated, the committee’s independence is assured by the membership selection requirements of the Education Code and the Ethics Policy Statement relating to the committee. Further, the Education Code contains no provision for an oversight committee to adopt its own bylaws. Currently, the committee has been advised that if the committee has any comments on the existing bylaws approved by the Board that such – 11 Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? suggestions may be made to district staff or may be presented to the Board of Trustees in public session. With respect to the selection of independent auditor and the process of preparing and delivering the audit, California Constitution directs that it is a district responsibility, not a committee responsibility. The Committee, as required by law, does receive and review, to whatever extent they determine, the audit. The recommendations offered by the Grand Jury are inconsistent with the current laws allocation of the accountability safeguards in Proposition 39 between the District and the committee. • Review and formally comment on the selection of the independent auditor prior to the appointment. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented. The California Constitution directs that the process of preparing and delivering the audit is the District’s responsibility. • Review and formally recommend changes to the District, if any, on the audit scope and methodology prior to the audit being conducted. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented. The California Constitution directs that the process of preparing and delivering the audit is the District’s responsibility. • Review and comment to the District on the final audit report and formally accept with or without comments. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation has been implemented.
R4:
Increase efforts to solicit membership in the Citizen Oversight Committee to a broader audience such as with newspaper advertisements and/or announcements inviting individuals with specific relevant expertise to apply. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation has been implemented. The District currently uses newspaper advertisements, as well as other forms of publicity, to attract applicants to serve on the Committee. The District will continue to seek individuals who satisfy the qualifications of membership as set forth in Education Code and if applicants also possess experience in construction projects, accounting, finance, etc., those applicants will have those experiences recognized in the selection process and, assuming they satisfy the Education Code categories, would be attractive members of the committee. Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? - 12
R5:
Revise by-laws to describe the process for resolving issues of concern to the oversight committee. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented. The bylaws and operating practice currently provide ways through which concerns can be expressed. First, the committee has exclusive control over the agenda of its meetings. If a concern arose, the committee would agendize the issue and discuss it at its next properly noticed public meeting. If the committee requests the District respond to a concern, the response is provided by the District at this meeting or at a subsequent meeting. If the committee is not satisfied with the answer of the staff, Section 5.8 of the bylaws states that “individual members of the committee retain the right to address the Board [of Trustees] either on behalf of the Committee or as an individual.” The Board then has the duty to respond to any concerns expressed.
R6:
Revise by-laws to include the committee’s role in prioritizing projects for delays or cancellations as described in Measure D. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented during the spring 2008 semester.
R7:
The district should document the roles and responsibilities of the district, the construction manager, the contractors and the inspector of record for construction quality control and safety. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented on existing work due to the fact this is addressed in current contract language. On future projects, District will revise contract language as necessary to provide additional clarif[ication] regarding roles.
R8:
In the future, the auditor should use a more specific facilities project list. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation has been implemented.
R9:
In future audits, the processes and a sufficient number of invoices should be tested to allow the auditor to render an opinion with a high and defined level of confidence that there has been no misappropriation of funds. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented. The performance audit report requires that the accountant not issue an opinion, either positive or negative.
R10:
In future audits, the auditor should report on the number of invoices examined and the total invoices processed for the Measure D fund. – 13 Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented for the June 2008 audit. Responses Requested Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within Cabrillo Community 1 - 7 1 - 10 90 Days College Governing October 1, 2007 Board
R11:
Because of the common practice of storing the equipment at the polling place supervisor’s house overnight, these supervisors should be identified as far in advance as possible to allow for additional training on security procedures and the vulnerability of the equipment. Response from the Elections Officer: That is always our plan to recruit our inspectors early on and train them. However, cancellations always occur and we have to fill the position and provide last-minute training when needed. We are looking into a tamper- proof bag for the voting units and development of a security plan that will be given SOS approval so we can continue this method of equipment deployment. In the meantime, we are looking into other ways to ensure practical and secure voting equipment deployment.
R12:
The Elections Department should plan to strengthen its “advertising” campaign for future elections. It should focus on educating the voters to verify the paper trail when using the touch screen equipment. Response from the Elections Officer: Verifying correctly voted electronic and paper ballots will be stressed.
R13:
The Elections Department should review the
R14:
Since a number of poll workers dropped out the night before and morning of election day, requiring substitutes that were not trained, a pool of trained alternate poll workers should be available on election day to substitute in case of poll worker absenteeism. Response from the Elections Officer: We always have about a dozen people who are trained report to our office at 6 a.m. on Election Day to be deployed as needed. Election Code Section 12313 does allow the following: If any member of a precinct board does not appear at the opening of the polls on the morning of an election, those voters present, including members of the board, shall appoint a voter to fill the vacancy. If none of the members appointed appears at that time, the voters of the precinct present at that time may appoint a board.
R15:
The report also noted that the district’s use of outside consultants in relation to its construction projects “seems to be working well.” (Id., p.
R16:
Regarding the district’s internal controls, the report “commended” the district “for developing improved standards and procedures,” and concluded that “the business department is operating within a reasonable level of internal controls considering the extreme pressure that the employees are under to keep up with the overwhelming workload.” (Id., p.
R20:
As stated in the report, “the overall internal controls at the Pajaro district are functioning well.” (Id., p. 22.) 4. The superintendent needs to effectively manage instruction and implement a consistent plan throughout the district. Response from the PVUSD: No action will be taken to implement the recommendation. Effective management and planning in the district is already taking place. 4.1 The School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) changes, the District Alternative Governance (DAG) committee recommendations, and those of the Gold Study should be implemented as soon as possible in all the under-achieving schools in the district in order to garner consistency and measurability of the learning benchmarks. Response from the PVUSD: This recommendation is already in the process of implementation, therefore no action is required. The superintendent and cabinet initiated the Gold Study and report, and are implementing the report’s recommendations. The DAG committee is in fact made up almost entirely of the cabinet and other district staff; therefore, the implementation of recommendations was simultaneous with the DAG committee's Report Card: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - 63 development of same. The SAIT changes were already being incorporated into district actions as the Grand Jury investigation was being conducted. 4.2 The Nine Essential Program Components as set by the California Department of Education and used by the DAG team should be instituted in all regular elementary, middle and high schools in the District. A grid plan similar to the one developed by the DAG team should be worked out for each school using the format and benchmarks set by the DAG report and setting early attainment dates. The assistant superintendents and the superintendent should be the primary persons responsible for performing this task, and the principals and the school staffs should collaborate with one another until all of those benchmarks are set and met. Response from the PVUSD: PVUSD will not take the specific actions recommended by the Grand Jury, as they appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the DAG committee. The superintendent and assistant superintendents along with one outside consultant and several directors make up the DAG committee. The grid mentioned was developed by the DAG committee, which is an entity of the district. Therefore the district is using the grid that it developed. The assistant superintendents are currently working with other sites to set the benchmarks. 4.3 Those barriers to good education that are management-related — as spelled out in four management studies, the DAG, the SAIT, the Gold Study and the Management Audit Study — should be remedied immediately with assertive, scheduled and measured action by those persons in charge – the superintendent and whatever deputies the superintendent designates. This is a primary responsibility and must not be avoided or delayed by studies and the formation of committees. All of these actions and benchmarks should be in place for the next school year to remove any inconsistencies and failures to teach to approved strategies and goals. Response from the PVUSD: No further action needs to be taken to implement the recommendation. This process is already under way and benchmarks are being established to ensure regular, ongoing implementation. 4.4 District staff should give a monthly status report of the benchmarks accomplished and the status of those in process with scheduled dates of completion. o Those benchmarks not accomplished within the scheduled dates should be discussed and remedied and new firm dates set for accomplishment. o Those benchmarks achieved and verified should be met with much fanfare. This will contribute to credibility of the board and confidence from the community. - 64 Report Card: Pajaro Valley Unified School District Response from the PVUSD: This recommendation requires further analysis. The deputy superintendent will review and report back to the board his recommendations within four months. Based on that report, the Board of Trustees will then determine a course of action. 4.5 In concurrence with the Gold Study, the Management Audit Report and the recommendations of many of the stakeholders, an expert curriculum specialist should be hired immediately and given the responsibility and authority to review the integrity and consistency of the district-wide curricula, texts, standards and teaching strategies. Response from the PVUSD: No further action needs to be taken to implement this recommendation, as the Board of Trustees has recently hired a deputy superintendent who is a curriculum and instruction specialist. This was done despite protests from various groups and individuals who felt this position was not needed. (Also see the above response to the Conclusion 4, regarding the district's efforts to manage and implement a consistent instructional plan.) 5. The purpose and attendance requirements of zone meetings should be clearly defined. The meetings should be well publicized and accessible to all. Agendas and minutes should be readily available. Response from the PVUSD: No action on the recommendation will be taken. The purpose of zones is already sufficiently defined. Meetings are already publicized and are accessible to all, being held at public school sites. Agendas and minutes are and have been available upon request, as explained in the district's response to Finding 21.6, above. 6. Zone management should establish a uniform method of communicating their deliberations and actions to the board. Response from the PVUSD: The recommendation requires further analysis. The newly hired deputy superintendent will review and determine if any change in practice regarding communication between the Board of Trustees and zone management are warranted, and will advise the board within six months if he believes action by the board needs to be taken.
R10-02:
Resume August 2002, Dr. Mary Anne H. Mays Ed.D 12-29-02 Newsmaker of the Year PVUSD Trustees: Board names new high school, hires female superintendent, Santa Cruz Sentinel 2003 2003 The Brown Act, Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies (The California Attorney Generals Office, 2003, p. 1.) 10-24-03 Friday Board Update, October 24, 2003, Dr. Mary Anne Mays, pg. 2 2004 4-3-04 Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, segregation no longer black and white, The San Diego Union-Tribune [Article on integration using PVUSD as an example] 10-12-04 Management Audit, Organizational and Efficiency Study, October 12, 2004, School Services Corporation 10-25-04 The Education Innovator, October 25, 2004 www.ed.gov/print/news/newsletters/Innovator/2004/1025.html 2005 2-05 Dr. Mays’ Reply to Management Audit, Planning Operational Improvements and Efficiency, February 2005, Superintendent, Dr. Mary Anne Mays 6-30-05 Watsonville “Emergency Card” OPT-OUT a Winner, Santa Cruz Indymedia 11-2-05 The Pajaro Valley Unified School District Creates Innovative Ways to Challenge Reading Skills, Graniterock Press Release for press conference [Regarding the Million Word Campaign] 2006 2006 Student Success, A Shared Vision, 2006 Report to the Community, Santa Cruz County Office of Education 2-10-06 Contentious PVUSD board race began with Superintendent’s exit, Times Publishing Group 3-24-06 PV school superintendent resigns, Santa Cruz Sentinel 4-4-06 Pajaro Superintendent Dr. Mary Anne Mays Resigns, The Mid-County Post - 66 Report Card: Pajaro Valley Unified School District 4-18-06 The Struggle Continues at Pajaro Schools, Business Chief Retires a Few Weeks after Superintendent Resigns – Recall Campaign Announced Against Trustee, The Mid-County Post 7-20-06 Business leaders seek ‘outstanding’ PVUSD school board, Santa Cruz Sentinel 10-4-06 Retired teacher, volunteer vie for P.V school board, District ‘turmoil’ prompts volunteer to seek post and Board members touts experience and leadership, Santa Cruz Sentinel 10-8-06 Nuances of school board trusteeship, Santa Cruz Sentinel [Editorial page] 10-26-06 Former PVUSD administrator alleges slander by school board member, Santa Cruz Sentinel 11-3-06 Balance of power hangs in outcome of PVUSD races, Santa Cruz Sentinel [A summary of issues facing PVUSD] 11-14-06 Students look back on state’s history, Santa Cruz Sentinel 12-4-06 PVUSD leaders to be sworn in Wednesday, Santa Cruz Sentinel 2007 1-9-07 Pajaro Implements Efforts To Raise Scores and Avert Takeover, The Mid-County Post 1-9-07 No School Left Behind!, The Mid-County Post 1-9-07 Former Pajaro Schools Personnel Director Settles Lawsuit, The Mid-County Post 1-11-07 Change Requires Effort, Good Times [Article by Michael Watkins, COE] 1-18-07 Pajaro Valley schools shocker: Mays back as superintendent, Santa Cruz Sentinel 1-18-07 PVUSD new board majority approves return of superintendent, Santa Cruz Sentinel 1-19-07 Mays envisions stabilizing P.V. schools, Santa Cruz Sentinel 1-19-07 PVUSD makes decisive choice, Santa Cruz Sentinel [Editorial] 1-23-07 Dr. Mary Anne Mays Returns to Pajaro as Interim, The Mid-County Post 2-2-07 Board of trustees must not ignore the Brown Act, Register-Pajaronian 2-3-07 PV High School is getting a bum rap, Register-Pajaronian [Letters to the Editor] Report Card: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - 67 2-4-07 Luis Alejo letter to the Board, Re. Brown Act Violations during the January 17, 2007 meeting. 2-7-07 Schools chief warns of low expectations, O’Connell: Minority students suffer because of racial bias, Santa Cruz Sentinel [O’Connell is State Superintendent of Schools.] 2-07-07 DAG Study, Overview of PVUSD District Alternative Governance Committee Process as presented to the PVUSD Board February 7, 2007, included in Board Study Packet 2-9-07 Pajaro Valley school district headed to trial over high school mold clean-up, Santa Cruz Sentinel 2-9-07 PVUSD headed to trial over P.V. High School $1.5 million mold cleanup, Santa Cruz Sentinel 2-14-07 English Learner Program Evaluation Final Report, February 14, 2007 Norm Gold Associates 2-20-07 Beacon Charter Organizers Developing Plans for South County Schools, The Mid-County Post 2-20-07 Pajaro’s Program Improvement Schools Face Many Recommendations, Little Time, The Mid-County Post 2-21-07 $1.5 million dollars grant aims to curb gang activity at middle school level, Santa Cruz Sentinel 2-24-07 P.V. schools superintendent back — at 60 percent, Santa Cruz Sentinel 3-1-07 PVUSD board votes to hire Mays as interim superintendent, Santa Cruz Sentinel 3-3-07 Pajaro Valley school district in major flux, Santa Cruz Sentinel 3-8-07 PVUSD ponders management shake-up, Santa Cruz Sentinel 3-12-07 Educators await slate of school studies, Santa Cruz Sentinel [23 state department of education studies] 3-15-07 SAIT State Intervention Report, February 28, 2007, Board Packet Report by Mrs. Vicki Alterwitz, Action Learning Systems Progress Report Mar 15, 2007 3-17-07 $2.5 million dollars reading center now open, Santa Cruz Sentinel [The center is at Cal State Monterey Bay] 3-17-07 Management mop-up? Pinks slips handed out to five, Register Pajaronian 3-19-07 Beacon aims to open schools in P.V. and S.C, Santa Cruz Sentinel [Beacon is a charter school organization.] 3-27-07 School district employees silenced, Mays says only she can discuss schools with press, public, Register Pajaronian - 68 Report Card: Pajaro Valley Unified School District 3-27-07 Mays’ stormy return to PVUSD, www.santacruzlive.com/blogs/education/2007/03/27/mays-stormy- return-to-pvusd/ 3-28-07 State ratchets up pressure on lagging schools, Santa Cruz Sentinel [2006 Base Academic Performance Index (API) Report p. A-4] 3-30-07 Pajaro Valley teachers oust longtime leader, Santa Cruz Sentinel [Change in teachers union leadership] 4-3-07 Dispute emerges over P.V. teachers union’s leadership, Santa Cruz Sentinel 4-5-07 Membership has spoken, Santa Cruz Sentinel [Letters to the Editor] 4-6-07 P.V. teachers union election challenged, Santa Cruz Sentinel 4-6-07 Savino challenges Pajaro Valley teachers union election, Santa Cruz Sentinel 4-7-07 Befuddled by PVFT’s style of democracy, Register Pajaronian [Letters to the Editor] 4-10-07 Poor decisions being made for our school district, Register Pajaronian 4-11-07 Fed up with this school district, Register Pajaronian [Letters to the Editor] 4-12-07 Business Deal sparks questions about P.V. teachers union, Santa Cruz Sentinel 4-17-07 Half of seniors who flunked exit exam returned to school, Santa Cruz Sentinel [CA Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Instruction re: state wide exit exam results.] 4-19-07 Trustees focus on improving English proficiency, Santa Cruz Sentinel 4-20-07 Teach kids in English, Santa Cruz Sentinel [Letters to the Editor on the bilingual policy] 4-21-07 County school board OKs office move, Pajaro Valley educators, trustees blast deal to buy Harvey West space, Santa Cruz Sentinel 4-21-07 P.V. students enjoy incentives before critical testing, Santa Cruz Sentinel 4-22-07 How a School Gets Into and Out of Federal Sanctions, Santa Cruz Sentinel 4-24-07 Teachers union settles leadership crisis, Santa Cruz Sentinel 4-26-07 Program helps to build a future with students, ROP organizers reach out to middle schools, Santa Cruz Sentinel 4-07 State threatens to take away five local schools, Mays stays in district to head new committee, Register Pajaronian Report Card: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - 69 Date unknown Judge faults P.V. school district in student’s expulsion, Santa Cruz Sentinel 5-25-07 P.V. District in discord over new post, Santa Cruz Sentinel [Regarding the hiring of a deputy superintendent.] Date unknown Pajaro Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees Bylaw 9270 ‘Conflict of Interest’ Date unknown Government Code 89503,Government Code 81013, The Political Reform Act of 1974; Article 2, Chapter 7 Multiple dates Warrants, Invoices, Purchase Orders 2003-2006 to NCEE: school years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2002-5-2006 Watsonville HS, Pajaro MS, Calabasas ES. Doesn’t include travel, personal expenses for training etc.; not audited. Web Sites: Center for Public Integrity http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx Senate Governmental Affairs Committee http://www.senate.gov~govt-aff/ SEC – Securities and Exchange Commission http://www.sec.gov/ COP Information http://www.scgi/2001/certpart.htm Mays’ stormy return to PVUSD www.santacruzlive.com/blogs/education/2007/03/27/mays-stormy-return-to-pvusd/ The Education Innovator, October 25, 2004 www.ed.gov/print/news/newsletters/Innovator/2004/1025.html - 70 Report Card: Pajaro Valley Unified School District Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses (no responses required for this section) Section 6 Special Districts Committee Report
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
Greater transparency can and should be achieved in tracking projects. In order for the oversight committee, auditors, district staff and the public to track the specific projects throughout the life of the Measure D program, it is necessary for the district to define and maintain a consistent, detailed specific list in all the public documents.
F2:
The oversight committee would be more credible and effective if it were to function with more independence and a broader scope of authorized activities.
F3:
The oversight committee could be more effective if it were to have members with expertise covering more of the relevant Measure D program activities.
F4:
The oversight committee should be given the opportunity to review, discuss, propose and then formally adopt its own by-laws.
F5:
The performance audits are not adequate to establish, with credibility, that there have been no misappropriations of funds.
F6:
Some projects have had significant quality control problems. One inspector of record was released from the program by the district in part due to disagreements over the inspector’s role in quality control. With regard to construction safety, there have not been major safety incidents to date. In both these areas, however, a more defined and rigorous approach to management is needed.
F7:
The members of the COC are sincere and civic minded. They deserve our thanks for being willing to serve. Furthermore, the district staff was found to be cooperative and competent in their dealings with the Grand Jury.
F8:
The oversight of the Measure D Bond projects is more than “window dressing,” but it can be improved. Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? - 10 2006-2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
Recomendaciones adicionales
10
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
For bond measures, the district should develop a clearly numbered specific facilities project list for the voter pamphlet and use that specific list in future tracking and reporting. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented. The District Facility Master Plan is a detailed and comprehensive report, expanding on the COC Annual Report. This report is submitted as an action item to the Governing Board and Citizens’ Oversight Committee twice a year approving changes in scope, budget and/or scheduling. It tracks all of the Measure D projects to date and includes other projects funded by other sources as well. In addition, the FMP is submitted monthly to the Governing Board and Citizens’ Oversight committee for review and discussion on the status of active projects.
R2:
For future Citizen Oversight Committee annual reports, the committee should develop a specific facilities project list that translates all of the Measure D project categories to a project list and identifies those projects for which Measure D funds are planned but have not been expended to date. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented. The Education Code (15280) requires that “the citizens’ oversight committee shall issue regular reports on the results of its activities. A report shall be issued at least once a year.” The activities of the committee, as defined in Education Code 15278(b) are to review expenditures of bond funds, satisfy themselves that such expenditures were made for voter-approved purposes and that no money was applied to teacher or administrative salaries or other school operating expenses and then to inform the public concerning the past expenditures of those funds. The Governing Board and staff tracks all projects for which Measure D funds are planned but have not been expended to date.
R3:
The independence of the oversight committee should be strengthened. The committee should be more proactive and take the following steps with the district’s concurrence and cooperation: • Review, recommend changes to the district, if any and, formally adopt the by-laws, with or without comments. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented. The recommendations are not consistent with the requirements of the Education Code or are currently permitted by the operation of the committee. As previously stated, the committee’s independence is assured by the membership selection requirements of the Education Code and the Ethics Policy Statement relating to the committee. Further, the Education Code contains no provision for an oversight committee to adopt its own bylaws. Currently, the committee has been advised that if the committee has any comments on the existing bylaws approved by the Board that such – 11 Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? 2006-2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses suggestions may be made to district staff or may be presented to the Board of Trustees in public session. With respect to the selection of independent auditor and the process of preparing and delivering the audit, California Constitution directs that it is a district responsibility, not a committee responsibility. The Committee, as required by law, does receive and review, to whatever extent they determine, the audit. The recommendations offered by the Grand Jury are inconsistent with the current laws allocation of the accountability safeguards in Proposition 39 between the District and the committee. • Review and formally comment on the selection of the independent auditor prior to the appointment. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented. The California Constitution directs that the process of preparing and delivering the audit is the District’s responsibility. • Review and formally recommend changes to the District, if any, on the audit scope and methodology prior to the audit being conducted. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented. The California Constitution directs that the process of preparing and delivering the audit is the District’s responsibility. • Review and comment to the District on the final audit report and formally accept with or without comments. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation has been implemented.
R4:
Increase efforts to solicit membership in the Citizen Oversight Committee to a broader audience such as with newspaper advertisements and/or announcements inviting individuals with specific relevant expertise to apply. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation has been implemented. The District currently uses newspaper advertisements, as well as other forms of publicity, to attract applicants to serve on the Committee. The District will continue to seek individuals who satisfy the qualifications of membership as set forth in Education Code and if applicants also possess experience in construction projects, accounting, finance, etc., those applicants will have those experiences recognized in the selection process and, assuming they satisfy the Education Code categories, would be attractive members of the committee. Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? - 12 2006-2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
R5:
Revise by-laws to describe the process for resolving issues of concern to the oversight committee. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented. The bylaws and operating practice currently provide ways through which concerns can be expressed. First, the committee has exclusive control over the agenda of its meetings. If a concern arose, the committee would agendize the issue and discuss it at its next properly noticed public meeting. If the committee requests the District respond to a concern, the response is provided by the District at this meeting or at a subsequent meeting. If the committee is not satisfied with the answer of the staff, Section 5.8 of the bylaws states that “individual members of the committee retain the right to address the Board [of Trustees] either on behalf of the Committee or as an individual.” The Board then has the duty to respond to any concerns expressed.
R6:
Revise by-laws to include the committee’s role in prioritizing projects for delays or cancellations as described in Measure D. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented during the spring 2008 semester.
R7:
The district should document the roles and responsibilities of the district, the construction manager, the contractors and the inspector of record for construction quality control and safety. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented on existing work due to the fact this is addressed in current contract language. On future projects, District will revise contract language as necessary to provide additional clarif[ication] regarding roles.
R8:
In the future, the auditor should use a more specific facilities project list. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation has been implemented.
R9:
In future audits, the processes and a sufficient number of invoices should be tested to allow the auditor to render an opinion with a high and defined level of confidence that there has been no misappropriation of funds. Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation will not be implemented. The performance audit report requires that the accountant not issue an opinion, either positive or negative.
R10:
In future audits, the auditor should report on the number of invoices examined and the total invoices processed for the Measure D fund. – 13 Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? 2006-2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response from the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board: This recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented for the June 2008 audit. Responses Requested Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within Cabrillo Community 1 - 7 1 - 10 90 Days College Governing October 1, 2007 Board
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
161 hallazgos
F1:
CPVAW bylaws state that its goals include preventing domestic violence against women, providing quality services, and ensuring public awareness of domestic violence as well as programs to prevent sexual assault. Response: CPVAW PARTIALLY AGREES. By-laws state that amongst other things, CPVAW is required to develop a comprehensive plan for the prevention of rape and domestic violence in the City of Santa Cruz. There is no mention of “providing quality services”.
F2:
CPVAW pursues its preventative role through educational outreach.
F3:
There is an ongoing demand for CPVAW self-defense classes.
F4:
Grand Jury members observed that CPVAW meetings are well organized and productive. Response: The City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Response: CPVAW AGREES.
F5:
The CPVAW has posted a written mission statement, agendas, and minutes on the CPVAW web site.6 6. Terms on CPVAW are staggered so that no more than two commission seats expire at the end of a given year. Commissioners may not serve more than two consecutive terms. The commission bylaws mandate monthly meetings. Commissioners are allowed three absences with notification or two without notification per calendar year.
F6:
CPVAW’s membership and leadership terms are established to maintain energy and promote infusion of new ideas.
F7:
The Grand Jury conducted an informal survey of downtown business sites (identified by the Safe Place Network decal) that showed out of twelve employees at different business establishments, only six were aware of the network and how to respond to an incident. Only one employee offered a brochure. Several employees were completely unaware of what the sticker represented; some offered creative responses. Response: The City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Santa Cruz City Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women web site, http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 13 Response: CPVAW AGREES that some business establishments were unaware.
F8:
CPVAW provides information on domestic violence in Spanish both on its web site and in its pamphlets.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R26:
CPVAW is to be commended for providing information on domestic violence in Spanish. Response: The City of Santa Cruz: Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 25 The recommendation has been implemented. Response: CPVAW: The Grand Jury’s recommendation has been implemented. Thank you. CPVAW also has produced a Spanish version of resource card for the Safe Place Network and has an on-going commitment to provide materials in Spanish.
F9:
CPVAW has an annual budget of $70,000 that pays for a half-time administrative assistant, educational outreach, and instructors for self-defense classes. All CPVAW commissioners are volunteers. Response: CPVAW PARTIALLY DISAGREES. CPVAW staff position is a Commission Coordinator.
F10:
According to a CPVAW member, CPVAW “has had significant difficulty in obtaining District Attorney’s Office dispositions and updates.”7 Response: The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. The District Attorney's Office investigative records and offenders' criminal histories are not public records. In addition, both offenders and victims have certain rights of privacy. Thus, information from our case files is not generally available to members of commissions or any other member of the public. However, information about case dispositions and other court actions can be obtained from the Superior Court. Thus, the same information that we obtain from the courts is directly accessible to others, including CPVAW.
F11:
The CPVAW report to the Santa Cruz City Council states that the rate of reported rape is higher in the City of Santa Cruz than comparative cities, counties, surrounding regions, and the State of California. The 2004 rate in Santa Cruz is 2.10 per 1,000 females while the rate in California is .53 per 1,000 females. Response: The City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES. It is difficult to find comparison cities that adequately match the socioeconomic and general demographic breakdown of our locality. In addition, different cities have different policing philosophies that prioritize different elements of police work. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department is the only agency in Santa Cruz County that provides an in-house victim advocate. In addition, the City of Santa Cruz Police Department has placed a training and philosophical priority on issues pertaining to domestic violence and rape that allows for a more aggressive and broad criteria for sexual assault reporting. As such, variances in reported rape numbers, attributable to a multitude of confounding factors, are too complex to apply as a standard 7 Santa Cruz City Council Meeting Minutes, July 28, 1987. - 14 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: comparison between localities. Response: CPVAW AGREES.
F12:
Santa Cruz City Police officials stated at the April 25, 2006, Santa Cruz City Council meeting that “the higher number of reported rapes may be due to more victims reporting such crimes and a new electronic reporting system started in 1999 that better captures crime statistics.”8 The SCPD officials did not have evidence supporting the reason for the increase. Response: The City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department implemented a new electronic reporting system, as stated at the April 25, 2006 Santa Cruz City Council meeting. It is statistically improbable that the increase in reported rapes, that coincided with the implementation of the new electronic system, is not at least partially attributable to the improved data collection system. Response: CPVAW AGREES that SCPD stated this but CPVAW DISAGREES with SCPD conclusions. The data analysis compared similar cities (tourist; beach; university). There is no reasonable basis for the conclusion that women in Santa Cruz are more inclined to report rape (as distinct from not inclined to report rape) than their counterparts in Berkeley for example. One would expect that the #’s of reported rapes and attempted rapes sent to the Federal government by SCPD, would be accurate and checked before sending, whether the crimes were recorded electronically or by hand. Only two sexual assault categories (rape and attempted rape) are sent to the Federal Uniform Crime Report.
F13:
One of the reasons the Santa Cruz City Council cited for denying the establishment of the Rape and Sexual Assault Task Force is that it has no jurisdiction to compel some of the potential members of the proposed task force, such as the Santa Cruz City Schools Superintendent, to participate in this project. Response: The City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Response: CPVAW: CPVAW AGREES that City Council took this action but DISAGREES that lack of ability to compel serving would make such a body inviable. The Commission felt that, 8 Santa Cruz Sentinel, “City works to increase rape awareness,” April 26, 2006. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 15 with a formal invitation from the Mayor and Council, potential members would be honored to serve on the first-ever blue-ribbon task force on rape. DVC Findings 14. The DVC held a retreat in February 2006 to establish goals and revitalize the commission. Goals agreed upon at this retreat included: improving and reorganizing commission structure; evaluating and improving the annual report to the community, emphasizing the effectiveness of Batterers’ Intervention Programs; and providing the community with education about domestic violence. According to the Executive Summary of the DVC Retreat Preparation Questionnaire Report, “The members’ issues and concerns in 2006 are strikingly similar to the ones reported in 2002.”9 15. The goals of the DVC and its subcommittees vary from year-to-year depending on the interests of the chair and the membership. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County notes that Section 2.118.050 of the County Code lists the following powers and duties of the commission: The domestic violence commission shall exercise the following responsibilities in its efforts to decrease incidents of family violence: A. Help increase coordination between agencies, departments and the courts, and with victims of domestic violence and abuse; B. Promote effective and accessible education, prevention, intervention and treatment techniques which will be developed based upon research and data collection; and C. Seek to improve the response to domestic violence and abuse so as to reduce incidents of domestic violence; and D. Examine issues relating to domestic violence and made recommendations in regard to administrative and legislative action to be taken by the board of supervisors; E. Establish a committee from among its membership, with the addition of a representative of the office of the Santa Cruz County counsel, as specified by Penal Code Section 853.6(a), to develop protocols for use by law enforcement officers and recommend the adoption of said protocols to the board of supervisors. (Ord. 4329 § 1 (part), 1994) 9 Archer, Kay Bowden, “Santa Cruz County Domestic Violence Commission, 2006 Retreat Preparation Questionnaire Report,” February 2006. - 16 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: Response: The Domestic Violence Commission AGREES. The goals of the Commission vary depending upon what matters of concern or interest are brought to the attention of the Commission by members of the public, and by the Commission members themselves. Public comment is welcomed at each meeting. Actual membership is to be representative of all constituent groups, that is, advocacy agencies, law enforcement agencies, the District Attorney’s office, Health and Human Services, the Courts, health care, Probation, county Department of Education, and batterer intervention programs.
F14:
Because the DVC has no budget for publishing its annual report, valuable volunteer time is lost by having to solicit funds.
F15:
The DVC’s mandated responsibilities are not routinely addressed. DVC meetings with the required quorum are not frequent enough to conduct the work of the commission. Comparison of concerns stated at the two DVC Retreats (2002 and 2006) shows that these issues have not been adequately addressed. Evaluating Batterers’ Intervention Programs has been a DVC goal for several years.
F16:
The DVC produces an annual report for the Board of Supervisors that highlights activities, accomplishments, and future goals. The 2003-2004 report was not approved as of October 12, 2005 due to lack of quorum in meetings.
F17:
The annual report by the DVC to the Board of Supervisors is not on the DVC web site. DVC operating subcommittees are not identified on the web site, and their reports, if they exist, are not included in DVC minutes. The DVC web site does not include a full set of DVC agendas and minutes. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F18:
The Domestic Violence Commission Annual Report to the Community includes information and statistics on advocacy groups, rate of child witness to domestic violence, law enforcement, District Attorney filings, and court protective orders. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The “Report to the Community” provides statistics and analysis of information compiled from advocacy groups, the District Attorney’s Victim Witness program, law enforcement agencies, the District Attorney, the Civil Division of the Courts, the Human Resources Agency, Child Protective Services Division (child witness of domestic violence), the Probation Department and domestic violence intervention agencies (batterers programs). In 2007, the Commission hopes to obtain information from Courts Criminal Division. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission PARTIALLY AGREES. The “Report to the Community” provides statistics and analysis of information compiled from advocacy groups, the DA Victim Witness program, law enforcement agencies, District Attorney, the Courts – Civil Division, the Human Resources Agency, Child Protective Services Division (child witness of domestic violence), the Probation Department and domestic violence intervention agencies (batterers programs). In 2007, the Commission hopes to obtain information from Courts – Criminal Division. The Commission will also be exploring using this information in a different format. We discuss this further below. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 17 In addition, the Report to the Community has sought to analyze the information and outcomes gathered from all sources, with the goal of using this information to decrease domestic violence in Santa Cruz County.
F19:
The DVC web site and annual report to the community are not translated into Spanish. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission AGREES.
F20:
The DVC has no budget. Staff has been provided by the organization to which the chair belongs. Printing of the annual reports has been paid for by a variety of sources: the Sheriff’s Department, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Community Foundation. The DVC is seeking donations to print the 2004-2005 report to be released in Spring or Summer 2006. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The operations of all County commissions are funded through departmental budgets. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission AGREES. The DVC has no budget. For the first time ever, the Board allocated $1,500 to the District Attorney’s Office budget during its 2006/2007 budget hearing specifically this year for the Report to the Community 2006. While not a “budget”, this allocation to cover printing costs for our Report to the Community is now permanent and ongoing. Additionally, and while this is also not a “budget”, per County Ordinance, the District Attorney’s Office, at their cost in overtime, shall provide staff support and clerical services to the Commission (Ord. 4329 § 1(part), 1994). Member organizations make donations through their member-staff, usually of supplies or services. Printing the Report to the Community 2003-2005 has historically been funded through a variety of funding sources.
F21:
Grand Jury members have observed that agendas are not followed and reports from subcommittees were not made at DVC meetings, and action items were not tracked from meeting to meeting. The meetings also lack member attendance and participation. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The Commission observed the agendas for each meeting, deferring action items to the next agenda whenever there was not a quorum. - 18 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: In 2001, ten of ten meetings had quorums; in 2002, eight of ten meetings had quorums; in 2003, five of seven meetings had quorums; and in 2005, four of seven meetings had quorums. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Agendas for the Commission meetings are observed during each meeting, and followed item by item. On occasion the Chair has made adjustments to the agenda in order to facilitate the meeting. Minutes are generated at and after each meeting. For those meetings where there was not quorum, agenda items requiring action were deferred until the next meeting. In 2001, ten of ten meetings had quorums, in 2002, eight of ten meetings had quorums, in 2003, five of seven meetings had quorums, in 2004, five of seven meetings had quorums and in 2005, 4 of seven meetings had quorums. The lack of member attendance and participation is a continueing problem, as well as the number of vacancies. The DVC further understands this finding as a statement about how easy or difficult it is to follow our proceedings, and will seek to make each meeting’s progress more clear.
F22:
DVC meeting requirements are set by the bylaws of the DVC that state meetings are to be held monthly. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. County Code 2.38.130 requires all commissions to hold regular meetings, the time and place for which are to be determined by a majority of members, as specified in the bylaws and approved by the Board of Supervisors. The current bylaws of the Commission state that “Regular meetings of the commission should be held quarterly.” Currently, the Commission meets more frequently than quarterly. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission PARTIALLY AGREES. The Board of Supervisors by County Ordinance establishes DVC meeting requirements. The bylaws restate the requirements established by County Ordinance. The DVC may propose changes to the meeting requirements in the County Ordinance as well as their bylaws to the Board of Supervisors for their review and approval. The most current bylaws approved for the DVC state “Regular meetings of the Commission should be held quarterly.” At the present time, we hold meetings more frequently than quarterly.
F23:
On February 11, 2004, the DVC approved a motion to hold six and not twelve meetings per year. Three were to be held in Watsonville. Some commissioners Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 19 expressed concern that the reduction would impact the work of the commission.10 Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES but notes that the footnote is incorrect. The concerns noted in the footnote are reflected in the February meeting minutes rather than in the October minutes. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission AGREES. On February 11, 2004, the DVC approved a motion to meet six times per year with three of the meetings to be held in Watsonville. The awards night banquet was to be held in addition to the six meetings. It is our goal to conduct the actual work of the Commission in subcommittees and task forces, not in the regular meeting times. The regular meeting times are for such small groups to make reports, and for major actions to be voted upon. We decided to hold fewer than 12 meetings per year, but more than 4, so that this goal could be met. The footnote to this Finding is incorrect, as the Minutes to October 12, 2005 do not reflect this discussion, but the February meeting minutes do.
F24:
The DVC minutes of March 9, 2005, state, “a quorum consists of one person more than one-half of the appointed members (i.e., fourteen members). An absence policy states that if a member is absent from three consecutive regular meetings without good cause, he or she could be removed from the commission. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. On March 9, 2005, the DVC minutes in agenda item 7A state that “a quorum consists of one person more than one-half of the appointed members (i.e. fourteen members)”. This statement is a reiteration of the Commission’s bylaws and the County Ordinance 2.118 that established the Commission. When all of the DVC’s seats are filled, the DVC’s quorum is 14. However, number of vacant seats has ranged from 1 to 5 vacancies, so the number of members present to establish a quorum has varied from 12 to 14. The Domestic Violence Commission Bylaws filed on 6/20/95 states, “Any Commission or Committee member may be removed from office by a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors favoring such removal. The absence of any member from three consecutive regular meetings without good cause shall require the question of removal of that member to be placed on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled meeting. Written notice of this agenda item shall be given by the Executive Officer to 10 Santa Cruz County Domestic Violence Commission, Minutes, October 12, 2005. - 20 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: the member and the organization of government or government office the member represents. Removal of a Commission member shall be by a majority vote of eligible voting Commission members.” Response: The Domestic Violence Commission AGREES with the following clarification: When all of the DVC’s seats are filled, the DVC’s quorum is 14. The Commission has not had a full appointment of Commissioners for quite some time. Until recently, the Commission has had as many as 8 vacancies, making the quorum 12 or 13, not 14. The quorum depends upon the number of actual appointed Commissioners. In March of 2005, we had five vacancies, with two additional resignations pending. There was also some discussion about the number of Commission seats available, as Women’s Crisis Support and Defensa de Mujeres had held separate seats, and then the agency merged.
F25:
DVC meetings in which a quorum was present are represented below: YEAR QUORUM NUMBER OF MEETINGS 2001 10 10 200211 10 8 200312 10 7 2004 7 4 2005 7 5 Table 1: Domestic Violence Commission Quorum Meeting Record. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. According to the County’s records, the Commission met 7 times in 2003, and a quorum was present at 5 meetings in 2003 and 2004. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission PARTIALLY AGREES. The Domestic Violence Commission partially agrees with this finding. Attendance and participation are a continuing issue. It is hoped that new energy and 11 Two sets of minutes missing in 2002. One set of minutes missing in 2003. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 21 membership will occur naturally in April of 2007 when some portion of the members’ terms expire, and that the now-vacant seats will be filled. Below summarizes the number of meetings and the number of meetings in which there was a quorum. This information was obtained from a review of the 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 Annual Report to the Board of Supervisors and agendas and minutes of DVC meetings. Year Number of Meetings Quorums 2001 10 10 2002 10 8 2003 7 5 2004 7 5 2005 7 4 26. The DVC chair and vice chair are elected to one-year terms beginning in April. However, there has been no scheduled meeting in April for the past three years. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission AGREES.
F26:
CPVAW is to be commended for providing information on domestic violence in Spanish. Response: The City of Santa Cruz: Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 25 The recommendation has been implemented. Response: CPVAW: The Grand Jury’s recommendation has been implemented. Thank you. CPVAW also has produced a Spanish version of resource card for the Safe Place Network and has an on-going commitment to provide materials in Spanish.
F27:
For the past three years, the DVC has had no latino or gay/lesbian/transgender representatives. Three vacancies on the DVC have been open since January 2005. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission AGREES. Considerable time, efforts and energy on the part of the Commission members have been made to find other persons who could volunteer for the vacant seats. In fact, the Commission has spent many meetings in 2004 and 2005 discussing this problem, as our Minutes reflect.
F28:
In November 2005, the DVC had existing subcommittees composed of a commissioner chair and private citizens who may or may not have been members of the DVC. At its February 2006 retreat, subcommittees were formulated consisting solely of commission members. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. - 22 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: The Domestic Violence Commission has an Executive Committee composed of the Chair, Vice Chair and two or three other Commissioners. No committee is limited to only member participants. At the commission’s February 2006 retreat, subcommittees were formed consisting of both members and non-member participants. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission PARTIALLY AGREES. The Domestic Violence Commission has an Executive Committee composed of the Chair, Vice Chair and two or three other Commissioners. No Committee is limited to only Member participants. At our February 2006 retreat, subcommittees were formed and consisted of Members and non-member participants.
F29:
Subcommittees reported on their activities at DVC meetings from 2001 until 2004. The minutes of 2004 and 2005 do not reflect subcommittee action. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission AGREES. CPVAW Conclusions 1. According to its bylaws, CPVAW’s stated focus is on both sexual assault and domestic violence; however, current focus seems to be primarily on sexual assault.
F31:
The DVC should establish clear and focused goals and strategies at the beginning of each year and submit them to the Board of Supervisors annually. These goals and objectives should be published on the DVC web site. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County understands that the commission is taking steps to implement this recommendation. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC is presently implementing this recommendation. At the beginning of 2006, the Commission established goals for the year, and created subcommittees with specific time lines for meeting those goals. The Executive Committee plans to conduct a retreat on an annual basis, to continually re-establish new goals and objectives that will conform to the changing realities of the community. While the Commission acknowledges that, as the processes of the 2006 retreat are developed, and that the goals and timelines may change, we are committed to continuing with our Retreat goals. The Executive Committee is also planning on publishing its Annual Report to the Board online, and Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 27 is implementing this at this time. Our new website, with updated information, will be ready by the end of 2006.
F32:
The Board of Supervisors should hold established commissions responsible for achieving goals and objectives and for following their bylaws. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation has been implemented. All commissions are responsible for achieving goals and objectives and for following their bylaws.
F33:
The DVC should post the annual report to the Board of Supervisors on the county web site along with goals, agendas, and minutes. The DVC should base its annual report to the Board of Supervisors on the achievement of previously stated goals. The web site should be updated with these items in a timely manner. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented. The commission plans to submit the 2005 Annual Report to the Board of Supervisors in September 2006 and the 2006 annual Report in February 2007. The Annual Reports will be placed on the commission’s web page. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC is presently implementing this goal. It is anticipated that The 2005 Annual Report to the Board of Supervisors will be submitted to the Board in September 2006 and The 2006 Annual Report to the Board of Supervisors will be submitted in February 2007. The web site will be updated as of 9/1/06. The web site includes: • Agendas & Minutes of the Commission from 2001 to the present. • Agendas & Minutes of some committees from 2001 to the present. • The Annual Reports to the Board of Supervisors from 2000 to 2004. • The Report to the Community from 2003 to 2005. • Information about the Commission: • Overview • Mission Statement • Contacts • Vacancies • Position Statements • List of Committees o Charter o Membership o Meeting dates, times and places - 28 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: • Ordinance establishing the Commission • Bylaws • Brown Act information • Open Meeting Act information • Protocols • Domestic Violence Awareness Month Activities • Links 34. The DVC should continue to publish the annual Domestic Violence Commission Report to the Community. The 2005-2006 Grand Jury Final Report is a beginning step in evaluating batterers’ intervention programs. The DVC can build on this research to evaluate batterer accountability throughout the legal system. In addition, the report should identify cities making felony and misdemeanor arrests as does the 2003 report rather than just giving totals for the county. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented. The DVC is in the process of an in-depth evaluation of the efficacy of batterer’s intervention programs. The Commission hopes to complete its evaluation by April 2007. In the “Report to the Community 2006”, DVC will identify the cities making felony and misdemeanor arrests as in the 2003 report. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: This recommendation requires further analysis. Implementation at this time has the following limitations. The Commission is a volunteer organization, composed of an unwieldy number of individuals already burdened with important anti-violence work. The DVC has had many difficulties over the past 18 months in achieving full attendance and participation. To date, DVC members have engaged in tremendous collaborative efforts to publish this report, without any regular, ongoing financial support. The Annual Report, while a worthy report, is an enormous undertaking for our volunteers working in a volunteer capacity. Considering the funding difficulties, not limited to only the publishing of the report, but creating and editing questionnaires, gathering and organizing the data, requesting or composing summaries of the information, and putting it into a printable format, the DVC must consider other methods of getting the message out to the community. The CAP report, an ongoing, well-funded and widely distributed project of the Community Foundation, is a well-written, thorough report addressing crime, violence, sexual assault, and domestic violence in our county. For several years running, the CAP report has requested the assistance of one or more members of the DVC to assist in reviewing and analyzing data. Last year the public defender, Larry Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 29 Biggam, and this year the Chair, Heidi Simonson, were called upon to assess the public safety findings. Our Community Efficacy Task Force will make use of the Grand Jury’s report in its work evaluating Batterer’s Treatment programs over the next year.
F35:
The Board of Supervisors should guarantee funding for the annual DVC report to the community. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation has been implemented for 2006-07. Funds were included in the District Attorney’s budget to pay for the printing of the “Report to the Community 2006.” 36. Domestic violence advisory groups should make sure their literature is in both Spanish and English. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation requires further analysis on the part of the DVC. At present, the commission does not have or is unaware of available resources to translate the website and public postings into Spanish. Additionally, while the DVC looked into translating the “Report to the Community”, funds were not available to do so. The DVC does commit to continue to seek resources for this important recommendation. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC would like to implement this recommendation, but has no funding to do so. This recommendation cannot be implemented without such funding. The DVC will continue to ask for member organizations or the Board of Supervisors for resources to implement this important recommendation.
F37:
Individual members of the DVC should insist on compliance with bylaws concerning monthly meetings and attendance. With established goals and productivity as the highest concern, bylaws could be amended if necessary. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County supports this recommendation and requires all commission members to comply with the commission’s bylaws. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC will not be implementing the first part of this recommendation for the following reasons. - 30 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: Our present Bylaws require quarterly meetings. Nevertheless, we are presently meeting more frequently, as indicated above. In June, the DVC appointed a small task force to review and revise the Bylaws, and present them to the Commission as a whole for review and comment. The DVC intends to present amended Bylaws to the Board for their review before the end of 2006. Our group of volunteer members is large. Our attendance is low, and many members have been reappointed numerous times. There have been as many as 8 vacancies in the past two years, presently there are three. Removing members for lack of attendance we consider a poor method of encouraging participation, but we have implemented it once this year.
F38:
The DVC should consider changing its bylaws to shorten and stagger terms of office to infuse the DVC with fresh ideas and energy. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County supports this recommendation and defers to the commission to implement it. The commission has appointed a task force to propose amendments, and one of their proposals is to shorten terms to three years in length, and to add a provision that no member shall be eligible to serve for more than two terms. The commission anticipates submitting recommended changes to the Board for review and approval by the end of 2006. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC is implementing this recommendation. We are in the process of reviewing our Bylaws, a process started earlier this year. Shortening and staggering the terms of office will be considered as a portion of the entire bylaw review process. The DVC wholly agrees that fresh ideas and energy are needed. As indicated above, we have appointed a task force to propose amendments, and one of their proposals is to shorten terms to three years in length, and to add a provision that no member shall be eligible to serve for more than two terms. We anticipate presenting the proposed Bylaws to the Commission, and thereafter the Board by the end of 2006. After the amended bylaws are approved by the DVC, they must be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for their review and approval. We would appreciate from the Board any and all efforts to fill vacancies.
F39:
The DVC should consider re-establishing an executive committee and identifying these members on the DVC web site. It should also consider increasing the number of Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 31 officers to share responsibilities. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation has been implemented. The DVC has an Executive Committee, which was re-elected in June of 2006 and consists of the Chair, Vice-Chair and two to three at-large commissioners. The DVC has already drafted a revised website for the DVC which includes reference to all current committees, including the Executive Committee, and each committee’s members. The DVC anticipates the new website with this information will be available within 30 days, after review by the Commission as a whole. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: This recommendation has already been implemented. The DVC already has an Executive Committee, which was re-elected in June of 2006. The Executive Committee is composed of the Chair, Vice-Chair and two to three at- large commissioners. The DVC has already drafted a revised website for the DVC which includes reference to all current committees, including the Executive Committee, and each committee’s members. The DVC anticipates the new website with this information will be available within 30-60 days, after review by the Commission as a whole.
F40:
The DVC should fill its vacancies and remedy the attendance problem. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The DVC is implementing this recommendation. Members of the commission are appointed by the Board of Supervisors from applicants. Each member of the commission has actively sought volunteers willing to apply to the Board for membership, especially for the at-large seats, without success. The County’s website provides information on applying for vacant Commission spots and the DVC’s new website will post the vacancies available. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC cannot implement this recommendation. Membership is controlled by the Board of Supervisors. The DVC may recommend persons to the Board for its vacancies, but it is the Board’s duty to fill our vacancies. Review of our Minutes will reflect how much each member has actively sought volunteers willing to apply to the Board for membership for (in particular) the at-large seats, without success. Our meeting Minutes from the end of 2004 and January 2005 forward reflect the Commission’s discussions of and attempts to remedy this problem. - 32 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: The DVC’s new website will also post the vacancies available. The County’s website also provides information on applying for vacant Commission spots. The DVC is committed to regular retreats in order to focus and galvanize the present membership, and remedy the attendance problem. The DVC has also recently removed a non-attending member, and notified the Board of the vacancy.
F41:
The DVC should consider amending its bylaws to increase the chair’s term of office. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented. The DVC will review the length of the term of office of the Chair as a part of its overall review of the bylaws as stated in the response to recommendation 16. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC is implementing this recommendation. The DVC will review the length of the term of office of the Chair as a part of its overall review of the bylaws as stated in the response to recommendation 16.
F42:
The DVC should develop an orientation process for new members. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation requires additional analysis. The DVC will place this recommendation on its agenda before the end of 2006, and request the formation of a short term task force to develop an orientation process. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC will implement this recommendation. Implementation will require further time to develop either a simplified mentoring program or a new-member notebook with orienting materials. The DVC will place this recommendation on its agenda before the end of 2006, and request the formation of a task force for a short term, to develop an orientation.
F43:
The DVC should require each member to give an annual presentation on the organization he or she represents to update the commission as a whole. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation requires additional analysis. The County defers to commission members to determine whether such presentations would be a valuable use of the commission’s time. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 33 The DVC will implement this recommendation with some amendments. The Commission changed the format of our meetings in 2005, eliminating member presentations. At that time, members requested shortened meetings, as our attendance declined. The previous presentations ceased approximately one year ago, and currently consist only of introductions and communications from Commissioners. At this time, this recommendation can be implemented by November 2006, although our intent is to request two members per meeting provide “guided” reports on their organizations goals or direction as it relates to domestic violence.
F44:
Individual members of the DVC should take full advantage of networking opportunities to collaborate, problem solve, and determine whether unaddressed needs of survivors exist. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County supports this recommendation and encourages commission members to implement it. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC has already implemented this recommendation, by including an agenda item at the beginning of each meeting to provide time for this to occur. The Executive Committee approved earlier this year adding “networking time” to the beginning of the meeting. The Chair actively supports this at our meetings. Each member has been provided these recommendations, and hard copies will be made available at our next meeting.
F45:
The DVC should include information about its subcommittees on the county web site. It should also include progress reports on projects. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: This recommendation is currently being implemented. The DVC, without a budget, relies upon the CAO’s office for technical assistance in producing, editing and posting our website. The CAO’s office has recently completely revamped our website, and the DVC will be reviewing it within approximately 30 days.
F46:
DVC volunteers are to be commended for increasing awareness of domestic violence in Santa Cruz County. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: - 34 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: The County concurs with the Grand Jury’s appreciation of commission members. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC has implemented this recommendation, and further appreciates the commendation! We appreciate the work of the Grand Jury’s Health and Human Services Committee and their investigation, findings and recommendations. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 35 Responses required Entities Findings Recommendations Respond Within Santa Cruz County 17 - 18, 23 - 10 - 13 60 Days Board of 26 (September 1, 2006) Supervisors Santa Cruz City 4, 7, 11 - 13 1 - 5 60 Days Council (September 1, 2006) Santa Cruz County 15, 18 - 30 8 - 9, 11 - 12, 14 - 24 90 Days Domestic Violence (October 1, 2006) Commission Santa Cruz City 4, 7, 11 - 13 1 - 5 90 Days Commission for the (October 1, 2006) Prevention of Violence Against Women District Attorney’s 10 6 60 Days Office (September 1, 2006) - 36 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: This page intentionally left blank. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 37 Shallow Pockets, Deep Needs: Funding An appropriate quote from the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County’s recent 2005 Nonprofit Landscape Study offers a reflective thought in regard to funding of service providers, in general, and for the purposes of this report, to domestic violence service providers. “Providing nonprofits with the technical, financial and volunteer support necessary to help them thrive is ultimately in the best interest of all Santa Cruz County residents.”13 Background Organizations providing services related to domestic violence are funded through federal, state, and local grants, private donors, and charitable distributions. Of all the service providing agencies related to domestic violence that were reviewed by the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury, most were among the nonprofit sector, two were for profit, and one was self-sustaining with little or no funds. The Santa Cruz County Human Resource Agency (HRA) subcontracts with at least sixty Health and Human Services nonprofits to provide a wide range of social services within the county. The Health Services Agency (HSA) funds health-related nonprofits that provide drug and alcohol abuse programs. Funding for these agencies comes from county, federal, and state funding sources. Additional monies from a fee on marriage licenses and from the Probation Department are allocated to domestic violence-related programs in the county. At present, no single-source document identifies the total funding of nonprofits in the county by service provider, the granting agency that allocates funds to their organization, and the mix of public and private monies from various sources. Contracts with nonprofits totaled over six million dollars in fiscal year 2004-2005.14 Because there is no single-source document, the Grand Jury was unable to determine the percentage of funds specifically allocated to domestic violence service providers. Decisions to allocate county funds are made by the Board of Supervisors and are based on recommendations of budget analysts, department directors, and oversight boards. In this time of budget constraints, legitimate concerns are raised regarding the cost of duplicated services and administrative costs. The recent administrative consolidation (1999) and subsequent merger (2005) of Defensa de Mujeres and Women’s Crisis Support provides an example of potential budget efficiency (economy of scale). “In contrast to other California counties that have experienced a slow down in nonprofit growth, [the number of] Santa Cruz County nonprofits have continued to grow by forty- 13The Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, 2005 Santa Cruz County Nonprofit Landscape Study. 14The Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, 2005 Santa Cruz County Nonprofit Landscape Study. - 38 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: five percent in the last fifteen years; fifteen percent in the last five years.”15 Consequently, those making funding allocation decisions must consider many more organizations than previously. The nonprofit funding environment is limited and competitive in Santa Cruz County. Currently, only two local charitable organizations, the United Way and the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, fund the growth or creative projects, such as a pilot project or new materials, of domestic violence service providers beyond their established funding base. Contributions from local charities and individual contributions represent a minimal percentage of an organization’s total operating budget. Consequently, reliance on federal, state, and local funding sources becomes central to maintaining a core operational budget.16 With salaries often higher for comparable positions in nearby larger cities, many organizations rely on the passion and compassion of individuals dedicated to a particular cause. Based on a recent study of nonprofits in Santa Cruz County by the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, “one-third of nonprofits operate with an annual budget of less than $50,000; half with two or fewer staff members, and nearly one-third rely on an all volunteer workforce.”17 Establishing a diverse funding base through fund raising, grant writing, and development of marketing and solicitation materials requires staff, time, energy, and specific skill sets. The Grand Jury has deduced that young organizations with less staff, visibility, and minimal strategic short- and long-term goals often flounder and struggle for years before becoming established or disappearing altogether. One such organization, offering a unique service, ceased operation within the past year. The majority of organizations reviewed in this report relies heavily on volunteers within the community to support and implement organizational goals. Core funding of nonprofit organizations related to domestic violence is established through federal and state grants, service contracts with local government, and private donations. Additional monies could be obtained from two local charitable, funding organizations, the United Way of Santa Cruz County and the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County. An assessment of these sources follows. United Way Findings 47. The Executive Director of United Way has held the position for fourteen years. The organizational structure includes a board of trustees and decision-making committees. A mission statement exists and a recently adopted Fund Distribution Plan document details the process for funding. 15The Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, 2005 Santa Cruz County Nonprofit Landscape Study. 16The Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, 2005 Santa Cruz County Nonprofit Landscape Study. 17The Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, 2005 Santa Cruz County Nonprofit Landscape Study. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 39 48. United Way has sixteen staff members, half of whom are First Five employees. United Way also staffs the Children’s Network.
F49:
United Way raises approximately $1.3 million per year through local agencies, employers, businesses, and corporate and private donors.
F50:
Consideration for initial funding by United Way must meet criteria in one of five funding areas: Youth, Disabled, Homeless Families, Healthy Families, and Elders.
F51:
In addition to the established funding areas, three United Way initiatives currently underway are: Go for Health, Together for Youth, and Success by Six.
F52:
An extensive application for funding by United Way must be submitted. The application process is coordinated by the Human Resource Agency and can be shared with and utilized by other city and county funding sources.
F53:
The United Way currently funds thirty-three organizations, each for a three-year cycle.
F54:
The Walnut Avenue Women’s Center Support Groups have been funded by United Way for the past three years.
F55:
A designated United Way committee determines if funding for an agency will be renewed for an additional three-year cycle. Response: United Way AGREES.
F56:
Individual donors can designate monies to the United Way general fund, to one of the thirty-three agencies selected for funding, or to any other agency in the community.
F57:
A scheduled one-hour, on-site evaluation of United Way-funded agencies occurs each year by an evaluation team. The evaluation team consists of one United Way employee and three or four volunteer community members who have received a two- hour training. The evaluation form used by the team is thorough in scope. Some volunteer evaluators have served for many years. Response: United Way AGREES.
F58:
United Way plays a directive and contributory role in the development and annual distribution of the Community Assessment Project (CAP). The CAP has been produced for eleven years and provides access to trended data related to many social issues of concern to various members of the community. Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County Findings 59. The Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County was established in 1982. The current Executive Director has been in the position for ten years. An eighteen- member volunteer board of directors actively guides a staff of 9.3 employees all of whom have nonprofit experience. - 40 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: 60. The Community Foundation recently participated in a study of time/cost analysis to streamline its operations and guide strategic planning.
F61:
Web site and marketing materials for Community Foundation are current and thorough.
F62:
The Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County funds nonprofit organizations or agencies designated by donors.
F63:
The range of total funds distributed annually by Community Foundation is $500,000 - $4,000,000 depending on monies earned, raised, or received that year.
F64:
Annual distributions by Community Foundation for all selected competitive grants range from $500,000 - $770,000.
F65:
Funding sources for the Community Foundation include investments, donors, partnerships, and fundraising.
F66:
The Community Foundation maintains seven fields of interest in which to receive and disburse monies: Arts and Humanities, Community Development, Education, Environment, Health, Historic Preservation, and Human Services.
F67:
Funds are disbursed by Community Foundation to local nonprofits based on grant application or donor-advised funds.
F68:
Community Foundation funding for 2003 to domestic violence-related service providers included Walnut Avenue Women’s Center, Women’s Crisis Support- Defensa de Mujeres, and Familia Center.
F69:
Community Foundation funding for 2004 and 2005 to domestic violence-related service providers included Walnut Avenue Women’s Center, Defensa de Mujeres, and Women’s Crisis Support.
F70:
There is an annual competitive application process for Community Foundation grant funds.
F71:
After receiving grant funds from the Community Foundation, an agency must wait for three years before submitting another grant application. However, some agencies receive annual distributions from donor-advised funds.
F72:
Community Foundation staff evaluate the expenditure of distributed funds through site visits and mid-term and final reports. On occasion, site visits are made prior to funding.
F73:
Other programs and services of benefit to the community offered through the Community Foundation include: • management training workshops; • grant application workshops; • a CD-ROM data base of other funding foundations; • a board match program to assist nonprofits in finding board members; • estate planning; and Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 41 • a list of nonprofits and their purposes to assist donors in making their contribution decision.
F74:
The Community Foundation underwrote a study of local nonprofits in 1999 and 2005 to assess the local nonprofit landscape.
F75:
There is no single-source document that identifies the budgets of domestic violence- related agencies in Santa Cruz County. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R94:
The DVC should collect budgetary information on direct service providers and Batterers’ Intervention Programs to get an overall picture of funding. Response: Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC will not be implementing this recommendation. The Commission has no funding or staff to do so. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation requires further analysis. The County defers to the commission to determine whether this action would assist the commission in meeting its responsibilities. - 44 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: Responses requested, but not required Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within United Way 9, 11, 30 1, 3, 4, 6 90 Days (October 1, 2006) Community 20, 24, 30 2, 5, 6 90 days Foundation of (October 1, 2006) Santa Cruz County
F76:
Representatives of the United Way and Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County expressed concern regarding the duplication of services within the county and subsequent duplicated administrative costs. Response: United Way PARTIALLY AGREES. Because most community based health and human services have long waiting lists for client services we are not concerned about duplication of services within the county. We do think however that some economies of scale could be achieved if several small non-profit agencies merged to share administrative services and costs. Conclusions 77. Leadership in both organizations is stable.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R93:
Representatives from both organizations should be active participants in future county-wide discussions on the collaborative efforts of nonprofits and the impact of duplicated services and costs. Response: United Way AGREES. We look forward to participating in county-wide discussions to reduce costs and improve health and human services in Santa Cruz County.
F77:
Leadership in both organizations is stable.
F78:
Both organizations are well entrenched within the community, are efficiently run, and provide valuable services to the community.
F79:
Both organizations maintain a degree of transparency with information readily available through current web site access, printed materials, and media exposure.
F80:
Many grass roots service agencies in the county rely on yearly funding from United Way. However, it is difficult for a new organization to become one of the thirty-three organizations selected for annual funding.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R91:
The United Way should consider a small funding category for new or young organizations that provide unique services. Response: United Way AGREES. The Agency Relations Committee of the Board of Trustees will consider action on this recommendation. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 43
F81:
Since funding by United Way is for a three-year cycle, it is important that evaluations yield accurate information. Scheduled one-hour site evaluations may not provide an accurate assessment.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R90:
The United Way should consider periodic, spontaneous, rather than scheduled, evaluative site visits. Response: United Way AGREES. The Agency Relations Committee of the Board of Trustees will consider action on this recommendation.
F82:
The Community Foundation provides an important source of financial assistance to local, stable, 501(c) 3 nonprofits seeking funds for specific projects. It is difficult for young organizations or established non-501 (c) 3 agencies that have no funding source, such as Battered Women’s Task Force, to receive small grant consideration.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R91:
The United Way should consider a small funding category for new or young organizations that provide unique services. Response: United Way AGREES. The Agency Relations Committee of the Board of Trustees will consider action on this recommendation. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 43
F83:
The United Way produces the annual Community Assessment Project (CAP) that provides a broad range of trended and comparative data for the community. In relation to this Grand Jury report, the areas of crime and domestic violence are of import. It is a valuable resource for county organizations and residents. - 42 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County:
F84:
The 2005 Santa Cruz County Nonprofit Landscape study underwritten by the Community Foundation is a valuable point-in-time resource that serves the community.
F85:
The broad variety of programs and projects offered by the Community Foundation reflects its philanthropic goal of outreach to the community.
F86:
An overall picture of domestic violence-related funding in a single-source funding document would be useful to the DVC in meeting its goals.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R94:
The DVC should collect budgetary information on direct service providers and Batterers’ Intervention Programs to get an overall picture of funding. Response: Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC will not be implementing this recommendation. The Commission has no funding or staff to do so. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation requires further analysis. The County defers to the commission to determine whether this action would assist the commission in meeting its responsibilities. - 44 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: Responses requested, but not required Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within United Way 9, 11, 30 1, 3, 4, 6 90 Days (October 1, 2006) Community 20, 24, 30 2, 5, 6 90 days Foundation of (October 1, 2006) Santa Cruz County
F87:
In an environment of continuing countywide budget constraints, and the continuing growth in the numbers of nonprofits, a study of duplicated services and administrative costs by nonprofit agencies within the county has not occurred. Representatives from the United Way and the Community Foundation would be likely leaders to initiate and/or participate in such a study.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R93:
Representatives from both organizations should be active participants in future county-wide discussions on the collaborative efforts of nonprofits and the impact of duplicated services and costs. Response: United Way AGREES. We look forward to participating in county-wide discussions to reduce costs and improve health and human services in Santa Cruz County.
F90:
The United Way should consider periodic, spontaneous, rather than scheduled, evaluative site visits. Response: United Way AGREES. The Agency Relations Committee of the Board of Trustees will consider action on this recommendation.
F91:
The United Way should consider a small funding category for new or young organizations that provide unique services. Response: United Way AGREES. The Agency Relations Committee of the Board of Trustees will consider action on this recommendation. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 43 92. The Community Foundation may want to consider a trial program wherein a selected, young (less than four years old) nonprofit, offering a unique service, or an established, productive but unfunded agency could be assisted financially and managerially for a selected period of time.
F93:
Representatives from both organizations should be active participants in future county-wide discussions on the collaborative efforts of nonprofits and the impact of duplicated services and costs. Response: United Way AGREES. We look forward to participating in county-wide discussions to reduce costs and improve health and human services in Santa Cruz County.
F94:
The DVC should collect budgetary information on direct service providers and Batterers’ Intervention Programs to get an overall picture of funding. Response: Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC will not be implementing this recommendation. The Commission has no funding or staff to do so. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation requires further analysis. The County defers to the commission to determine whether this action would assist the commission in meeting its responsibilities. - 44 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: Responses requested, but not required Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within United Way 9, 11, 30 1, 3, 4, 6 90 Days (October 1, 2006) Community 20, 24, 30 2, 5, 6 90 days Foundation of (October 1, 2006) Santa Cruz County Responses required Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within Domestic Violence 29 7 90 Days Commission of (October 1, 2006) Santa Cruz County Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 45 A Trusted Hand When Needed: Direct Services to Survivors Background Two primary nonprofit organizations, Women’s Crisis Support-Defensa de Mujeres and Walnut Avenue Women’s Center, provide a variety of services and programs that enable female victims to address their life situations and, eventually, to rebuild their lives. A third organization that provides direct services to women is the Battered Women’s Task Force (BWTF). It is housed within the Walnut Avenue Women’s Center. A fourth organization, Familia Center, offers services to low-income families. One additional organization, Family Matters, offered services to male victims, but ceased operation within the past year. Women’s Crisis Support (WCS) was established in 1977 in Santa Cruz. Defensa de Mujeres (DdM) was established in Watsonville in 1990. The two organizations were administratively consolidated in 1999 and officially merged in 2005. Four facilities exist under the umbrella of WCS-DdM: an administrative office in Watsonville, a service provider center in Watsonville, a service provider center in the City of Santa Cruz, and an emergency shelter located within the county. The organization owns the administrative building, the service center in Watsonville, and the shelter. The service center located in the City of Santa Cruz is leased. WCS-DdM has a ten-member board of directors currently working on a five-year strategic plan. Operational bylaws are in existence. The Executive Director has been in the position for nine years. There are approximately thirty-nine staff members, all of whom are bilingual. A newsletter, N.E.W.S. (Networking to Ensure Women’s Safety), is published quarterly. Several other brochures and flyers list pertinent information about the organization and the services provided. All services are available in English and Spanish. Services include: • emergency shelter for women and their children • telephone and in-person individual crisis support • legal assistance with document preparation • individual and group support and counseling • court advocacy • victim advocate with Sexual Assault Response Team • neighborhood outreach • parenting classes • workshops for families • self-defense classes for adult and teen women • state-mandated domestic violence training for employees and volunteers - 46 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: • victim advocate training • community presentations • training for law enforcement agencies healthy families program • children’s and teen’s support groups Approximately 1,700 clients were provided domestic violence-related services in the year 2004-2005. The most frequently used services were: advocacy, peer counseling, crisis intervention, and legal services. Services were utilized by all ethnicities. In 2005, WCS- DdM provided emergency shelter to fifty-six women and sixty-eight children. Length of stay ranged from one to ninety-one days with an average of twenty-four days. Total bed nights provided were 2,972. The Client Satisfaction Survey, conducted by Applied Survey Research in 2002-2003, reflected quite favorably on the organization. Large numbers of volunteers support the organization. The Walnut Avenue Women’s Center (WAWC) is located in the City of Santa Cruz. It was established seventy years ago as part of the YWCA. It later became independent and assumed its present name. The center owns the building in which it is located. The WAWC currently has an eight-member board of directors that meets monthly. The board operates under established bylaws. The Executive Director has been in the position for thirteen years. Seventy-five percent of the WAWC’s thirty-eight employees are bilingual. The WAWC is considered a family resource center and offers a variety of programs including: • childcare centers • a family literacy program • youth programs • a domestic violence program • teen mom program • mentoring program for youth • parenting classes • SAFE Connections for Kids (a supervised child visitation program) WAWC has a satellite presence in Live Oak and at Santa Cruz High School. The center does not have a shelter but collaborates with the WCS-DdM shelter and can provide safe houses for those in need. Nearly fifty percent of clients served in the domestic violence program are Latina. Ninety percent of those in the Literacy Program and sixty percent of those in the childcare program are Latina. There is a large number of volunteers who serve the center. Services are free unless the ability to pay on a sliding scale is established. WAWC served approximately 1,900 clients seeking domestic violence services in 2005. Both WCS-DdM and WAWC receive funding through federal, state, and county funding streams. Federal and state funding sources include the Office of Emergency Services and Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 47 the Department of Health Services – Domestic Violence Division. County funding is administered through the Health Services Agency and the Human Resource Agency. In addition, cities within the county contribute annually to operational budgets. Federal, state, and county funding varies from year-to-year with the political and economic climate. Both organizations receive monies from the United Way and the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County. Funds from other foundations are sought and received. It is common for one organization to have six or more funding sources. Each source must be tracked, and the organization must be available for audits and site visits by the funding agency. The instability of funding necessitates fundraising activities each year. Although time-consuming, grant writing is a common and necessary endeavor to procure funds for on-going programs and special projects. The Battered Women’s Task Force (BWTF) has been in existence for over fifteen years. It is a collective of ten to fifteen facilitators who provide support to battered women through weekly support group meetings. The meetings are conducted at the WAWC. Those attending the groups are referred to as survivors and are assisted through three levels of self-development to process their experiences and strengthen their decision- making for the future. Meetings are confidential and serve to facilitate the healing process. Drop-ins are welcome. Grocery supplies from Second Harvest Food Bank are often distributed at the end of meetings. The BWTF has no consistent funding source but may receive small amounts of money from time-to-time through grants. Monies obtained through grants are used to produce materials for the survivors and to increase public awareness. The BWTF has produced an excellent resource book for participants, however, it is currently available only in English. The Grand Jury developed an open-ended questionnaire in English and Spanish to solicit survivor input. The questionnaires were distributed to facilitators in areas where support groups or shelters were located. The intent was to provide a voice to survivors and to gather information from survivors about problematic areas encountered within the system. Respondents overwhelmingly indicated their appreciation for the centers that offered them services. Respondents from shelters expressed gratitude for having a safe and supportive environment in which to begin healing and to take positive steps. With childcare services offered, the opportunity to attend a support group without the responsibilities of childcare promoted attendance and participation at the service centers. Survivors viewed support groups as a lifeline to continued growth. Legal assistance and court advocacy were reported to strengthen their resolve and facilitate personal progress. Other amenities such as food distribution, social service and health referrals, and clothing distribution were also appreciated. Frustrations included the large number of agencies to be contacted by survivors to access needed assistance. The lack of transportation was reported to hamper the ability to access assistance, seek employment, access health care, and provide for the welfare of children. Personal frustrations centered around living with fear for personal safety, perceived indifferent response by female police officers, the unknown, and the emotional rollercoaster of deciding to start anew. Familia Center is a nonprofit organization that was started in 1983 as a satellite clinic of the Women’s Health Center in the Beach Flats area. After closing for one year, it - 48 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: reopened in 1993 in the City of Santa Cruz as a health services agency education center. The center has a board of directors and is in the process of purchasing its building. Criteria for employment at Familia Center includes the ability to read, write, and speak English. The eight current employees are bilingual. Familia Center’s primary purpose is to provide services to low-income people within the community. Familia Center is part of the Healthy Kids Program through First Five. The center’s day care program serves twenty to twenty-five children each day. Additional drop-ins are also welcome. Court referrals to Familia Center are few and are primarily from Child Protective Services and police agencies. The center offers five, six-week parenting classes each year throughout the county. One of the classes is conducted at WAWC. The parenting classes are free. When appropriate, referrals are made to Defensa de Mujeres for shelter services. Other services provided by Familia Center include: • advocacy and support • assistance with health insurance enrollment • a home visitor program to assist families with referrals • assistance with translation in completing applications and forms • a school readiness program for children ages three to five • food and clothing distribution • educational workshops including computer use for beginners, ESL, diabetes education and nutrition, and vegetarian cooking • youth enrichment programs include the homework club, teen homework lab, fun Friday, and summer fun The average number of clients served on a monthly basis is 285. Unduplicated contacts for the year 2004-2005 were 1,626. Eighty-one percent of all clients are Latino and two- thirds of those receiving services are female. Seventy-three percent of all clients receiving services are monolingual Spanish. Ninety-two percent are considered to be in a very low-income bracket despite a majority being employed. The services most utilized were food and clothing assistance. Familia Center coordinates with a large number of other nonprofit organizations within the county. All materials are in English and Spanish. Funding for Familia Center is from a diverse funding stream that includes federal pass- through monies, state grants, foundation and endowment funds, First Five funds, private donors, and the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County. Client satisfaction surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005 revealed a strong level of trust with staff at the center. Family Matters was started in Scotts Valley in 2001 as a nonprofit organization to provide services related to domestic violence. It ceased operation in December 2005. All five staff members were volunteers. The Executive Officer and the Administrative Assistant were bilingual, but only the Executive Officer could translate in confidential settings. Five brochures, available only in English, addressed specific topics. Services provided by Family Matters included crisis intervention for males and females, assistance with legal documents, court advocacy, referrals, and educational outreach. Funding was through small grants and charitable donations. With the exception of one filing fee, Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 49 services were free. During 2005, focus was on male victims. Although the outreach was unique, law enforcement agencies within the county relate that less than ten percent of domestic violence cases involve the male as victim. It is possible that male victims do not report as readily. Nonetheless, this agency may have remained viable if it had collaborated with other existing agencies to offer services under their name, as does BWTF, or if sufficient funding or assistance for start-up agencies existed within the county. Without paid staff, it is difficult to develop the stability (organizational structure, mission and goal statements, strategic plans, and evaluative measures) required for funding by most organizations. Women’s Crisis Support-Defensa de Mujeres Findings 95. The Women’s Crisis Support and Defensa de Mujeres are one organization.
F96:
WCS-DdM has a board of directors, established bylaws, and an Executive Director who has been in the position for nine years.
F97:
WCS-DdM is transparent in its operations. All materials requested by the Grand Jury were promptly submitted and indicated an efficient level of organization and tracking of data.
F98:
The Women’s Crisis Support service center is located in the City of Santa Cruz and offers individual and group counseling to women who have experienced domestic violence or sexual assault.
F99:
The DdM service center is located in Watsonville and offers individual and group counseling to women who have experienced domestic violence or sexual assault.
F100:
WCS-DdM offers a wide variety of programs in English and Spanish that serve women, teens, and families.
F101:
WCS-DdM provides the sixty-hour, state-mandated training for those planning to work or volunteer in the field of domestic violence. Two training sessions are conducted each year. Approximately thirty-six to forty persons were trained in 2005.
F102:
Over 1,700 women received support through WCS-DdM in the past year. Additional services were provided to families and those in parenting and self-defense classes.
F103:
A fifteen-bed emergency shelter exists within the county and is operated by WCS- DdM. The shelter provided bed space to fifty-six women and sixty-eight children in 2005. Total bed nights was 2,972.
F104:
WCS-DdM trains and is the sole source within the county for Victim Advocates who function as part of the Sexual Assault Response Team. There are over fifty trained Victim Advocates with at least three people on call at all times. All employees of WCS-DdM are advocate trained and can function in the role of Victim Advocate.
F105:
Information regarding WCS-DdM is available to the public through brochures, flyers, a quarterly newsletter, and its web site www.wcs-ddm.org.
F106:
WCS-DdM partners with the Commission for Prevention of Violence Against Women (CPVAW) to offer the Safe Place Network among downtown Santa Cruz businesses. - 50 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: 107. The Executive Director of WCS-DdM holds a commissioner seat on the Domestic Violence Commission, has a moderate attendance record, and actively participates in meetings attended. Walnut Avenue Women’s Center Findings 108. The Walnut Avenue Women’s Center (WAWC) is located in the City of Santa Cruz.
F109:
WAWC has an established board of directors, established bylaws, and an Executive Director who has been in the position for thirteen years.
F110:
WAWC is a family resource center that offers programs for children, families, and women with issues related to domestic violence.
F111:
Seventy-five percent of the employees at WAWC are bilingual.
F112:
WAWC operates three childcare centers. There is a waiting list for childcare. One of the childcare programs is for newborns of teen moms, and another is for toddlers of teen moms.
F113:
WAWC provides for the presence of a victim advocate within the Santa Cruz County Court building to facilitate immediate assistance in completing legal forms and to explain other court processes. Judges are aware of the advocates’ presence and are able to make immediate referrals.
F114:
WAWC partners with the Commission for Prevention of Violence Against Women (CPVAW) to address sexual assault issues in the workplace. CPVAW supplies a video, and WAWC sends an advocate to speak and answer questions on the topic.
F115:
The Executive Director of WAWC holds a commissioner seat on the Domestic Violence Commission and has attended and participated sporadically over the past several years. Response: Walnut Avenue Women’s Center DISAGREES. In most cases both the Executive Director and the Director of Domestic Violence Services attend meetings. If the Executive Director is unable to attend, the Director of Domestic Violence Services serves as her proxy.
F116:
Both WCS-DdM and WAWC have a large number of volunteers. Many volunteers were previously victims of abuse. It is reported that they volunteer to express their belief in, and appreciation for, the support they received.
F117:
Funding for WCS-DdM and WAWC comes from federal, state, county, and city sources. Additional monies are received from foundations, grants, and private donors. Each source requires tracking, audits, and possible site visits. Response: Walnut Avenue Women’s Center AGREES. The center receives funding from multiple sources. Government funds provide a substantial amount of secure funding for the agency. Funding sources have Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 51 expectations that we meet all their guidelines and that we work in partnership to provide quality support and services to women and children. Battered Women’s Task Force Findings 118. The Battered Women’s Task Force (BWTF) has been in existence for over fifteen years and is located within the Walnut Avenue Women’s Center in the City of Santa Cruz.
F119:
The purpose of the BWTF is to provide support to women who have been abused and to facilitate their healing process.
F120:
BWTF has no consistent funding source.
F121:
Survivors in support groups at BWTF, surveyed by the Grand Jury, confirm the importance of being able to attend the group sessions.
F122:
The brochure produced by the BWTF deals thoroughly with the subject of domestic abuse and serves as a resource to participants.
F123:
The BWTF brochure is only available in English.
F124:
The director of the BWTF holds an approved commissioner seat on the DVC and has an excellent record of attendance over the past several years. Survivor Survey Findings 125. Childcare is provided during all support group sessions at WCS-DdM, WAWC, and BWTF.
F126:
Survivors, surveyed by the Grand Jury, express gratitude for the services offered through WCS-DdM, WAWC, and BWTF. Response: Walnut Avenue Women’s Center AGREES. We appreciate the feedback and continue to have confidential ways for women to express their gratitude and concerns. Their input enables us to provide quality services to the community.
F127:
Survivors, surveyed by the Grand Jury, express frustration about negotiating the myriad number of contacts necessary to secure assistance in rebuilding their lives. Some of their frustrations related to perceived indifference shown by female police officers during the initial contact. Response: Walnut Avenue Women’s Center AGREES. There are many obstacles and challenges that survivors face which decrease their ability to keep themselves and their children safe. The Walnut Avenue Women’s Center, WCS-DdM and the BWTF are dedicated to helping women deal with these obstacles, including navigating community support systems. The Walnut Avenue Women’s Center is dedicated to social change and activism, which includes working - 52 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: to change the structure and policies that inhibit women from getting the support they need and deserve. Familia Center Findings 128. Familia Center was established in 1983 and is located in the City of Santa Cruz.
F129:
Familia Center serves low-income families and offers a broad array of programs for children, teens, parents, and adults.
F130:
All staff at Familia Center are bilingual but are not trained in the state-mandated domestic violence curriculum.
F131:
There is no domestic violence screening tool as part of the initial application for services at Familia Center.
F132:
Clients receiving services from Familia Center are predominantly Latino, female, low-income, and monolingual Spanish. The majority of clients is employed.
F133:
Customer service surveys conducted by Familia Center over the past three years consistently indicate a strong level of trust in staff.
F134:
Parenting classes are offered throughout the county by Familia Center and are attended primarily by women. One of the classes is conducted at the WAWC site. Parenting classes include information on domestic violence and alcohol abuse during the last class session. Conclusions 135. Women’s Crisis Support-Defensa de Mujeres is a well established, well organized agency that provides a broad array of domestic violence-related services to the community. The public can readily obtain information about WCS-DdM through their outreach materials.
F158:
The duplicated efforts of WCS-DdM and WAWC in grant and report writing, as well as fundraising, should be assessed. Creative solutions to reduce time and effort expended by the Executive Directors in these activities should be sought. (An example of such efforts might be a shared position for grant writing or fundraising). Response: Walnut Avenue Women’s Center: This recommendation has been implemented. The Walnut Avenue Women’s Center agrees that a great deal of the Executive Director’s time is spent on these activities. WAWC is currently evaluating its infrastructure and making changes so that the Executive Director will spend less time on grant writing and reporting. The Walnut Avenue Women’s Center and WCS-DdM have had the opportunity to collaborate on grants in the past. (an example is a grant that we ashared to provide support and services to the LGBT community.) The Walnut Avenue Women’s Center cannot implement the recommendation that we share a position for grant writer or fundraising with WCS-DdM. We are separate organizations. The Walnut Avenue Women’s Center is a Family Resource Center which provides domestic violence services as well as services for youth, an Even Start program, preschool, food and clothing. WCS-DdM focuses on domestic violence and sexual assault services. Therefore, our scope of work, as well as our approach to providing services, differs. Our duplicated efforts allow women choices about how to best get their needs met.
F160:
The BWTF should seek small grant funding to provide materials in English and Spanish for participants and for public outreach efforts. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 55 161. Representatives from WCS-DdM, WAWC, and BWTF, who serve as commissioners on the Domestic Violence Commission, should attend monthly meetings regularly, serve as proactive members, and ensure compliance of the commission with stated bylaws. Response: Walnut Avenue Women’s Center: This recommendation has been implemented. Both the Executive Director and the Director of Domestic Violence Services attend monthly meetings and retreats of the DVC. The Director of Domestic Violence Services is the chair of the DVC subcommittee to provide community education about domestic violence. She also serves on the subcommittee that is responsible for the annual DVC Report to the Community. She attends monthly planning meetings and provides statistics for the report.
F162:
A system should be developed wherein survivors can express their thoughts and frustrations at strategic points in time within the healing process. The input should be collected by group facilitators, forwarded to a representative DVC commissioner, and discussed at DVC meetings. Response: Walnut Avenue Women’s Center: This recommendation has been implemented. Survivors have a voice at The Walnut Avenue Women’s Center. Battered women serve on our board and are involved in programs from design, implementation, evaluation and redesign. Confidential surveys are available to survivors to give feedback to the agency regarding services. We also conduct periodic evaluations of programs. As representatives of the DVC, we bring this information to be discussed at meetings. We agree that it is important to identify challenges and voids in services so that we can best support our community to overcome the many roadblocks to women’s healing.
F164:
Familia Center should collaborate with WCS-DdM for domestic violence training for its employees so they may readily recognize a need for referral. - 56 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: Response: Familia Center: WCS-DdM and WAWC have provided in-service training to our staff members in the past and we will invite them to conduct similar trainings in the future. It is always a pleasure to work with WCS-DdM and WAWC. Presently Familia Center refers female clients to WCS-DdM when the clients indicate they are being victimized by their partners. It should be noted that WCS-DdM and WAWC conduct outreach services at our site 2 to 4 times a year. They do collect between 12-15 names each time they visit and conduct follow-ups.
F165:
As a trusted agency within the community, Familia Center should incorporate a domestic violence screening tool with its intake application for services in order to recognize and refer clients as early as possible to appropriate agencies. Response: Familia Center: Familia Center, presently uses a brief needs assessment tool for clients who present with long term issues. Among the services we provide are drop-in workshops on a variety of issues for our clients. The topics may include, landlord/tenant rights, workers’ rights, diabetes, accessing food stamps, parenting and domestic violence. We have invited WCS-DdM and WAWC to provide informational workshops on the effects of domestic violence on children and a description of their services to our client base. It is usually after a workshop like this that women are made aware of their options and may decide to take action. It has been our experience that this approach has benefited several families, particularly women with children. It is because we are the trusted agency that we proceed cautiously in this area. Over time a woman will begin to feel that she can trust us enough to risk disclosing her situation to a staff member. At that time she is informed of her options and we assist her in her choices. We know that this approach has worked well for us and our families. It is culturally competent and sensitive and is a best practice in accordance to the principles of family support.
F167:
The Grand Jury recommends that WCS-DdM, WAWC, BWTF, and Familia Center meet at least twice each year to share program information, discuss program utilization, address common concerns, discuss potential collaboration projects, and assess duplicated efforts and cost. Response: Walnut Avenue Women’s Center: This recommendation has been implemented. The Walnut Avenue Women’s Center meets with BWTF, Familia Center and WCS-DdM on an individual basis and Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 57 representatives attend collaborations across programs, as well as with other county agencies, to discuss common concerns and projects. WAWC and WCS-DdM meet quarterly to discuss legal issues in the judicial system and also collaborate on DVC subcommittees. WAWC would be interested in meeting collectively twice a year. We propose that we meet in January and July and will contact the other agencies to arrange this. Response: Familia Center: It would be a pleasure to meet with the above mentioned agencies and collaborate. We look forward to being contacted by any of the agencies cited above. Responses requested but not required Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within Women’s Crisis 13, 23, 32-33 1, 3, 6-7, 12 90 days Support – (October 1, 2006) Defensa de Mujeres Walnut Avenue 21, 23, 32-33, 2 - 3, 6 - 7, 12 90 days Women’s Center (October 1, 2006) Battered 26 - 30, 33 4 - 7, 12 90 days Women’s Task (October 1, 2006) Force Familia Center 36 - 37, 39 - 40 8 - 10, 12 90 days (October 1, 2006) - 58 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: A Painful Secret: Sexual Assault Response Team Background The recently released Commission for Prevention of Violence Against Women (CPVAW) twenty-year study of sexual assault in the City of Santa Cruz and the eleventh annual report by the Community Assessment Project indicate an increase in the number of sexual assaults and rapes in the county.18 It is unknown what percentage of sexual assault or rape is a component of the broader picture of domestic violence. Specific data linking the two is not reported by any agency. A Sexual Assault Response Team (S.A.R.T.) exists within the county and is composed of a peace officer from the jurisdictional agency, a sexual assault nurse examiner (S.A.N.E.), and a Victim Advocate. The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office monitors the budget and implementation of the S.A.R.T. process. Funding for the program is on a pro rata basis from each of four police departments and the Sheriff’s Office. In addition, Dominican Hospital and the University of California Santa Cruz contribute annually to the S.A.N.E. budget. Three registered nurses, with specific training in sexual assault forensic evidence collection and certification in pediatrics, share S.A.N.E. responsibilities within the county. Designated sexual assault examination rooms are maintained by the S.A.N.E. in the Emergency Departments of Dominican Hospital and Watsonville Hospital. When a sexual assault is reported, a peace officer is dispatched to the scene. Once an evaluation has been made by a responding officer or deputy, a sexual assault examination may be authorized by law enforcement. Initially, the S.A.N.E. is notified by dispatch or a peace officer. Response must be within one hour. The evaluation and decision by law enforcement to proceed with an examination begins the S.A.R.T. process. An advocate for the victim is notified by dispatch or the nurse examiner. Victim Advocates have received specific training to provide support to victims of sexual assault and are on-call through Women’s Crisis Support-Defensa de Mujeres. Evidence is collected only with the consent of the victim, and only if a police report is filed. The law enforcement officer makes the determination if a crime has been committed and may file a report regardless of victim consent. Under these protocols, a victim of sexual assault has the right to refuse the collection of evidence and may do so for a variety of reasons including fear of retaliation from an alleged suspect. A victim also has the right to withhold cooperation in a criminal investigation once evidence has 18 See tables in Appendix B. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 59 been collected. If a police report is filed and evidence is collected, reports are forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office for evaluation. As a result, certain time and material costs are incurred, regardless of whether the victim recants, is making a false claim, or wishes to proceed. If a police report is not filed, California State Law still requires a mandatory report (Mandatory Report of Injury – Penal Code § 11160). In contrast to Santa Cruz County protocol, San Francisco County protocol allows victims of sexual assault to determine if they want police involvement prior to examination at the hospital, after examination, or not at all. This allows the control and decision-making to remain with the victim rather than with an outside agent. If police involvement is not desired, evidence is collected, the examination is performed, and a report is telephoned or mailed to the San Francisco Police Department, Domestic Violence Unit in compliance with California State Law, Mandatory Report of Injury. Mandatory reporting does not generate an official police report and does not result in police action unless the victim makes a direct request to a police department. Although mandatory reporting by a health care worker does not require consent of the victim, it is customary for the health care worker to inform the victim of mandatory reporting requirements. Completed mandatory reports are maintained in a confidential file at the hospital or the police department. In Santa Cruz County, responsibilities of the S.A.N.E. include: collecting and preserving evidence, maintaining extensive records on specific state-approved forms, and providing testimony in court, if needed. The type of evidence collected is broad in scope and may be collected from the victim and/or the suspect. The average length of time for a S.A.N.E. process is three to four hours. The average length of time for a victim advocate to be present is eight to ten hours. In addition, S.A.R.T members participate in bi-monthly and quarterly meetings to review and critique recent incidents. Crime lab updates, regulation changes, and current policies and procedures are also discussed. Representatives of other community agencies related to sexual assault (law enforcement, health services, Child Protective Services, Family and Children’s Services, Women’s Crisis Support-Defensa de Mujeres, the District Attorney’s Office) are invited to attend the bi-monthly meetings. In 2004, Victim Advocates responded to sixty-four S.A.R.T. requests. In 2005, Victim Advocates responded to sixty-five requests. The monthly average of calls for Victim Advocate participation is 5.4. Reported sexual assaults for 2004 were ninety-eight; for 2005, ninety. In each of the years 2004 and 2005, the S.A.N.E performed seventy-eight sexual assault examinations each year (2004 and 2005). Crime statistics and domestic violence data are posted monthly to the Sheriff’s Department web site, however, the number and location of sexual assaults are not specifically identified. The web site includes a section of frequently asked questions related to sexual assault and domestic violence. The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office has reviewed and revised specific documents related to sexual assault. These include: Santa Cruz County Sheriff-Coroner Sexual Assault Investigations, S.A.N.E. budget for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, and Santa Cruz County Sheriff-Coroner Sex Offenders/Notifications and Disclosures. - 60 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: Findings 168. The current process of the S.A.R.T. response is under the auspices of the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office.
F169:
No agency in the county tracks data to determine the number of sexual assaults related to domestic violence. Response: Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC does not have enough information to agree or disagree with this finding. Tracking such information is not our mandate. The Domestic Violence Commission has only collected data on domestic violence. The Santa Cruz County Community Assessment annual Project tracks crime rates, including rapes and family violence. It is not known whether that Project separately tracks sexual assault. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. The Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office does not track sexual assault statistics which also have a domestic violence component. These types of cases are estimated to represent a minimal percentage of sexual assault investigations. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County can neither agree or disagree with this finding, but is not aware of any agency that tracks data on the number of sexual assaults related to domestic violence.
F170:
Multiple expenses are incurred by the county when filing a sexual assault police report, regardless of whether the victim cooperates or recants. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Deputies complete an initial report and no further action is taken. Documenting sexual assault is essential to memorialize the incident. Victims may later request a criminal investigation and suspect(s) may re-offend. If a victim does not want to provide a statement, the deputy will obtain information solely from the mandatory reporter.
F171:
The S.A.R.T. model utilized in Santa Cruz County is law enforcement driven. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office DISAGREES. The Sheriff’s Office oversees the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Program and the Supervisor of the Sexual Assault Unit is the chair for the S.A.R.T. meetings. However, the concept of S.A.R.T. is a multi-disciplinary team approach. Each professional works closely with another to ensure victims are provided with professional care. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 61 Decisions on how a criminal case proceeds rely on the victim’s wishes.
F172:
The sexual assault response model utilized in San Francisco County is victim driven. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY DISAGREES. San Francisco County is not following the recommended State guidelines of OES in which only law enforcement can authorize a forensic medical exam. It is imperative law enforcement evaluates all cases to ensure criteria are met for forensic exams. San Francisco is relying on medical professionals to investigate potential crimes and the vast majority of California law enforcement agencies do not follow the San Francisco model.
F173:
The Sexual Assault Investigations Unit of the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office works cooperatively with other related community organizations. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. The Sheriff’s Office website does post annual sexual assault statistics but does not include a breakdown by city or provide the number of S.A.N.E. callouts.
F174:
In Santa Cruz County, the number of sexual assaults, with a breakdown by city and the number of call-outs to a S.A.N.E. and Victim Advocate, are not readily available to the public. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. The Sheriff’s Office website does post annual sexual assault statistics but does not include a breakdown by city or provide the number of S.A.N.E. callouts.
F175:
The Sheriff’s Office has reviewed and revised documents related to sexual assault in a timely manner. Conclusions 176. Tracking sexual assault and domestic violence incidents should be an on-going process of the county advisory body, the Domestic Violence Commission.
F181:
The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office should consider a trial program to analyze costs and effectiveness of a victim-driven sexual assault response model. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. The model referenced by San Francisco County does not follow OES State guidelines in which law enforcement authorization is required for a forensic exam. Conducting a forensic exam on a non-cooperative victim is not appropriate and more costly as it would increase the number of exams conducted per year. In Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 63 addition, this concept is contrary to the purpose of S.A.N.E. (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners are to be utilized only for cases in a criminal investigation.) 182. The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office should include the city locations of sexual assault incidents in the monthly updates to its web site. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Annual sexual assault statistics are available to the public on the Sheriff’s Office website. This statistical information is believed to be sufficient. Sexual assaults can often involve transitory elements, involve multiple locations, and/or not have occurred within the year reported. In addition, the majority of sexual assaults do not involve strangers.
F184:
The DVC should collect and analyze monthly sexual assault statistics. Response: Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC will not be implementing this recommendation. At this time, sexual assault is not one of the five county mandated responsibilities of the DVC. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation requires additional analysis. As mentioned above, sexual assault is not one of the five county mandated responsibilities of the DVC. The County defers to the commission to evaluate whether it would be assist the commission in meeting its responsibilities to expand the commission’s activities as recommended. Responses Required Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within Santa Cruz 2 1, 5 90 Days County Domestic (October 1, 2006) Violence - 64 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: Commission Santa Cruz 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1 2, 3, 4 60 Days (September 1, 2006) County Sheriff- Coroner Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 65 This page intentionally left blank. - 66 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: Power and Control: Breaking a Cycle Batterers’ Intervention Programs Background Batterers’ Intervention Programs are an important part of a comprehensive community effort to eliminate domestic violence. Batterers’ programs in Santa Cruz County fit a variety of models but have similar goals. This section will cover five programs. Four are state-certified, and one program is predominately a peer support group. In addition to these five programs, a ten-week program on anger management is offered at the Rountree Minimum Security Facility. This program is a peer support group and is not a state-certified Batterers’ Intervention Program. The Pajaro Valley Unified School District conducts this well-attended program that has been existence for ten years. Minimum standards for Batterers’ Intervention Programs were established by California Penal Code § 1203.097(c)(2) that states the court “shall refer persons for diversion only to batterers’ programs that have been approved by the probation department.”19 State- certified programs are fifty-two weeks in length, have a mandated curriculum, and require attendance tracking. Topics include, but are not limited to: accepting responsibility, emotional abuse, responsible parenting, anger control, conflict resolution, and cycle of violence. Adults Learning to Take Opportunity (ALTO), a state-certified program, has been in existence for thirty years. ALTO means stop in Spanish. ALTO’s stated purpose is to assist in long-term recovery from behaviors of drug and/or alcohol abuse and to confront violent behavior. It focuses on education rather than therapy and introduces batterers to community support groups. ALTO participants explore their belief systems and decision- making processes as a way of learning to avoid violent behavior. Services include: adult outpatient mental services, youth services, and outpatient recovery (mainly from drugs). All participants in the domestic violence program must accept responsibility for their actions and sign a contract stating such. ALTO serves approximately 1,700 people per year. Clients must be eighteen years or older. The waiting period to enroll in the program is three to five days. Some participants are referred by a drug court, Family Sobriety Court, or are on a deferred judgment. ALTO shares clients with JANUS and refers the clients to an appropriate twelve-step program. Domestic violence clients are in a fifty-two week program and pay on a sliding scale. Due to an increase in the number of local Batterers’ Intervention Programs, the percentage of domestic violence enrollment in overall ALTO programs has dropped in recent years from ninety-five to seventy percent per year. Approximately eighteen percent of participants do not complete the program. California Alliance Against Domestic Violence, Model Guidelines for Batterers’ Programs, Modesto, California, May 1994. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 67 ALTO receives funding from the county through the Health Services Agency (HSA), CALWorks, and Proposition 36 monies, as well as from private sources such as the Human Race fundraiser. It also receives funding from private fees charged on a sliding scale. Participants with drunk driving convictions must pay their own fees. Fenix, Inc. began in the early 1980s and went out of business in 2003. At that time, the Santa Cruz Counseling Center (SCCC) took over the service that was renamed Fenix Outpatient Services (Fenix). According to a Fenix administrator, the transition from Fenix, Inc. to SCCC was seamless. Hermanas Recovery Program, a residential drug and alcohol program, is also under the auspices of SCCC and shares a director with Fenix Outpatient Services. Fenix conducts drug and alcohol outpatient counseling and offers a domestic violence program. The Fenix domestic violence program is a state-certified, fifty-two week Batterers’ Intervention Program. It receives referrals from the court. As of May 2006, the program had no waiting list and four openings. The Fenix domestic violence program has four groups conducted in Spanish. Each group can accommodate twelve participants. The group facilitator has over twenty years of experience in domestic violence counseling. The Fenix domestic violence program costs $1,350 per year, but the fee can be paid in installments. Fenix sends monthly attendance reports to the Probation Department. In addition, batterers make regular court appearances to report on their progress. Fenix tries to work with participants who cannot continue to pay their fees instead of immediately terminating them from the program. Fenix receives funding from Santa Cruz County through both HSA and HRA. Hermanas receives funding from San Benito County Substance Abuse and Child Protective Services and Monterey County Health and Human Services as well as from Santa Cruz County. Men’s Overcoming Abusive Behavior (MOAB), established in 1994, is a men’s peer support group for anger management. The program began with five volunteer members and has had several name changes in its history. The program is not certified as a fifty- two week Batterers’ Intervention Program for men on parole or probation. However, MOAB will confirm a participant’s attendance to his Probation Officer. Some meeting facilitators also have experienced, and been helped by, anger management support. The drop-in program has no specific curriculum and meets twice a week at a local church. MOAB receives some court referrals, but most participants attend as a result of word-of- mouth referrals. MOAB meeting participants must maintain their sobriety and not participate in violence. Meetings are usually attended by twenty to thirty-five participants, and there is no waiting list. Pacific Treatment Associates (PTA), a state-certified program, began as a treatment program for sex offenders in 1988. In 1991, the PTA domestic violence intervention program was added. PTA works with perpetrators, and emphasizes preventing re-offense through “learning to understand, predict and control abusive behavior.”20 Program components include education, individual sessions, and enrollment in a twelve-step 20 Pacific Treatment Associates, “Introduction to Domestic Violence Prevention Program,” no date. - 68 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: program. Participants must stay clean and sober and demonstrate a change in their thinking about domestic violence. The PTA domestic violence group has five staff members. Most of them have Master’s degrees, and all of them have forty hours of core-basic domestic violence training. In addition, they take sixteen continuing education units per year.21 PTA receives referrals from the courts and the Probation Department. Generally, the public is unaware of this agency. It has provided some educational outreach to schools, the CASA organization, and churches to publicize the issues of domestic violence and sexual assault. Few participants are self-referred; most are referred by other agencies. PTA coordinates with other agencies: Family and Children’s Services, federal probation, parole, public defenders, the District Attorney’s Office, and other counties such as Santa Clara, San Benito, and Monterey. PTA is satisfied with the coordination and cooperation among these agencies. The PTA domestic violence program has served 805 clients since inception and is currently serving forty-two. Approximately twenty percent of its clients have been terminated from the program before completion due to absenteeism, not paying fees, violating probation, or transferring out of county. Attendance for the domestic violence program is set by legislation and is provided to the Probation Department on a monthly basis. If participants have three unexcused absences a year, PTA informs the Probation Department. PTA is a for-profit organization and does not receive or apply for grants. All funding comes from client fees, and nonpayment is a cause for termination from the program. Domestic violence participants pay $25-35 per week for a two-hour group session. Because domestic violence and sexual assault may be linked, with both characterized by aggressive behavior, a program for sexual offenders is also offered by PTA. Simply Your Best (SYB), a state-certified program, is a private educational service that began in 2001. The program is only for adults and offers a range of classes such as Domestic Violence Intervention, Parenting, Anger Management, Skill Building, Personal Development, Healthy Teens, and a course on aggressive driving prevention. At its inception, SYB was the only domestic violence intervention program in Santa Cruz County that met and exceeded the standards for such programs as established by California law. The SYB Domestic Violence Intervention Program is certified and reviewed by the Probation Department. SYB is a service-on-demand organization instituting new classes as necessary. SYB’s focus is educational rather than counseling. Assigned homework from facilitators includes reading assignments. Currently, SYB has fifty-five to sixty clients. More men than women attend the program. There is a separate class for women offenders. The majority of participants is not court ordered. Survivors are notified by mail that their partners are attending the program, and 21 California Penal Code § 1203.098. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 69 survivors are invited to attend or receive information. However, few survivors attend classes with their partners. SYB referrals are from County Mental Health, Family and Children’s Services, University of California Santa Cruz, the Santa Cruz County Probation Department, and Criminal, Civil, Family Court, Family Court Services, and area businesses. In addition, SYB has printed materials and a web site. Classes vary in length. Materials and curriculum are predominately in English. The anger management and parenting curriculum are also in Spanish. If demand warranted, SYB would translate materials into Spanish. Funding is private, and SYB is self-sustaining. SYB programs are offered on a sliding scale of $20-50. The initial enrollment fee is $50. Class fees depend on the length of the class. If a client owes a balance of more than $100, he or she is barred from the next class. Batterers’ Intervention Program Findings 185. Exact statistics on the numbers of Spanish-speaking batterers in Santa Cruz County are not known.
F186:
According to Batterers’ Intervention Program administrators, the needs of the gay/lesbian/transgender community are not being specifically addressed in any of these five programs. A representative from WCS-DdM reported an increase in the number of lesbians seeking services for domestic violence. Response: The Probation Department DISAGREES. There are currently four domestic violence treatment programs: Alto, Fenix, PTA and Simply Your Best. Simply Your Best provides for the needs of our gay and lesbian community. The program has staff who identify themselves as gay and or lesbian, and the course material provided is specific to these needs. Response: ALTO Counseling Center AGREES. Some participants in ALTO’s program are openly gay, and counselors address those issues if and when they arise during the course of the program. However, ALTO does not “specifically” assess needs of these participants based on their sexual orientation.
F187:
Resources exist for men on probation for domestic violence, but currently, there is no state-certified program in local detention facilities. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Probation Dept. DISAGREE. - 70 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: The Santa Cruz County Probation Department has one program (Alto) which is certified and providing groups in the medium security jail. That program began in June of 2006. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office DISAGREES. As of F/Y 2006, the Rountree Facility offers a 52-week accredited domestic violence program for sentenced inmates. Response: ALTO Counseling Center PARTIALLY DISAGREES. At the time of the Jury’s inquiry there were no scheduled activities in detention facilities. PVPSA was facilitating meetings at the ROUNDTREE detention facility but meetings had been suspended. Since the time of the Grand Jury’s inquiry, ALTO has contracted with the Santa Cruz County Sheriffs Office to conduct Domestic Violence classes for men at the ROUNTREE facility. This began July 3, 2006 and two classes are now ongoing. The course curriculum is for 12 weeks. Men will receive credit for classes attended during their incarceration when they enroll in a certified DV program after release from custody.
F188:
Illiteracy is sometimes a problem for participants in Batterers’ Intervention Programs. These programs require written homework assignments. None of the Batterers’ Intervention Programs has tutors or other academic support to help clients with dyslexia or other learning disabilities. Response: The Probation Department PARTIALLY AGREES. Only two of the four programs require written assignments, and they are flexible with this request. For example, they will allow for AA/NA meeting attendance instead of written drug and alcohol assignments. Response: ALTO Counseling Center PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Although it is true ALTO does not provide tutors or academic support for clients, it must be acknowledged that ALTO does not require written homework as a requisite. Each participant’s ability to interact and benefit from the program is assessed at intake, i.e. the initial interview. Competency with academic skills is not necessary for successful completion of the program. Written or homework assignments are few, and assignments for any participant with a learning impairment are readily adapted to that person’s specific abilities.
F189:
According to Batterers’ Intervention Program administrators, alcohol and drug use are major problems related to domestic violence. Reportedly, eighty percent of men participating in Batterers’ Intervention Programs were abusing substances when the domestic violence incident happened. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 71 Response: The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. Alcohol and drug use is often a major component in domestic violence cases. The District Attorney's Office, however, does not have any information to substantiate the specific claims made by the participants of the Batterers' Intervention Programs.
F190:
According to a Batterers’ Intervention Program administrator, domestic violence intervention programs in the county compete for the same client population and do not systematically network. Response: ALTO Counseling Center PARTIALLY AGREES. Providers compete for the same clients, however there is some systematic networking. Santa Cruz is a small county and the population of batterer’s needing intervention is small as well. The Probation Department’s policy is to not limit the number of agencies or individuals who wish to become a domestic violence provider. Their stance is to let “market forces” work it out. However, when too many providers are serving a small population it becomes extremely challenging for each provider’s program to be fiscally and clinically sound. For example, serving a too small client population while also offering a sliding fee scale to zero makes it difficult to generate enough revenues to retain fulltime staff or to pay adequate wages to attract qualified clinicians. Such “economy of scale” dynamics compel agencies to cherish each referral to their program. That being said, I believe providers do strive to nurture relations between themselves informally, and in general have a good working knowledge of each other’s programs. Probation also schedules periodic provider meetings, and this enhances networking.
F191:
The fifty-two week Batterers’ Intervention Program must be completed before probation can be terminated. The program is considered a term of probation. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Probation Department AGREE. In accordance with 1203.097 of the California Penal Code, the 52 week Domestic Violence Intervention Program must be completed before probation can be successfully terminated or allowed to expire. In some cases the Court may deem someone unsuitable for the program, and allow for some type of alternative such as individual counseling. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. If the inmate is released prior to completing the 52-week program, the inmate can continue the program out of custody to complete the probation requirement. - 72 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: ALTO Findings 192. ALTO has materials in both Spanish and English.
F193:
ALTO has approximately twenty-three employees including seven full-time and seven part-time certified drug and alcohol state-licensed staff. These staff members must take forty hours of continuing education units (CEUs) every two years to maintain their licenses. ALTO also uses interns.
F194:
ALTO’s success rate is about fifty percent for domestic violence program graduates. An ALTO administrator determines the success rate by manually tracking cases through the District Attorney’s Office and compiling statistics. The District Attorney’s Office does not provide statistics to ALTO. Determining the success rate of a program is used to adjust curriculum and teaching methods. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the District Attorney to assess the accuracy of this finding. Response: The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The District Attorney's Office cannot verify ALTO's success rate for domestic violence program graduates. The District Attorney's Office does not provide statistics to ALTO, as our criminal case records are not public records. However, accurate information on Santa Cruz County criminal case dispositions is available to the public through the Santa Cruz County Superior Court Clerk's Office. The District Attorney's Office will assist ALTO on how to access this information in support of their efforts to determine their success rate. Fenix Findings 195. Fenix has over twenty years of experience in outpatient counseling. The domestic violence group facilitator has over twenty years of experience.
F196:
The state-certified Fenix domestic violence program serves the Spanish-speaking community. The program is fifty-two weeks in length, and there are consequences for absences and non-payment of fees.
F197:
The Fenix domestic violence program is self-supporting. MOAB Findings 198. MOAB has literature on anger management in both Spanish and English.
F199:
At present, MOAB does not receive public funding. Participants are requested to make a donation at each meeting. A portion of donations is given to the church in which they meet. In the past, MOAB received a grant from CPVAW to place an ad in Good Times. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 73 200. MOAB is not a state-certified program and does not formally coordinate with other agencies that deal with domestic violence. Pacific Treatment Associates Findings 201. The state-certified PTA domestic violence program has been in existence since 1991. Most of the domestic violence staff have Master’s degrees and appropriate training. PTA is a for-profit organization and does not receive or apply for grants. Its focus is educational. Court-referred participants experience consequences for not following the program guidelines.
F202:
Once a client’s probation is completed, PTA does no formal follow up. There is no established avenue for PTA to receive status reports from the District Attorney’s Office. PTA informally asks participants for information on their progress but cannot always verify facts. Response: The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office neither AGREES nor DISAGREES. The District Attorney's Office has no information as to how PTA conducts their follow up procedures. There is presently no established avenue for PTA to receive status reports as the District Attorney's Office investigative records and offenders' criminal histories are not public records. In addition, both offenders and victims have certain rights of privacy. Thus, information from our case files is not generally available to administrators of programs or any other member of the public. However, information about case dispositions and other court actions can be obtained from the Superior Court. Thus, the same information that we obtain from the courts is directly accessible to others, including PTA. The District Attorney's Office can assist PTA on how to access this information. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the District Attorney to assess the accuracy of this finding. Simply Your Best Findings 203. SYB staff are trained and certified human development professionals and anger management consultants. Five of the staff have backgrounds in education. Independent contractors have Master’s degrees in education. Three of the facilitators are bilingual. The director’s background is in education and counseling.
F204:
Court referrals to SYB pay on a sliding scale, and progress reports are sent to the referring agency. Clients may be concurrently attending Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous and must obtain a signature for attendance. An unexcused absence can be cause for removal from the program. In the fifty-two-week program, participants can have five excused absences and are terminated if a sixth occurs. - 74 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: Clients must pay a class fee for absences. Not completing a homework assignment is considered an absence.
F205:
SYB is developing a relapse prevention program. A program representative stated that follow-up is important to find out if skills learned by participants are actually being used with positive results. Conclusions 206. Valuable volunteer and paid staff time is taken up by tracking cases when those statistics could be provided by the District Attorney’s Office. Knowing case dispositions assists state-certified Batterers’ Intervention Programs evaluating and improving the success of their programs.
F218:
The domestic violence intervention community should coordinate efforts to ensure that all segments of society are served and that services are not duplicated. Response: The Probation Department: This recommendation will be implemented for those portions of the domestic violence community under the jurisdiction of the County. Response: ALTO Counseling Center AGREES. To support this recommendation, ALTO will continue to participate in all provider meetings coordinated by Probation. We also will continue to submit monthly statistics - 76 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: to the Santa Cruz Domestic Violence commission reporting the number of enrollments, completions, and successful vs. unsuccessful discharges. ALTO also has established close working relations with Pacific Treatment in which we share curriculum resources and staff facilitators. We also have close relations with Fenix, the south county provider, as we are part of the same agency and utilize the same administrative and clinical resources. ALTO serves both English and Spanish clients in Santa Cruz, and our sister component, Fenix, provides services to these populations is Watsonville. We will review our intake documentation to ensure that special needs are identified and resources are presented to the participant at time of entry. We will also continue to ensure program content is sensitive to special needs groups, and are open to providing specific focused groups as the client economy of scale may allow.
F219:
The County of Santa Cruz and Batterers’ Intervention Programs should work to ensure adequate services to Spanish-speaking batterers. Response: The Probation Department: This recommendation will be implemented. Two of the four existing programs currently provide services to Spanish speaking clients, and a third program is in the process of beginning groups in Spanish. The Probation Department will monitor and encourage adequate services to Spanish speaking clients. Response: ALTO Counseling Center AGREES. We support the recommendation that providers must continue efforts to ensure this population is served. It appears that current services to Spanish-speaking batterers seem to be adequate in male populations, at least in the Santa Cruz area. For example, the number of Spanish speaking groups ALTO provides is based upon the number of clients requesting enrollment, and currently ALTO operates only two groups per week. There have never been enough Spanish speaking referrals for ALTO’s Santa Cruz program to add more groups. We do not know if this is due to Probation or the Court’s lack of prosecuting or referring clients, or if there just are not that many Spanish cases in Santa Cruz. However, we are open to increasing services in the future, and have two certified Spanish speaking Domestic Violence facilitators on staff to accommodate clients as referrals may dictate.
F220:
The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office and Batterers’ Intervention Programs should work to ensure improved services for incarcerated batterers. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 77 Response: ALTO Counseling Center AGREES. At this time ALTO has contracted with the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department to provide two groups per week for incarcerated batterers at the men’s ROUNDTREE detention facility. Groups started on 7/5/06, and the contract commitments ALTO for the fiscal year 05-06. We agree that this intervention is important to continue, and we will remain available to continue this service into the future.
F221:
Batterers’ Intervention Programs should consider providing academic support for participants with learning disabilities. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Probation Dept.: Batterer’s Intervention Programs are not under the County’s jurisdiction. However, the Probation Department will convey this need/concern to the four certified treatment programs. Response: ALTO Counseling Center DISAGREES. It is agreed that academic support for participants with learning disabilities would be beneficial. However, our experience has shown that there have been very few participants if any in our program whose academic abilities impaired them from benefiting as fully as other participants. This is due in part because the program curriculum is designed to not have academic demands. ALTO has a comprehensive program curriculum that meets State and Probation requirements and that does not place academic stress on any participant. In support of this recommendation, ALTO will continue to tailor its program content and process to meet all participants’ academic levels. It needs to be noted there are no funding resources available such services. Domestic Violence programs are client-fee driven only: i.e. funds to provide service come only from client fees. It is extremely difficult to manage program revenues in the face of dropout levels and small program populations. Enrollments are already so low that it is difficult to meet budget expectations. This is due partly to Santa Cruz being a small county and in part due to the number of providers offering services to the same population. Often the program budget barely breaks even with administrative and clinical costs, but often revenues collected do not meet actual expenses. It is unrealistic to expect providers to provide specialized services without funding other than client fees.
F222:
Batterers’ Intervention Programs should explore the need for programs for gay, transgender, or lesbian batterers. Response: The Probation Department: - 78 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: Batterer’s Intervention Programs are not under the County’s jurisdiction. However, it is noted that Simply Your Best currently provides for this need. The County will convey this need/concern to the three other batterers’ programs. Response: ALTO Counseling Center AGREES. ALTO continues to ensure program content and process is sensitive to special needs groups, and we are open to providing specific focused groups as client economy of scale may allow. As noted in Recommendation 2 ALTO is reviewing its intake documentation to better identify needs and resources for LGBT individuals. ALTO staff also completes 7 hours of Cultural Competency training annually including LGBT issues and needs.
F223:
Advisory bodies and domestic violence providers should put continuing emphasis on drug and alcohol issues. Response: ALTO Counseling Center AGREES. ALTO has over 28 years of experience providing drug and alcohol treatment in Santa Cruz County. Drug abuse education is in integral part of our Domestic Violence curriculum. We have a specific focus on denial dynamics, and our facilitators are certified drug and alcohol counselors in addition to being domestic violence certified. Additionally, we have the ability to “fast track” individuals who need assistance into our affordable recovery outpatient counseling program. This allows for continuum of treatment and comprehensive care.
F224:
Advisory bodies and domestic violence intervention providers should share program information, experience, and referrals in a systematic manner. Response: ALTO Counseling Center AGREES. ALTO participates in all provider meetings coordinated by Probation. We also continue to submit monthly statistics to the Santa Cruz Domestic Violence commission regards number of enrollments, completions, and successful vs. unsuccessful discharges. We share training resources, curricular content, video materials and file maintenance protocols with Fenix, and are open to participating in developing ways that this may be done between all providers.
F225:
ALTO is to be commended for its work in assisting participants through their recovery from drugs, alcohol, and violent behavior.
F226:
Fenix is to be commended for its dedication and service to the Spanish-speaking community. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 79 227. MOAB facilitators are to be commended for their long-standing dedication in volunteering to support batterers in eliminating their violent behaviors through peer support and suggested behavorial changes.
F228:
MOAB should consider outreach to and coordination with other domestic violence intervention providers. Graduates of other programs could be referred to MOAB as a source of continuing support.
F229:
PTA should be commended for hiring qualified and credentialed staff.
F230:
PTA should be commended for providing a valuable resource to assist the community in ending domestic violence.
F231:
SYB should be commended for hiring qualified and credentialed staff.
F232:
SYB should be commended for its continuing dedication to improving its curriculum to try to address all components that lead to domestic violence and for providing a valuable resource to the community. - 80 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: Responses required Entities Findings Recommendations Respond Within Santa Cruz County 3, 7, 10, 18 1 60 Days Board of (September 1, 2006) Supervisors Santa Cruz County 2, 3, 4, 7 2, 3, 5, 6 90 Days Probation (October 1, 2006) Department Santa Cruz County 3, 7 4 60 Days Sheriff-Coroner (September 1, 2006) Santa Cruz County 5, 10, 18 1 60 Days District Attorney (September 1, 2006) Responses requested but not required Entities Findings Recommendations Respond Within ALTO 2 - 4, 6 2 - 8 90 Days (October 1, 2006) Fenix 2 - 4, 6 2 - 8 90 Days (October 1, 2006) MOAB 2 - 4, 6 2 - 8 90 Days (October 1, 2006) Pacific Treatment 2 - 4, 6 2 - 8 90 Days Associates (October 1, 2006) Simply Your Best 2 - 4, 6 2 - 8 90 Days (October 1, 2006) Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 81 This page intentionally left blank. - 82 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: To Serve and Protect: What’s Law Got To Do With It? The Legal System Law Enforcement Protocol California Penal Code22 defines a domestic violence offender as follows: Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment. Interviews were conducted with five local law enforcement agencies regarding their protocol in responding to domestic violence calls. The five agencies interviewed were the City of Santa Cruz Police Department, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office, Scotts Valley Police Department, Capitola Police Department, and the Watsonville Police Department. Additionally, interviews were conducted with representatives from the Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office, the Family Law Facilitator, and the Santa Cruz County Probation Department. Law enforcement agency representatives stated that they follow the countywide Domestic Violence Protocol for Law Enforcement, Santa Cruz Law Enforcement Chief’s Association, last updated in May 2002. Listed below are procedures that all interviewed law enforcement agencies are to follow when responding to a domestic violence call. When responding to a domestic violence call, the dispatcher verifies whether a restraining order has been issued by contacting the California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (CLETS). All restraining orders issued are entered into CLETS. Prior to arriving at the scene of a domestic violence call, the responding officer receives all pertinent information about the reported incident from the dispatcher. The dispatcher is responsible for obtaining as much information from the caller as possible to assist the officer. The officer is fully informed about: the address of the incident; the reporting party; summary of the event; the need for an ambulance; presence of a suspect; if weapons are involved or present in the home; if there is a suspicion of drugs or alcohol; the presence of children at the scene; if a restraining order is on file; and the criminal status of the suspect. Jurisdiction is determined by location of incident. California Penal Code § 273.5, subdivision (a), Felony to Inflict Corporal Injury on Current or Former Spouse or Cohabitant; Conditions of Probation. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 83 Once an officer has arrived at the scene, he or she determines: the location of the victim, suspect, and any witnesses; if weapons are in the home or involved in the incident; if there are any injuries so aid may be provided; and the need to separate victim, witnesses, and suspect. An audio tape recording is used to memorialize the interviews. When conducting interviews with the victim and perpetrator, officers observe the following: victim’s and suspect’s conditions and demeanors, including victim’s emotional state, torn clothing, condition of make-up, and any injuries. If it is difficult for the officer to determine which party is the victim, the officer must establish: which party is in actual fear of the other; whether one party escalated the level of violence, i.e., did one party retaliate to a provocation; who made the 911 call; a comparison of victim’s and perpetrator’s physical appearances; any history of violence by one of the parties against the other, if one party is usually the aggressor; and, if there are injuries, do they appear to be defense wounds. The officer should obtain a photograph of the suspected perpetrator and have the victim identify that person as being the person who committed the acts described. By having the victim positively identify the person, the case can proceed without the victim if that becomes necessary. The officer obtains a copy of the restraining order, if any, and verifies proof of service. If there is no restraining order on file, the victim is advised how to obtain one. The officer also has the authority to issue an Emergency Protective Order (EPO) for the victim if requested. The EPO will provide the victim protection for five days, sufficient time to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). If there is a restraining order on file that has not been served, the officer informs the restrained person of the order and its terms. There are two avenues to verify the existence of the order; the protected person produces a copy of the order, or the officer verifies the existence of the order by contacting the dispatcher. The restrained person can be served with the restraining order by the investigating officer. In that case, the officer completes a proof of service and files it with the Superior Court. The victim is advised of the following: he or she has a right to request confidentiality pursuant to Penal Code § 293 and Government Code § 6524(f); and prosecution of the suspect is the decision of the District Attorney’s Office. The victim should never be asked if he or she wishes to “press” or “drop” charges or if he or she will cooperate in the prosecution of the offender. The officers supply victims with an Emergency Resource Card. The Emergency Resource Card is in both English and Spanish and lists contact information for: - 84 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: all advocacy groups; Victim Witness Assistance; health care providers; Child Protective Services; Adult Protective Services; Santa Cruz City Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women; and definitions of sexual assault and domestic violence. Additionally, victims of domestic violence can contact Victim Information and Notification Everyday (VINE) to obtain offender information. This service is a free, twenty-four telephone service that allows the victim to check on the custody status of an offender in the Santa Cruz County Jail. The victim can register for automatic notification when an inmate is released, transferred, or escapes. This service is provided through the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office. The officer shall follow his or her department’s procedure for notifying an advocacy agency to provide telephone, or in-person, crisis support for the victim. Most law enforcement agencies have a memorandum of understanding with an advocacy agency to provide twenty-four hour crisis support. Once the above procedures have been followed with the victim, the suspect is taken into custody. The suspect is read his or her Miranda rights, and evidence is collected. The officer prepares a crime report, which includes the Domestic Violence Incident Report form. The officer, in preparing the report, must maintain objectivity in reporting and avoid personal opinions regarding comments from victim or suspect. The Domestic Violence Incident Report form is used by all local law enforcement agencies. The Domestic Violence Protocol for Law Enforcement also includes: a policy statement definitions mandatory reporting of domestic violence by health care providers 911 operator/dispatcher response procedure for follow-up investigation enforcement of restraining orders victim assistance training “officer involved” cases (a domestic violence allegation involving a peace officer) Additionally, the protocol directs each agency to develop a policy of report writing to classify whether the situation is a crime, an incident, or for information only. Reports are forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office. All agencies interviewed indicate that a “pro arrest policy” exists within the county. A “pro arrest policy” refers to a philosophical position in which physical arrest is encouraged in every situation where an arrest is legally permissible. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 85 Four out of the five law enforcement agencies contact an advocate from the Women’s Crisis Support-Defensa de Mujeres (WCS-DdM) to assist victims. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department is the only agency with an in-house advocate who is a full-time employee, on-call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and who regularly attends Domestic Violence Commission meetings. Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office has created a protocol specifically for sexual assaults. This department gives training to WCS-DdM; it is a two-hour training that is conducted twice a year. Sergeants receive training updates through the District Attorney’s Office and also attend seminars and conferences with the encouragement of the department. The Sheriff’s Office receives approximately 357 domestic violence calls a year. Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office uses the “Tiburon” interagency communication system to obtain information on suspects. All other county law enforcement agencies use the “Alliance” interagency communication system that allows each agency to share and access information. Law enforcement agencies did not see the different communication systems as an obstacle to obtaining information through CLETS. All other law enforcement agencies interviewed receive training from WCS-DdM, attend seminars and conferences specific to domestic violence, and meet with advocates from WCS-DdM. The Court Process Once an individual has been arrested, the arresting agency prepares a report and forwards it to the District Attorney’s Office for review and filing. The District Attorney has forty- eight hours to file charges against the alleged perpetrator. The decision to file a case is determined by the supervising Assistant District Attorney or the District Attorney based on a preponderance of evidence. Filed case statistics, as well as “no file” cases, are entered into a database system known as the “Damien” system. These statistics are provided to the Domestic Violence Commission for its annual report. Additionally, a Victim Witness Assistance representative receives a copy of the police report and contacts the victim to assess needs. The victim is eligible to receive relocation money and counseling. Victim Witness Assistance has two counselors in Santa Cruz, one in Watsonville, and volunteers. Domestic violence cases are handled by the “Family Protection Unit” within the District Attorney’s Office. Currently, there are three Assistant District Attorneys in this unit with one supervisor. Of the three, one bilingual Assistant District Attorney splits time between the Santa Cruz County Courthouse and the Watsonville Courthouse. Training is provided through the California District Attorney’s Association and is offered twice a year. However, an Assistant District Attorney initially assigned to the Family Protection Unit is not required to have a background in prosecuting domestic violence cases. Training occurs during that Assistant District Attorney’s assignment, and on-the-job training is considered invaluable. Domestic violence cases are described as being the most difficult to prosecute. Currently, there are twenty-five to thirty cases for each of three Assistant - 86 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: District Attorneys. Most cases do not reach the trial stage. A plea bargain is common. Probation is used more often in sentencing than incarceration. The Family Protection Unit of the District Attorney’s Office relies on the arresting agency to follow protocol in writing reports and collecting evidence. As much evidence as possible must be collected. Tape recording, as well as taking photographs, is essential in prosecuting these cases successfully. Grant monies are sought by and awarded to the District Attorney’s Office. Common funding sources are: Violence Against Women (VAWA); California Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program (SAPP), established by California Penal Code § 273.8 and the 1994 Battered Women’s Protection Act; and the Office of Emergency Services. Assistant District Attorneys in the Family Protection Unit do not participate in the grant-writing process and do not receive progress reports subsequent to grant implementation. It was announced at the January 2006 DVC meeting that the District Attorney’s Office had been awarded a three-year $300,000 grant. The grant was to provide funding for the South County District Attorney’s Office to employ a Spanish-speaking Assistant District Attorney, Investigation Inspector, and support staff to help Latino victims of domestic violence. The positions have yet to be filled. In addition, the District Attorney’s Office has received grant monies ($70,000) from the Violence Against Women Vertical Prosecution Program. The grant is called “No Mas” and is also proposed to partially fund a prosecutor, investigator, and advocate, all of whom would be Spanish speaking, for the Watsonville office. Outreach to the community will emphasize the fact that immigration status is irrelevant to the prosecution of domestic violence crimes. Performance timelines for the grants are not known. Since November 2005, approximately three hundred domestic violence related cases have been heard by the courts. The Family Protection Unit has the highest caseload of any felony or misdemeanor unit in the District Attorney’s Office. Domestic violence cases are difficult and time intensive for the District Attorney’s Office to prosecute partly because there are no mandatory sentencing requirements. While a sexual assault case may have strict sentencing mandates, the charge in domestic violence cases could be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor by the presiding judge. According to a District Attorney’s Office representative, sexual assault in domestic violence cases is rarely reported. If a victim were to report sexual assault rather than a slap or push, the prosecution of the domestic violence charge could carry a more severe sentence. Domestic violence cases are also difficult because of the emotional issues present. Approximately, eighty percent (80%) of domestic violence victims recant or are uncooperative in the prosecution process. Nevertheless, even if a victim recants, the case can go forward without his or her cooperation. Although a batterer is rarely female, there are currently three cases pending in which a female perpetrator is being charged with domestic violence. Gay/lesbian/transgender cases are rare. The victim commonly chooses an advocate from WCS-DdM or WAWC to assist her through the court process. That advocate attends all court proceedings to support the Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 87 victim. Additionally, the advocate communicates with the prosecuting Assistant District Attorney to keep the victim informed as to the case status. A victim can obtain a temporary or permanent restraining order by contacting the WCS- DdM, the Family Law Facilitator, WAWC, or by retaining an attorney. Additionally, WCS-DdM and WAWC provide assistance by guiding victims of domestic violence through the paperwork and court process. Once a restraining order is issued, the court clerk is responsible for entering it into CLETS. An advocate will assist the victim in obtaining and serving a temporary restraining order and will attend all court hearings to make sure the final orders are processed and served on the perpetrator. The Family Law Facilitator has been in existence since 1977. This free service assists people attempting to obtain court orders for divorce, domestic violence concerns, and child support matters. The two facilitators, who are attorneys, do not represent these individuals in court. The facilitator’s office is located in the county building, and individuals are seen on a first-come, first-served basis. The facilitator sees individuals at the Watsonville courthouse on Thursdays. One part-time facilitator is bilingual. Three volunteer attorneys who work four hours per week are basically training in family law practice. University of California Santa Cruz interns also assist in the facilitator’s office for approximately three months. The office receives about 2,000 calls a month and assists approximately ten to thirty people a day, five days a week. When a victim has requested a temporary restraining order and the perpetrator has been served, the victim must then go to court to obtain the restraining order. Typically, the final restraining order is valid for three years from the date it is issued and can be renewed by making an application to the court. A temporary restraining order protects the individual for approximately twenty days. The term of this temporary order can be extended by a judge if the protected person cannot locate and serve the perpetrator. Once the perpetrator has been served, the victim, or his or her legal representative, and the perpetrator must appear before a judge of the Superior Court. The perpetrator has a right to respond to the allegations in the victim’s temporary orders, and it is up to the judge to review and process both the allegations and responses. A judge reads both declarations prior to the court hearing and attempts to determine exactly what occurred. If, at the end of the hearing, the judge concludes that a CLETS Order After Hearing (DV-130) should be issued, one is prepared and then must be served on the perpetrator. If the perpetrator is present in court at the time of the issuance of the restraining order, service is effective immediately. If the perpetrator is not present in court, service of the restraining order on the perpetrator is required. A peace officer, or any person not a party to the action, can serve the perpetrator with the order and file the proof of service with the Superior Court Clerk’s Office. The clerk then enters that information into the CLETS database. Violation of the restraining order is a crime. The Santa Cruz County Probation Department provides information and recommendations for sentencing purposes. Approximately 5,000 adult cases are currently divided among 100 to 120 staff. In the beginning of 2006, 122 of those cases were domestic violence cases. - 88 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: When a person has been convicted of a domestic violence crime, that individual must enroll in and complete a fifty-two week Batterers’ Intervention Program as a term of his or her probation. The batterer’s attendance and participation is monitored by court review and agency calls. Additionally, the Probation Department certifies programs for batterers and makes referrals for batterers and their victims. The Probation Department reviews the curriculum of the program to ensure that it conforms to state mandates. When a probationer is first enrolled in the program, that individual meets weekly with an assigned officer, then monthly, and finally, every three months. Findings Representatives from all interviewed law enforcement agencies state that their agencies follow the countywide Domestic Violence Protocol for Law Enforcement - Santa Cruz County Law Enforcement Chief’s Association. Victims are given an Emergency Resource Card that includes a referral to advocacy agencies. An officer responding to a domestic violence call can provide the victim with an Emergency Protective Order that allows the victim sufficient time to obtain a temporary restraining order. Once a restraining order has been issued, the Court Clerk’s Office is responsible for entering all restraining orders in CLETS. Law enforcement agencies can then access this system when responding to a domestic violence scene. Each agency incorporates the Domestic Violence Incident Report form in its crime report. All law enforcement agencies indicated that they have a “pro arrest” policy. Representatives from all interviewed law enforcement agencies state that their agencies stay current on changes in the community by meeting with local advocacy groups. Response: The Capitola Police Department AGREES. The various domestic violence advocacy groups routinely travel to the different law enforcement agencies to provide in-service training. At these meetings, normally conducted during patrol briefings, matters of importance such as domestic violence law, policy and procedure, the dynamics of domestic violence, investigative techniques, and training updates are discussed. Input is always exchanged and the advocacy group spokesperson leaves no question unanswered. Business cards and personal contact information is exchanged and law enforcement is told to call any time there is an unresolved issue. The advocates are well versed in their area of expertise and provide a vital communication pathway for all agencies involved in the mitigation, prevention, response, and prosecution of domestic violence. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 89 Response: The City of Santa Cruz Police Department AGREES. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department is currently contributing to the County Domestic Violence Task Force. It also regularly communicates with other victim advocacy organizations. Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. Response: Watsonville Police Department AGREES. Response: The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. Sheriff Steve Robbins is a commissioner on the Santa Cruz County Domestic Violence Commission. This commission is comprised of representatives of local law enforcement, victim advocacy groups, the Public Defender’s Office, Judiciary and the community at large. This commission meets on a regular basis. The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office meets with WCS-DdM and WAWC for training purposes. Sergeants also receive training updates through the District Attorney’s Office. Response: The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. The Sheriff’s sergeant that supervises the Domestic Violence Unit (DVU) has, in conjunction with the District Attorney’s Office (DAO) Family Protection Unit (FPT) supervisor, provided training to advocacy groups upon request. The DVU sergeant also coordinates with the DAO to provide update training to Sheriff’s Office staff. This response pertains only to the DVU. The Sheriff’s Sex Crimes Unit has such components in their protocols dealing with sexual assault cases. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department has an in-house advocate who is on-call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. All other agencies contact local advocacy groups for victim assistance/support. Response: The Capitola Police Department AGREES. The Capitola Police Department participates in a team approach, which affords women victims of domestic violence direct access to support advocacy. The domestic violence Crisis Response Team (CRT) Advocate is activated when a crime occurs between two individuals who are involved in a current or past intimate relationship. A Women’s Crisis Support (WCS) advocate is always available. Response: The City of Santa Cruz Police Department AGREES. - 90 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: The City of Santa Cruz Police Department has in-house victim advocate who is on call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, to assist victims of violent crimes. Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. Response: Watsonville Police Department AGREES. Response: The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. All deputies are trained to make an advocate available to all domestic violence victims at the time of the initial investigation of a domestic violence incident. A VINE information card, prepared by the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office, is not being distributed to victims by any of the law enforcement agencies. Response: The Capitola Police Department PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Speaking solely for the Capitola Police Department, the VINE information card has been given to the victims of domestic violence when supplies were available. However, more VINE information cards have been produced for distribution along with a domestic violence information triptych. Also, a link to VINE information, provided by the Santa Cruz County Sheriffs Department Detention Bureau, has been placed on the City of Capitola Police Department website. Response: The City of Santa Cruz Police Department DISAGREES. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department already places VINE information on its victim resource card. This card is required to be distributed to all domestic violence victims per department policy. Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. The Scotts Valley Police Department disperses a Scotts Valley Community Resource Card (both Spanish and English). The resource card has a comprehensive referral list for county services, including VINE, WCS, local hospitals etc. The card also contains comprehensive information regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, court orders, and victim rights. This comprehensive card eliminates the need to shower crime victims with multiple information pamphlets. Response: Watsonville Police Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The Watsonville Police Department has requested the cards from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office Jail. Response: The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 91 The DVU sergeant, who reviews all domestic violence reports generated by Sheriff’s personnel, has recently noted that VINE information cards are not distributed on a routine basis. The Sheriff’s Office has VINE information cards readily available for distribution to victims. The DVU sergeant will provide additional training to staff regarding the VINE system and its availability to domestic violence victims. According to a representative from the District Attorney’s Office, the Family Protection Unit relies on the arresting agency to follow protocol in collecting evidence. Tape recording, as well as taking photographs, is essential in prosecuting domestic violence cases successfully. The domestic violence protocol states that an audio tape recording is to be used to memorialize interviews. Response: The Capitola Police Department AGREES. During the first of the year 2006, The Capitola Police Department conducted an internal quality control audit of all domestic violence related arrests and incidents. The audit revealed a number of officers were not recording on-scene domestic violence calls. It was determined the primary causes for this failure was the officers either did not have working recorders or were not assigned one because of budget constraints. These issues are being resolved by reviewing policy and procedures during patrol briefings and with the coming of fiscal year 2007 new recorders are being purchased and issued to patrol officers. Response: The City of Santa Cruz Police Department AGREES. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department follows the protocol developed by the Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office in regards to the collection of evidence in domestic violence cases. Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. Scotts Valley Police Officers carry cassette recorders to record interviews. Response: Watsonville Police Department AGREES. Response: The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This year the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office purchased digital recorders for patrol staff to assist in gathering a better record of the victim’s original statement during the initial phase of the investigation. Response: The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office AGREES. Domestic violence cases can be very difficult to successfully prosecute. In many instances, there are no independent witnesses, the victim often recants, and sometimes there are initial delays in reporting the crime. Collecting evidence, - 92 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: including the use of photography when appropriate, and memorializing victim and witness interviews by actual tape recordings and videotapes is critical for a successful prosecution. The District Attorney's Office continues to train law enforcement on how to properly investigate domestic violence cases. Moreover, the District Attorney's Office believes that the county and city governments should provide additional funding so that law enforcement has additional detectives to provide a countywide team exclusively to investigate domestic violence cases. This team would be comprised of victim advocates and specialized interviewers trained in the domestic violence protocol. This team would also conduct all interviews by the use of videotape equipment to memorialize the witness statements. According to a representative from the District Attorney’s Office, Santa Cruz County Sheriff deputies do not always record interviews when responding to a domestic violence call. Response: The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. The Sheriff’s Office addressed this by providing staff with more reliable digital recording equipment but there are instances where recording equipment malfunctions on occasion. Victims who recant do not stop or prevent the prosecution of the batterer. Response: The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office PARTIALLY DISAGREES. In some circumstances a recanting victim can seriously hinder or possibly prevent the prosecution of a domestic violence case. Some victims do not show up for trial or refuse to testify at the time of trial. Because of a recent Supreme Court case, Crawford v. Washington, victimless prosecution has been dealt a severe blow. If the victim does not testify, the prosecution may be forced to dismiss the case due to the lack of admissible evidence. However, the District Attorney's Office continues to emphasize investigation and prosecution techniques that serve to corroborate the events regardless of whether the victim may later recant their original report to law enforcement. WCS-DdM, the Family Law Facilitator, and WAWC assist individuals seeking protection through the court process. According to a representative from the District Attorney’s Office, that office has no set procedure for communicating with local advocacy groups. The District Attorney’s Office is aware of these services and appreciates an advocacy presence in the courtroom on behalf of the victims. The majority of their contact with these agencies is to supply copies of restraining orders and updates of the batterer’s case. Case information is public record. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 93 Response: The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office DISAGREES. The District Attorney's Office strongly believes that victim advocacy is an integral part of the criminal justice system and the prosecution of domestic violence. The rights of victims are so important that the District Attorney's Office houses three full-time advocates and three full-time victim claim representatives, including several volunteers. Local advocacy groups are in constant contact with the District Attorney's Office on a day-to-day and case-by-case basis. The Assistant District Attorneys are trained by both local advocacy groups and by our own victim witness program. Furthermore, the District Attorney's Office participates in training the advocates of each local advocacy group twice a year. Within the District Attorney’s Office, the Family Protection Unit, consisting of three attorneys and one supervisor, has the highest caseload in the District Attorney’s Office. Response: The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office DISAGREES. The Family Protection Unit is a highly specialized unit of Assistant District Attorneys who have had intensive training on how to prosecute domestic violence cases. Although the District Attorney's Office is always asking for additional resources from the County to hire more attorneys, there are five Assistant District Attorneys, i.e., almost 15% of the attorneys in the office, who presently handle domestic violence cases. The District Attorney's Office gives priority to the prosecution of domestic violence and has always assigned enough personnel to keep the attorneys' caseloads manageable. Because of the number of Assistant District Attorneys assigned to domestic violence cases, their actual caseload is significantly lower than the caseloads of Assistant District Attorneys who handle general felonies, drug cases, and misdemeanors. The Grand Jury has been informed that a need exists for Spanish speaking Assistant District Attorneys, investigators, and advocates. Response: The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office AGREES. The District Attorney agrees that all law enforcement agencies need Spanish speaking professionals to deal with our increasingly diverse population. Although the District Attorney's Office already has some Spanish speaking attorneys, investigators, and advocates, we are aggressively recruiting more. The District Attorney's Office is also hosting our first diversity recruitment fair in October 2006 to seek out Spanish speakers who wish to become Assistant District Attorneys. The “No Mas” grant is intended to pay for a Spanish-speaking Assistant District Attorney, investigator, and victim advocate. Sixty percent of the cases filed are from - 94 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: the Latino community in the City of Watsonville. Response: The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. The No Mas grant is intended to partially pay for a Spanish speaking Assistant District Attorney, investigator, and victim advocate. One hundred percent of the cases filed under the No Mas grant are from the Latino community in the City of Watsonville. According to the “No Mas” grant application, key factors that contribute to domestic violence include: high unemployment (sixteen percent), a large population of young people, low educational attainment, substance abuse, and poverty. Response: The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office AGREES. Victim Witness Assistance, located in the District Attorney’s Office, reviews police reports and contacts victims to provide financial assistance and counseling. Superior Court Judges issue temporary restraining orders, as well as process a case to its completion. Judges hearing criminal cases will review a family court file if children are involved. When interviewing law enforcement agencies, a concern was raised as to differences in restraining orders issued on the same case in both criminal court and family court. The protected person may have exceptions contained in a family law-issued restraining order that would not be reflected in the criminal restraining order due to child visitation outlines. When children are involved, the CLETS Order After Hearing (Form DV-130) has a provision that alerts the responding officer that there is a child visitation agreement out of family court. Response: The Capitola Police Department PARTIALLY AGREES. Even though CLETS does alert officers to visitation agreements, once on-scene of a domestic violence call, and at the request of the defendant and/ or plaintiff, the officer is often faced with having to wade through recent and past judicial orders, mediation agreements, custody orders and the like to ensure they are taking correct action. The Capitola Police Department strongly urges all Judicial Officers make every effort to use unambiguous and unequivocal wording in all judicial decrees and coordinate orders thus minimizing confusion for the patrol officer. Response: The City of Santa Cruz Police Department AGREES. Better synchronization needs to occur between family court and criminal court orders and CLETS entries. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 95 Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. The DV-130 form alerts officers under section nine (9) “Child Custody and Visitation” with a reference to Form DV-140. The DV-130 form outlines under section twenty-six (26) “Conflicting Orders” with information on which court orders take precedence over others. Response: Watsonville Police Department AGREES. Response: The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office DISAGREES. Although it is possible to have different or conflicting terms in protective orders issued to the same parties in a criminal case and out of a family law court, the law is clear. PC 136.2(e)(2) dictates that a protective order issued in a criminal case takes precedence in enforcement over any conflicting civil court order. Further, PC 136.2 dictates that an Emergency Protective Order (EPO) that is in effect between the same parties takes precedence over all other restraining orders. Representatives from the District Attorney’s Office and the Probation Department state that these offices have excellent communication and are working closely to ensure that batterers complete the requirements of Batterers’ Intervention Programs. Response: The Probation Department AGREES. Response: The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office AGREES. According to the Probation Department, lack of resources to help domestic violence offenders make improvements in their lives is a continuing concern. Children who have witnessed violence in the home can become victims or violent themselves. Response: The Probation Department AGREES. The State Attorney General’s Task Force Report on Domestic Violence (2005) emphasizes the importance of holding batterers accountable. Response: The Probation Department AGREES. Conclusions Although all local law enforcement agencies state that they follow the Domestic Violence Protocol for Law Enforcement as well as their own department’s protocols, some exceptions have been reported. The VINE card is a valuable resource that gives victims information that can help ensure their safety. - 96 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: Not tape recording an interview during a domestic violence call is contrary to the protocol. Gathering as much evidence as possible, including tape recording, is necessary to successfully prosecute cases. If a victim recants, the tape recording is invaluable. The use of an in-house advocate by the City of Santa Cruz Police Department has provided valuable assistance in handling domestic violence cases from the time of arrest and in the report writing process. The confusion in the aftermath of a domestic violence incident will be lessened if a victim has current copies of all restraining orders easily accessible. Law enforcement agencies would benefit from a training session on the various Domestic Violence Forms. Domestic violence advisory bodies would benefit from knowing more about the “No Mas” grant and any other domestic violence-related funding in the county and how it is being used. Due to the high volume of cases handled by the Family Protection Unit, adequate staffing is essential. The constant presence of an advocate in domestic violence court proceedings as a support for the victim is critical. The Family Law Facilitator has proven to be a valuable resource for people who cannot afford the services of a private attorney and are seeking assistance in obtaining a divorce, domestic violence orders, and child support orders. Holding batterers accountable for their actions contributes to victim safety.
Recomendaciones adicionales
26
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R23:
CPVAW should address issues of domestic violence so that efforts are equal to those expended on sexual assault. Response: The City of Santa Cruz AGREES. - 24 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: The recommendation will be implemented in the future. The CPVAW will establish a timeframe. Response: CPVAW: The Grand Jury’s recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. It is true that the focus of CPVAW for the past two years has been more on sexual assault than domestic violence. This reversed a ten year trend of CPVAW focusing mainly on domestic violence. CPVAW has a strategy for the coming year to give both serious issues due weight but also recognizes that, while the community has a Domestic Violence Commission, there is no such additional body to address sexual assault.
R24:
CPVAW volunteers are to be commended for their dedication and accomplishments in increasing awareness of domestic violence and sexual assault in the City of Santa Cruz. Response: The City of Santa Cruz: The recommendation has been implemented. Response: CPVAW: The Grand Jury’s recommendation has been implemented. Thank you; the Grand Jury’s appreciation is most welcome.
R25:
CPVAW should continue to serve the City of Santa Cruz and its citizens by maintaining all current programs and by publicizing the activities of CPVAW in a timely and organized manner. Response: The City of Santa Cruz: The recommendation has been implemented. Response: CPVAW: The Grand Jury’s recommendation has been implemented. CPVAW’s staff person is diligent in this regard.
R27:
CPVAW should continue to conduct ongoing education about the Safe Place Network with downtown business employees. Response: The City of Santa Cruz: The recommendation has been implemented. Response: CPVAW: The Grand Jury’s recommendation has been implemented. CPVAW hired an independent contractor to finish orientations and distribution of updated binders to the current Safe Place Network businesses. This work was done after the Grand Jury conducted its survey. CPVAW recognizes the need for on-going education of Safe Place Network business staff (as well as the public) and will continue to work on a strategy to ensure this goal is achieved. The Commission recognizes the particular problem with downtown business staff turnover during the summer months.
R28:
The District Attorney’s Office should report sexual assault and domestic violence case dispositions to CPVAW and DVC regularly rather than requiring a request. Response: CPVAW: This recommendation has been partially implemented. CPVAW welcomes this recommendation from the Grand Jury. Since the Grand Jury commenced its investigation, the District Attorney’s office has agreed to supply CPVAW with the disposition of current sexual assault cases if CPVAW will supply the DA with SCPD case numbers. The difficulty is in knowing which cases to ask for, since SCPD sends all of its sexual assault cases to the DA. Having case disposition information flow regularly (without request) from the DA’s office for both domestic violence and sexual assault cases would be efficient and give meaningful, important data to CPVAW. Response: The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The District Attorney's Office criminal case records are not public records. However, accurate information on Santa Cruz County criminal case dispositions is available to the public through the Santa Cruz County Superior Court Clerk's Office. The District Attorney's Office will - 26 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: assist CPVAW and DVC on how to access this information.
R29:
The 2006-2007 Grand Jury should consider investigating the crime of rape and sexual assault in Santa Cruz County. Response: CPVAW AGREES. CPVAW would strongly support such an investigation. CPVAW’s work in producing the first ever “Report on Sexual Assault and Rape” in 2006 has landmark status. However, it has raised as many questions as answers, and further investigation is needed, especially by a body as esteemed as the Grand Jury. DVC Recommendations
R30:
DVC volunteers are to be commended for recognizing problems with commission function and organization and taking preliminary steps to remedy them. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County appreciates the Grand Jury’s comments. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: This recommendation has been implemented. The DVC appreciates the commendation and is striving to continue addressing these issues.
R31:
The DVC should establish clear and focused goals and strategies at the beginning of each year and submit them to the Board of Supervisors annually. These goals and objectives should be published on the DVC web site. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County understands that the commission is taking steps to implement this recommendation. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC is presently implementing this recommendation. At the beginning of 2006, the Commission established goals for the year, and created subcommittees with specific time lines for meeting those goals. The Executive Committee plans to conduct a retreat on an annual basis, to continually re-establish new goals and objectives that will conform to the changing realities of the community. While the Commission acknowledges that, as the processes of the 2006 retreat are developed, and that the goals and timelines may change, we are committed to continuing with our Retreat goals. The Executive Committee is also planning on publishing its Annual Report to the Board online, and Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 27 is implementing this at this time. Our new website, with updated information, will be ready by the end of 2006.
R32:
The Board of Supervisors should hold established commissions responsible for achieving goals and objectives and for following their bylaws. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation has been implemented. All commissions are responsible for achieving goals and objectives and for following their bylaws.
R33:
The DVC should post the annual report to the Board of Supervisors on the county web site along with goals, agendas, and minutes. The DVC should base its annual report to the Board of Supervisors on the achievement of previously stated goals. The web site should be updated with these items in a timely manner. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented. The commission plans to submit the 2005 Annual Report to the Board of Supervisors in September 2006 and the 2006 annual Report in February 2007. The Annual Reports will be placed on the commission’s web page. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC is presently implementing this goal. It is anticipated that The 2005 Annual Report to the Board of Supervisors will be submitted to the Board in September 2006 and The 2006 Annual Report to the Board of Supervisors will be submitted in February 2007. The web site will be updated as of 9/1/06. The web site includes: • Agendas & Minutes of the Commission from 2001 to the present. • Agendas & Minutes of some committees from 2001 to the present. • The Annual Reports to the Board of Supervisors from 2000 to 2004. • The Report to the Community from 2003 to 2005. • Information about the Commission: • Overview • Mission Statement • Contacts • Vacancies • Position Statements • List of Committees o Charter o Membership o Meeting dates, times and places - 28 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: • Ordinance establishing the Commission • Bylaws • Brown Act information • Open Meeting Act information • Protocols • Domestic Violence Awareness Month Activities • Links
R34:
The DVC should continue to publish the annual Domestic Violence Commission Report to the Community. The 2005-2006 Grand Jury Final Report is a beginning step in evaluating batterers’ intervention programs. The DVC can build on this research to evaluate batterer accountability throughout the legal system. In addition, the report should identify cities making felony and misdemeanor arrests as does the 2003 report rather than just giving totals for the county. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented. The DVC is in the process of an in-depth evaluation of the efficacy of batterer’s intervention programs. The Commission hopes to complete its evaluation by April 2007. In the “Report to the Community 2006”, DVC will identify the cities making felony and misdemeanor arrests as in the 2003 report. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: This recommendation requires further analysis. Implementation at this time has the following limitations. The Commission is a volunteer organization, composed of an unwieldy number of individuals already burdened with important anti-violence work. The DVC has had many difficulties over the past 18 months in achieving full attendance and participation. To date, DVC members have engaged in tremendous collaborative efforts to publish this report, without any regular, ongoing financial support. The Annual Report, while a worthy report, is an enormous undertaking for our volunteers working in a volunteer capacity. Considering the funding difficulties, not limited to only the publishing of the report, but creating and editing questionnaires, gathering and organizing the data, requesting or composing summaries of the information, and putting it into a printable format, the DVC must consider other methods of getting the message out to the community. The CAP report, an ongoing, well-funded and widely distributed project of the Community Foundation, is a well-written, thorough report addressing crime, violence, sexual assault, and domestic violence in our county. For several years running, the CAP report has requested the assistance of one or more members of the DVC to assist in reviewing and analyzing data. Last year the public defender, Larry Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 29 Biggam, and this year the Chair, Heidi Simonson, were called upon to assess the public safety findings. Our Community Efficacy Task Force will make use of the Grand Jury’s report in its work evaluating Batterer’s Treatment programs over the next year.
R35:
The Board of Supervisors should guarantee funding for the annual DVC report to the community. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation has been implemented for 2006-07. Funds were included in the District Attorney’s budget to pay for the printing of the “Report to the Community 2006.”
R36:
Domestic violence advisory groups should make sure their literature is in both Spanish and English. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation requires further analysis on the part of the DVC. At present, the commission does not have or is unaware of available resources to translate the website and public postings into Spanish. Additionally, while the DVC looked into translating the “Report to the Community”, funds were not available to do so. The DVC does commit to continue to seek resources for this important recommendation. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC would like to implement this recommendation, but has no funding to do so. This recommendation cannot be implemented without such funding. The DVC will continue to ask for member organizations or the Board of Supervisors for resources to implement this important recommendation.
R37:
Individual members of the DVC should insist on compliance with bylaws concerning monthly meetings and attendance. With established goals and productivity as the highest concern, bylaws could be amended if necessary. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County supports this recommendation and requires all commission members to comply with the commission’s bylaws. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC will not be implementing the first part of this recommendation for the following reasons. - 30 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: Our present Bylaws require quarterly meetings. Nevertheless, we are presently meeting more frequently, as indicated above. In June, the DVC appointed a small task force to review and revise the Bylaws, and present them to the Commission as a whole for review and comment. The DVC intends to present amended Bylaws to the Board for their review before the end of
R38:
The DVC should consider changing its bylaws to shorten and stagger terms of office to infuse the DVC with fresh ideas and energy. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County supports this recommendation and defers to the commission to implement it. The commission has appointed a task force to propose amendments, and one of their proposals is to shorten terms to three years in length, and to add a provision that no member shall be eligible to serve for more than two terms. The commission anticipates submitting recommended changes to the Board for review and approval by the end of 2006. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC is implementing this recommendation. We are in the process of reviewing our Bylaws, a process started earlier this year. Shortening and staggering the terms of office will be considered as a portion of the entire bylaw review process. The DVC wholly agrees that fresh ideas and energy are needed. As indicated above, we have appointed a task force to propose amendments, and one of their proposals is to shorten terms to three years in length, and to add a provision that no member shall be eligible to serve for more than two terms. We anticipate presenting the proposed Bylaws to the Commission, and thereafter the Board by the end of 2006. After the amended bylaws are approved by the DVC, they must be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for their review and approval. We would appreciate from the Board any and all efforts to fill vacancies.
R39:
The DVC should consider re-establishing an executive committee and identifying these members on the DVC web site. It should also consider increasing the number of Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 31 officers to share responsibilities. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation has been implemented. The DVC has an Executive Committee, which was re-elected in June of 2006 and consists of the Chair, Vice-Chair and two to three at-large commissioners. The DVC has already drafted a revised website for the DVC which includes reference to all current committees, including the Executive Committee, and each committee’s members. The DVC anticipates the new website with this information will be available within 30 days, after review by the Commission as a whole. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: This recommendation has already been implemented. The DVC already has an Executive Committee, which was re-elected in June of 2006. The Executive Committee is composed of the Chair, Vice-Chair and two to three at- large commissioners. The DVC has already drafted a revised website for the DVC which includes reference to all current committees, including the Executive Committee, and each committee’s members. The DVC anticipates the new website with this information will be available within 30-60 days, after review by the Commission as a whole.
R40:
The DVC should fill its vacancies and remedy the attendance problem. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The DVC is implementing this recommendation. Members of the commission are appointed by the Board of Supervisors from applicants. Each member of the commission has actively sought volunteers willing to apply to the Board for membership, especially for the at-large seats, without success. The County’s website provides information on applying for vacant Commission spots and the DVC’s new website will post the vacancies available. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC cannot implement this recommendation. Membership is controlled by the Board of Supervisors. The DVC may recommend persons to the Board for its vacancies, but it is the Board’s duty to fill our vacancies. Review of our Minutes will reflect how much each member has actively sought volunteers willing to apply to the Board for membership for (in particular) the at-large seats, without success. Our meeting Minutes from the end of 2004 and January 2005 forward reflect the Commission’s discussions of and attempts to remedy this problem. - 32 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: The DVC’s new website will also post the vacancies available. The County’s website also provides information on applying for vacant Commission spots. The DVC is committed to regular retreats in order to focus and galvanize the present membership, and remedy the attendance problem. The DVC has also recently removed a non-attending member, and notified the Board of the vacancy.
R41:
The DVC should consider amending its bylaws to increase the chair’s term of office. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented. The DVC will review the length of the term of office of the Chair as a part of its overall review of the bylaws as stated in the response to recommendation 16. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC is implementing this recommendation. The DVC will review the length of the term of office of the Chair as a part of its overall review of the bylaws as stated in the response to recommendation 16.
R42:
The DVC should develop an orientation process for new members. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation requires additional analysis. The DVC will place this recommendation on its agenda before the end of 2006, and request the formation of a short term task force to develop an orientation process. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC will implement this recommendation. Implementation will require further time to develop either a simplified mentoring program or a new-member notebook with orienting materials. The DVC will place this recommendation on its agenda before the end of 2006, and request the formation of a task force for a short term, to develop an orientation.
R43:
The DVC should require each member to give an annual presentation on the organization he or she represents to update the commission as a whole. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation requires additional analysis. The County defers to commission members to determine whether such presentations would be a valuable use of the commission’s time. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 33 The DVC will implement this recommendation with some amendments. The Commission changed the format of our meetings in 2005, eliminating member presentations. At that time, members requested shortened meetings, as our attendance declined. The previous presentations ceased approximately one year ago, and currently consist only of introductions and communications from Commissioners. At this time, this recommendation can be implemented by November 2006, although our intent is to request two members per meeting provide “guided” reports on their organizations goals or direction as it relates to domestic violence.
R44:
Individual members of the DVC should take full advantage of networking opportunities to collaborate, problem solve, and determine whether unaddressed needs of survivors exist. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County supports this recommendation and encourages commission members to implement it. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC has already implemented this recommendation, by including an agenda item at the beginning of each meeting to provide time for this to occur. The Executive Committee approved earlier this year adding “networking time” to the beginning of the meeting. The Chair actively supports this at our meetings. Each member has been provided these recommendations, and hard copies will be made available at our next meeting.
R45:
The DVC should include information about its subcommittees on the county web site. It should also include progress reports on projects. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: This recommendation is currently being implemented. The DVC, without a budget, relies upon the CAO’s office for technical assistance in producing, editing and posting our website. The CAO’s office has recently completely revamped our website, and the DVC will be reviewing it within approximately 30 days.
R46:
DVC volunteers are to be commended for increasing awareness of domestic violence in Santa Cruz County. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: - 34 Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: The County concurs with the Grand Jury’s appreciation of commission members. Response: The Domestic Violence Commission: The DVC has implemented this recommendation, and further appreciates the commendation! We appreciate the work of the Grand Jury’s Health and Human Services Committee and their investigation, findings and recommendations. Domestic Violence in Santa Cruz County: - 35
R88:
The Grand Jury commends the United Way for fulfilling its purpose, for its organization and transparency, and the annual production of the Community Assessment Project and strongly recommends that it maintain its role in this project. Response: United Way AGREES. Thank you, we do intend to continue sponsoring the Community Assessment Project and related special reports.
R89:
The Grand Jury commends the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County for its organization, transparency, and its broad range of services provided to the nonprofit sector and recommends that it maintain all services.
R92:
The Community Foundation may want to consider a trial program wherein a selected, young (less than four years old) nonprofit, offering a unique service, or an established, productive but unfunded agency could be assisted financially and managerially for a selected period of time.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
21 hallazgos
F1:
Every local law enforcement agency has a Taser policy in place. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F2:
All local law enforcement agencies have reviewed and revised their Taser Policies within the past twelve months. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Local law enforcement agencies should continue to be diligent in updating their Taser policies to conform to changing regulations and technology. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Response: Capitola Police Department AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Response: City of Santa Cruz Police Department: The Taser: Don’t Be Shocked - 47 The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department is continually updating our Taser policies to appropriately address changing regulations and technology. Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. Updates to the Scotts Valley Police Department’s Taser policy have been implemented. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES. Since its inception, the Watsonville Police Department has been vigilant in keeping up on changes related to electronic stun devices. Experiences from other agencies relative to successful use and mis-use of the TASER continue to be an important part of on-going policy management. New information and developments concerning the weapon’s strengths and weaknesses are regularly incorporated into training scenarios and curriculum. Currently, all Taser training officers receive their training from Taser International. Local law enforcement administrators should lobby POST to provide independent training for Taser use. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Response: Capitola Police Department AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. On June 9, 2006, the POST Commission issued bulletin # 2006-07. This bulletin was a Notice of Proposed Regulatory Action to adopt minimum hours and curriculum requirements for electronic weapons operator training courses (Attachment #1). Response: City of Santa Cruz Police Department: The recommendation has been implemented by POST. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department will attempt to participate in the independent training within 180 days. Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. This has been implemented. POST has since created a Taser Instructor’s Course. This 16-hour course includes curriculum which covers medical aspects, risk factors such as drugs, alcohol, excited delirium, positional asphyxia, legal and ethical considerations, and more. Response: The Watsonville Police Department PARTIALLY AGREES. This is a good idea conceptually but until such time POST is prepared to carry out such training, the Watsonville Police Department will continue to turn to the manufacturer of the TASER device for advanced training needs. The dependence upon manufacturer support and training is not new to law enforcement. Agencies - 48 The Taser: Don’t Be Shocked routinely look to the makers of specialty devices such as guns, batons and less lethal equipment — for initial training and certification purposes. In-house experts, who independently design curriculum based on the needs of the agency, carry out on- going training. Local law enforcement agencies should publish a Use of Force Report to include Taser usage. Portions of this report could be shared with members of the community to foster educational awareness and improve community relations. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. Every utilization of the taser, including an accidental discharge or the mere display of the weapon to gain compliance, requires a written report by policy. This documentation is believed sufficient. Response: Capitola Police Department AGREES. This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented as part of the 2006 Capitola Police Department Year End Report due in the spring of 2007. Response: City of Santa Cruz Police Department: The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department has collected data, and provided a yearly report to the City Council, since 2005. Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. The Scotts Valley Police Department has not yet implemented this recommendation, but is in the process of creating such a report form within the next six months. Response: The Watsonville Police Department PARTIALLY AGREES. Government code 6254(f) identifies certain information, which must be made public unless release of the information would endanger the safety of a person or the successful completion of an investigation. In accordance with this law, the Watsonville Police Department has cooperated with public records requests for TASER Use of Force Reports and has released information to the press about the frequency of usage by its officers. In addition, portions of the Use of Force Report have been shared with members of the public during community education sessions. The Grand Jury recommends that law enforcement agencies within the county begin a tracking system to determine if a correlation between Taser deployment and the number of law enforcement officer Workers Compensation claims exists. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. The Taser: Don’t Be Shocked - 49 This recommendation requires further analysis. The Sheriff’s Office is willing to work with other local law enforcement agencies to devise an instrument for this purpose. Response: Capitola Police Department AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Response: City of Santa Cruz Police Department: The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department already maintains a tracking system of usage. Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. The Scotts Valley Police Department has not yet implemented this recommendation but believes the completed Use of Force report will aid in tracking any correlation between use of force incidents and workers compensation claims. We anticipate a time frame of six months to complete implementation. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES. The Watsonville Police Department supports this type of study and is currently gathering the data necessary to carry out a proper analysis.
F3:
Not all local law enforcement agencies publish a “use of force” report that includes Taser use and deployment. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office does not “publish” a use of force report relative to the actual discharge or deployment of the taser. However, the Sheriff’s Office, by policy, does document any use of deployment of the taser by written report. This report is reviewed by the supervisor of the employees who discharged or deployed the taser and by the lieutenant of the Investigation Division to ensure compliance with office policy. The Investigation lieutenant also tracks and logs each taser-related incident. Response: Capitola Police Department AGREES. Currently there are no reports that specifically record Taser use and deployment within the Capitola Police Department. However, for the past several years, the Capitola Police Department has had a comprehensive use of force reporting and investigation policy that records all use of force incidents including the use of the Taser. While the Police Department has not published these reports in the past, we plan to do so as part of the annual year end report which is usually published each April. Response: City of Santa Cruz Police Department AGREES. While the City of Santa Cruz Police Department is not aware of how other agencies treat use of force reports, it has been compiling a use of force report that includes Taser use and deployment for over a year. Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. The Scotts Valley Police Department has not implemented such a form but anticipates doing so within the next six months. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES. - 42 The Taser: Don’t Be Shocked
F4:
Every local law enforcement agency currently employs an officer trained to instruct in the proper use of the Taser according to individual department policy. Response: The Watsonville Police Department DISAGREES. The Watsonville Police Department began issuing X26 Tasers to each individual officer July of 2006.
F5:
Every local law enforcement agency currently employs an officer trained to instruct in the proper use of the Taser according to individual department policy. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F6:
Every local law enforcement agency uses the most current Taser training material provided by Taser International for initial and updated Taser training. POST does not provide Taser training to California law enforcement officers. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. Response: Capitola Police Department AGREES. Capitola Police Department has used the M-26 Taser since July 2003, and has recently purchased and trained on the new X-26 Taser model. Since the implementation of the current models of the Taser, the only available law enforcement training resource was from Taser International, the manufacturer. All training and procedure materials were supplied by the manufacturer as there were no other resources available. This has recently changed with new California P.O.S.T. training requirements (Copy of California Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training (POST) Electronic Weapons Courses Regulation 1084, see attachment #1). Response: City of Santa Cruz Police Department AGREES. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department has actively participated in current Taser training and POST has created a Taser training that will be available to local law enforcement agencies. Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. The Scotts Valley Police Department’s Taser Instructor was trained via Taser International; however we plan to send our instructor to a recently created POST Taser Instructor course. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F7:
Taser training officers must be re-certified every two years. The Taser: Don’t Be Shocked - 43 Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F8:
Only officers who have received Taser training are authorized to carry a Taser. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F9:
Every local law enforcement agency requires that officers who are going to carry Tasers on their duty shifts, must test the weapon prior to departing the office. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F10:
Officers carry a Taser on the opposite side of their bodies from their lethal weapons. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F11:
It is reported by training officers that the mere threat of using a Taser will often de- escalate a volatile situation. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F12:
The range of probes from a Taser is fifteen to twenty-one feet from weapon to target, thus reducing the proximity of physical contact. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F13:
When either the M26 or the X26 is discharged, small, colored and transparent, coded microdots, called afids, disburse into the surrounding area. The afids facilitate the collection of evidence and are traceable to the taser weapon used. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F14:
Barbs that penetrate the skin can be removed easily by officers or medical personnel. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F15:
Commonly, photos are taken of barb sites after removal. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F16:
The M26 and X26 Taser models have built-in memory that documents use of the weapon and are capable of being downloaded and used for statistical data gathering. Not all local law enforcement agencies have purchased the computer hardware to download this information. - 44 The Taser: Don’t Be Shocked Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. It is not known what other local agencies have in the way of software to download the described information. The Sheriff’s Office does have the ability to download all available statistical information stored in the taser memory. As a matter of policy, trained personnel download all such information following a taser discharge that becomes part of the written report. Response: Capitola Police Department AGREES. When the Police Department purchased its M-26 Tasers in 2003, we did not purchase the optional computer which can gather the statistical data. With our recent purchase of the new X-26 models, we have also purchased the computer. This computer however, is not capable of downloading information from the M-26 models. A separate computer would need to be purchased to work with the M-26 model. Response: City of Santa Cruz Police Department AGREES. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department has all of the necessary tools to download the statistical data. It has been using this data for our use of force report. Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES. The Watsonville Police Department has the software necessary to download TASER data and is in the process of purchasing a laptop that will be dedicated for this purpose.
F17:
Local law enforcement agency administrators were knowledgeable about the Taser and the controversy surrounding its use. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F18:
A search of the literature by the Grand Jury found that death or injury, associated with Taser utilization by law enforcement, occurred disproportionately in suspects on drugs, in states of excited delirium, or in those who received persistent multiple shocks. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F19:
It is difficult for law enforcement officers to quickly recognize the broad range of symptoms exhibited in states of excited delirium. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. The Taser: Don’t Be Shocked - 45 Excited delirium is a medical condition that is still not fully understood. All Sheriff’s Office personnel who have been trained and authorized to carry the taser have also received information concerning excited delirium. Further, the county forensic pathologist provided a block of instruction on this topic to Sheriff’s personnel. Response: Capitola Police Department AGREES. When the Police Department first began training and using the Tasers, the symptom known as “excited delirium” was an unknown. Over the past couple of years, however, the Police Department has conducted regular training on various objective symptoms of both physical and psychological indicators which may result in Taser usage. This on going training now includes recognizing the symptoms of “excited delirium.” Response: City of Santa Cruz Police Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department is in the process of setting up training on this issue. It will attempt to conduct training within 180 days. Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Local law enforcement agencies should train their personnel in the recognition of symptoms related to excited delirium and establish policies for handling persons in that state. As soon as reasonably possible, the services of medical professionals should be enlisted to render appropriate care. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. The Sheriff’s Office already conducts such training and the policy on taser use addresses medical concerns and response. Response: Capitola Police Department AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Response: City of Santa Cruz Police Department: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The City of Santa Cruz Police Department is aiming for implementation within 180 days. Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. The Scotts Valley Police Department has implemented this recommendation. Officers receive training in the recognition of excited delirium and our taser policy includes a - 50 The Taser: Don’t Be Shocked medical care component. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES. The Watsonville Police Department strongly agrees with this recommendation and has been instrumental in providing Excited Delirium and In-Custody Death training to members of local law enforcement, fire, paramedic and hospital personnel.
F20:
All of the policy items listed in the ACLU-NC “Best Practices Taser Policy” are partially or fully addressed in the Taser Policy of every local law enforcement agency. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES.
F21:
Local law enforcement administrators and training officers have told the 2005-2006 Grand Jury that officer Workers Compensation claims and suspect injuries have declined since Taser use began. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. The use of the taser by Sheriff’s staff is a recent event; therefore, there is little historical information available at this time. In the few times the taser has been utilized by deputies since implementation, there has been no reported injury to either the suspect or deputy. Considering our limited taser experience, it is possible both suspect and deputy could have received injuries from a physical confrontation had the taser not been utilized. Response: Capitola Police Department AGREES. The Capitola Police Department has conducted an audit of all of its Worker’s Compensation records for Police Officers injured in the line of duty in situations where a Taser could have been deployed if one was available. Our audit revealed no officer injuries during the last six months of 2003 when the Taser program began. - 46 The Taser: Don’t Be Shocked There was a spike in injuries in 2004 and a significant decrease in officer injuries in 2005 and 2006. Response: City of Santa Cruz Police Department PARTIALLY AGREES. It is difficult to statistically isolate the impacts of the Taser on Workers Compensation and suspect injuries. There are too many confounding factors that would render the information nothing more than anecdotal. Response: The Scotts Valley Police Department AGREES. Response: The Watsonville Police Department AGREES. Conclusions
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
71 hallazgos
F1:
The E and H bonds were originally each sold in three series: A, B, and C:7 Bond Sold Date Bond Amount Bond Term Ends Series A, Elementary July 1, 1998 $7,000,000.00 August 1, 2027 Series B, Elementary March 1, 2000 $15,500,000.00 August 1, 2029 Series C, Elementary October 2001 $5,598,115.65 February 1, 2026 TOTAL ELEM. $28,098,115.65 Series A, High School July 1, 1998 $15,000,000.00 August 1, 2027 Series B, High School March 1, 2000 $31,000,000.00 August 1, 2029 Series C, High School October 2001 $11,997,433.50 February 1, 2026 TOTAL HIGH SCH. $57,997,433.50 In April 2005, Series A and B Elementary and High School bonds were refinanced: Refinance, Series A and B, Elementary April 2005 $22,785,000 August 1, 2029 Refinance, Series A and B, High School April 2005 $45,500,000 August 1, 2029 Table 2. Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Sales, Measures E and H.
F2:
Total Elementary bond sales, Series A, B, and C exceeded the $28 million dollar cap established in Bond Measure E. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES.
F3:
When asked about exceeding the $28 million cap on the Elementary bonds, district administrative staff referred the Grand Jury’s questions to the district’s bond financial advisor, Northcross, Hill and Ach. The Grand Jury was told, 7 Official Statements, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District, General Obligation Bonds, Election of 1998, Series A, B, and C; Official Statements, Santa Cruz City High School District, General Obligation Bonds, Election of 1998, Series A, B, C; Official Statement, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District, 2005 General Obligation Refunding Bonds; Official Statement, Santa Cruz City High School District, 2005 General Obligation Refunding Bonds. - 10 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: “Unintentionally, $98,115.65 was issued in bonds over the 28 million dollar amount approved by the voters. The district has made provision to repay the $98,115.65 and all interest that has accrued.” The amount of the interest earned is unknown to the Grand Jury. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Initial drafts of the bond authorization for the Santa Cruz City Elementary School District (County of Santa Cruz, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 1998, proposed a maximum authorization of $28.1 million. When adopted, the resolution authorizing the bonds provided for a maximum of $28 million (the additional $100,000 amount was inadvertently omitted). It was assumed, upon the issuance of each series, that the authorized amount was $28.1 million. Upon issuance of the Series C Bonds, the $28 million limit was exceeded by $98,115.65. This fact was discovered in early June 2006. On June 16, 2006, the total sum of $114,325.65, $98,115.65 from the District (representing unexpended proceeds of the Series C Bonds), $8,105.00 from the District’s financial advisor and $8,105.00 from the District’s bond counsel, was deposited with the paying agent and invested in U.S. Treasury Securities and held for the payment of the Series C Bonds. The amounts paid by the District’s financial advisor and by the District’s bond counsel represents the total amount paid by the taxpayers and will be used to reimburse those amounts collected by the District for such payment.
F4:
The last of the original Elementary bonds was sold in 2001, but repayment of the $98,115.65 overage has not yet been made as of June 10, 2006. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller AGREES. School District staff advised the County Auditor-Controller that the $98,115.65 overage has been returned to the District’s third party bond paying agent on June 16, 2006, who will repay this amount at the next call date. The Auditor-Controller has not verified this information. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The $98,115.65 overage was repaid on 6/16/06.
F5:
When Elementary and High School Bonds, Series A and B were refinanced in April 2005, the total amount of the refunding bonds was $4,280,000 higher than the remaining principal of the original Series A and B bonds. The Elementary Series A and B Bonds were refinanced for $22,785,000 (the outstanding principal was $21,030,000); the High School Series A and B Bonds were refinanced for The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 11 $45,500,000 (the outstanding principal was $42,975,000).8 Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Auditor initiate an outside, independent audit to scrutinize the bond sales and refinancing, and expenditure of bond funds. If there was surplus cash gained from the refinancing, it should be accounted for and used to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The County Auditor-Controller does not generally have authority to audit School District activities. The County Auditor-Controller is generally responsible for the fiscal oversight of County functions or those under the Board of Supervisor’s control. However, if a district has funds in the County treasury, the Board of Supervisors can direct the Auditor-Controller to perform an audit of that district as well. California Government Code Section 26883 states: In addition to the power now possessed by the Board of Supervisors to enter into contracts for audits, the Board shall have the power to require that the County Auditor-Controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department, office, board or institution under its control and of any district whose funds are kept in the County treasury. . . Nevertheless, the issues raised in this Grand Jury report are important and should be addressed. The County Auditor-Controller has communicated with Santa Cruz City Schools District staff to research and respond to the findings and recommendation contained in this reply. Unfortunately, the School District’s reply is not due for another 30 days. Consequently, the response to a few of the findings in this report are incomplete, particularly Findings 7 and 10 regarding the legal cap on the amount of the refunding bonds and the 29 year life of the bonds. Hopefully, the School District’s response will include an independent legal opinion that the issues raised in The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 37
F6:
SCCS District’s bond financial advisor stated that “the amount of the refunding bonds is determined by the amount needed to establish an escrow to pay off the old bonds, which includes interest and principal due . . . and pay the costs of issuance.” Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller AGREES. The Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller does not know whether the District’s financial advisor made this statement, but generally speaking, this is how the amount of refunding bonds are determined. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Auditor initiate an outside, independent audit to scrutinize the bond sales and refinancing, and expenditure of bond funds. If there was surplus cash gained from the refinancing, it should be accounted for and used to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The County Auditor-Controller does not generally have authority to audit School District activities. The County Auditor-Controller is generally responsible for the fiscal oversight of County functions or those under the Board of Supervisor’s control. However, if a district has funds in the County treasury, the Board of Supervisors can direct the Auditor-Controller to perform an audit of that district as well. California Government Code Section 26883 states: In addition to the power now possessed by the Board of Supervisors to enter into contracts for audits, the Board shall have the power to require that the County Auditor-Controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department, office, board or institution under its control and of any district whose funds are kept in the County treasury. . . Nevertheless, the issues raised in this Grand Jury report are important and should be addressed. The County Auditor-Controller has communicated with Santa Cruz City Schools District staff to research and respond to the findings and recommendation contained in this reply. Unfortunately, the School District’s reply is not due for another 30 days. Consequently, the response to a few of the findings in this report are incomplete, particularly Findings 7 and 10 regarding the legal cap on the amount of the refunding bonds and the 29 year life of the bonds. Hopefully, the School District’s response will include an independent legal opinion that the issues raised in The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 37
F7:
Elementary bonds, Series C and Elementary 2005 Refunding Bonds total $28,383,115.65, again exceeding the $28 million cap established by the bond measure. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller PARTIALLY AGREES. The elementary bonds, Series C and Elementary 2005 refunding bonds do total $28,383,115.65. Whether this exceeded the $28 million cap established by the bond measure is a legal matter which the Auditor-Controller is not qualified to determine. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The issuance of refunding bonds, where the refunding bonds bear interest at a lower rate than the refunded bonds, always will require a higher amount of refunding bonds than refunded bonds. This is because federal tax law limits the investment rate of the escrow created to pay the refunded bonds to the interest rate on refunding bonds. Therefore, more dollars are needed, at a lower rate, to pay fewer dollars at a higher rate. This is common practice for general obligation refunding bonds. California law specifically permits the refunding bonds to have a principal amount greater than the bonds refunded. Official Statement, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District, 2005 General Obligation Refunding Bonds; Official Statement, Santa Cruz City High School District, 2005 General Obligation Refunding Bonds. - 12 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Government Code Section. 53552. Whenever the legislative body of a local agency determines that prudent management of the fiscal affairs of the local agency requires that it issue refunding bonds under the provisions of this article, it may do so without submitting the question of the issuance of the refunding bonds to a vote of the qualified electors of the local agency . . . . Refunding bonds shall not be issued if the total net interest cost to maturity on the refunding bonds plus the principal amount of the refunding bonds exceeds the total net interest cost to maturity on the bonds to be refunded plus the principal amount of the bonds to be refunded . . . . Subject to this limitation, the principal amount of the refunding bonds may be more than, less than, or the same as the principal amount of the bonds to be refunded. (emphasis added) In all cases, the total net interest cost to maturity on the refunding bonds plus the principal amount of the refunding bonds is less than the total net interest cost to maturity on the bonds refunded plus the principal amount of the bonds refunded.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Auditor initiate an outside, independent audit to scrutinize the bond sales and refinancing, and expenditure of bond funds. If there was surplus cash gained from the refinancing, it should be accounted for and used to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The County Auditor-Controller does not generally have authority to audit School District activities. The County Auditor-Controller is generally responsible for the fiscal oversight of County functions or those under the Board of Supervisor’s control. However, if a district has funds in the County treasury, the Board of Supervisors can direct the Auditor-Controller to perform an audit of that district as well. California Government Code Section 26883 states: In addition to the power now possessed by the Board of Supervisors to enter into contracts for audits, the Board shall have the power to require that the County Auditor-Controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department, office, board or institution under its control and of any district whose funds are kept in the County treasury. . . Nevertheless, the issues raised in this Grand Jury report are important and should be addressed. The County Auditor-Controller has communicated with Santa Cruz City Schools District staff to research and respond to the findings and recommendation contained in this reply. Unfortunately, the School District’s reply is not due for another 30 days. Consequently, the response to a few of the findings in this report are incomplete, particularly Findings 7 and 10 regarding the legal cap on the amount of the refunding bonds and the 29 year life of the bonds. Hopefully, the School District’s response will include an independent legal opinion that the issues raised in The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 37
F8:
The April 2005 refinancing of the Elementary and High School Bonds, Series A and B is not detailed on the SCCS Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller DISAGREES. School District staff advised the Auditor-Controller that this is not an accurate finding, but the Auditor-Controller has not verified this information. The Auditor- Controller has no opinion. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The SCCS Bond Projects Budget Report is designed to report on the status of revenue received and available for expenditure on the construction projects and related support costs, and the status of expenditures made from those funds. The April 2005 refinancing of the Elementary and High School Series A and B Bonds do not appear in this budget report because the refinancing did not result in any additional funds available to be expended on the construction projects.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Auditor initiate an outside, independent audit to scrutinize the bond sales and refinancing, and expenditure of bond funds. If there was surplus cash gained from the refinancing, it should be accounted for and used to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The County Auditor-Controller does not generally have authority to audit School District activities. The County Auditor-Controller is generally responsible for the fiscal oversight of County functions or those under the Board of Supervisor’s control. However, if a district has funds in the County treasury, the Board of Supervisors can direct the Auditor-Controller to perform an audit of that district as well. California Government Code Section 26883 states: In addition to the power now possessed by the Board of Supervisors to enter into contracts for audits, the Board shall have the power to require that the County Auditor-Controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department, office, board or institution under its control and of any district whose funds are kept in the County treasury. . . Nevertheless, the issues raised in this Grand Jury report are important and should be addressed. The County Auditor-Controller has communicated with Santa Cruz City Schools District staff to research and respond to the findings and recommendation contained in this reply. Unfortunately, the School District’s reply is not due for another 30 days. Consequently, the response to a few of the findings in this report are incomplete, particularly Findings 7 and 10 regarding the legal cap on the amount of the refunding bonds and the 29 year life of the bonds. Hopefully, the School District’s response will include an independent legal opinion that the issues raised in The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 37
R7:
The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects budget document that includes bond refinancing details. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 8.
R04-05:
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Natural Bridges $68,000 $83,232 $84,897 $86,595 $88,326 Loma Prieta $140,000 $165,000 $200,000 $228,400 $275,500 $208,000 $248,232 $284,897 $314,995 $363,826 Table 5. Santa Cruz City Schools Lease Revenues, 2004-2009. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The lease revenue in the table is reversed for Natural Bridges and Loma Prieta. 50. In August 2004, a citizen who attended two BOC meetings expressed concern about bond funds that had been used on schools that were later closed. The citizen felt that the lease money from those schools should be used to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The BOC discussed the citizen’s recommendation, but felt that the amount of tax savings to the individual tax payer would be an insignificant amount, whereas the amount of revenue loss to the General Fund would be significant. 51. District administrative staff reported to the BOC committee that legal counsel said it was not illegal to lease out the renovated schools and not use the revenues to defray 27 Agenda Packet, Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Oversight Committee Meeting, November 18, 2004. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 29 the debt. The BOC approved a motion to not recommend using lease revenues to retire bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The lease revenue is deposited to the General Fund to support operating expenses at the schools. Transferring this revenue to reduce Bond debt would require cuts in school budgets. District Office Relocation/Renovation 52. Even after Natural Bridges and Branciforte elementary schools had been closed, and the four alternative schools on three sites were moved to the former Branciforte Elementary campus, the district still needed to reduce overhead and save operating expenses due to declining enrollment. The district offices on Mission Street were sold, and ten classrooms at Soquel High School were chosen to serve as administrative offices (Soquel High School’s enrollment dropped from 1693 students in 1998 to 1234 students in 2005-06). The Adult Education Office, the Purchasing Department, and District Warehouse were moved to Palm Street. The Workability Program and Food Services Office were moved to DeLaveaga Elementary School. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The sale of 2931 Mission Street and the relocation of the District office occurred prior to the reorganization of the schools. The Workability Office was moved to Harbor High School. 53. Classrooms identified to house the district offices at Soquel High had already been remodeled using bond funds. At least an additional $460,537 in bond money was spent for the district office remodel. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The additional cost was to convert classrooms to office space, to add electrical, a telephone system, data wiring, and to add parking. 54. At its April 9, 2003 meeting, the SCCS Board approved the use of up to $1 million in bond funds for district office relocation and improvements. In its advisory capacity, the BOC did not recommend this action. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. 55. To date, at least $1,285,486 of bond project money has been spent on district office and adult education relocation. This total includes $274,424 for change orders, or - 30 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: twenty-seven (27%) of the original contract amount of $1,011,062. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. $1,291,631 has been spent on District Office/Adult Education relocation. Of that amount, $280,659 was for change orders, 27.7% of the original contract amounts. 56. A BOC member called the use of bond money for offices “not ethical,” and stated that the district could use anticipated redevelopment revenue to pay for the classroom conversions and other relocation projects. “There was a promise (the bond money) would never be used for administrative costs. It was to improve the student environment, not the district office environment.”28 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The ballot measure said that Bond funds would not be used for administrative salaries. The District’s Bond Counsel advised the District that it would be a legal use of the Bond funds, given the ballot language, for relocating District Office facilities. Selling the old District Office at 2931 Mission Street will save $400,000 per year in debt service payments in the General Fund, which provides more operating funds for schools and students. Oversight/Public Communication 57. The BOC has been meeting bi-monthly since 1998. These meetings are open to the public. Minutes and any reports released are public information. Meetings are held at Soquel High School, Room 312. Oversight committee members stated that meeting notices are posted at school sites and the district office. 58. In 1998, a bond web page was developed with links to each school site providing regular updates on bond-related issues. 59. In June 1999, the communications sub-committee of the BOC worked on placing bond-related information on the SCCS web page. Signs relating to bond projects were designed for placement at the school sites. 60. On August 26, 1999, the BOC stated that the Board of Education, Bond Oversight Committee, and district administration should work jointly to create a public relations program and method of presentation for each school site, the press, and the public in general. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The BOC has made repeated attempts to have the stories about the Bond Projects reported in the press. The press has not responded favorably to their attempts. We 28 Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Moving costs stir school-bond debate,” May 29, 2003. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 31 think that the school sites have been kept informed. However, the general public has not been very well informed because the press has been unresponsive. The BOC has had discussions about how to handle this. Most of the ways the BOC could find to inform the public involved the use of bond funds. The BOC has been very reluctant to spend bond funds on mailings and ads. The BOC has tried to ensure that the money was used to the benefit of the students in the classroom. 61. District staff and BOC members were interviewed for “Community Express,” a Community Television of Santa Cruz show. The show aired four times in Fall 1999 and outlined the school bond issues and future project plans. 62. A brochure “The Road to Renovation” detailed the status of Measure E and H projects and was distributed to parents from the school sites and mailed to households within the district in May 2000. This brochure indicated there would be ongoing communication to keep the public aware of progress and improvements. 63. In July 2000, a Board of Education member noted that the district’s web site was in need of updating. 64. The Grand Jury observed that as late as October 17, 2005, there was a “Bond Projects” section on the Santa Cruz City Schools web site. Information was out of date; the last update had been posted in 2001. By February of 2006, that section of the web site was no longer accessible, and posts “Forbidden: You don’t have permission to access … (this site) on this server.” Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District did not maintain detailed information on the Bond Projects on the SCCS website. There were not adequate resources dedicated to maintaining the SCCS website, including the Bond Projects information on the website. However, the SCCS website had a link to the Strategic Construction Management (SCM) website, where information on projects at each school site was available. When the District website was redesigned in September 2005, the link to SCM was inadvertently omitted. It was reinstated on 9/26/06. Without knowing specifically which website the Grand Jury attempted to access when receiving the “Forbidden: You don’t have permission to access…” message, it is difficult to respond to why that message was received. That message is a standard response on any web server when a web page cannot be found. 65. When asked about the inaccessibility of the web site, district staff responded that the webmaster worked one half-day per week and that there were no resources in the district to put more effort into the web site. - 32 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. 66. Strategic Construction Management publishes SCCS site construction newsletters on its web site. Newsletters for completed bond projects include construction budget summaries, schedules, and architect, inspector, and contractor information. Web site summaries of current projects have none of this information.29 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. 67. The construction budget summaries for “Completed Projects” on the Strategic Construction Management web site do not match the figures printed on the Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May10, 2006. The Strategic Construction Management web site is the only one displaying information on the SCCS bond construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The costs reported on the website include hard costs and soft costs (architect fees, DSA fees, IOR fees, bidding costs). The costs reported on the Project Close-out Report are only hard costs paid to contractors. 68. According to district administrative staff, by the end of summer 2006, ninety-eight percent (98%) of bond funds will be spent. The BOC’s final meeting is scheduled for November 2006. If there is any money left over, district staff will oversee expenditures. Construction projects could extend into Spring 2007. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The only remaining project after November, 2006, will be the new Santa Cruz High School swimming pool projects that will be funded 50% with Bond Funds. 69. Strategic Construction Management will be paid $34,500 to produce a Bond Projects Report. This fee is included in their July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 contract extension. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. Strategic Construction Management, http://strategic-cm.com/main/santacruzcityschools.htm. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 33 This was a proposal based on ill-defined scope and provided to the BOC for discussion purposes. This was never approved. 70. At its May 18, 2006 meeting, the BOC reviewed options for its final committee report which may be in the form of newspaper ads or inserts, postcards, a newsletter, a twenty-four page report, or a video. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Conclusions Bonds E and H 1. Measure E, Series A, B, and C bond sales exceeded the voter-approved amount of $28 million by $98,115.65. The $28 million cap was exceeded a second time when the Measure E, Series A and B bonds were refinanced, this time by $383,115.65. 2. A savings of over $3 million in interest is projected due to the refinancing of the Elementary and High School Bonds, Series A and B that were sold for $4,280,000 million more than the principal remaining. Although interest was decreased, the total debt was increased. The purpose of the refinancing appears to be to extract more funds and not to lower property taxes. 3. The 2005 refinancing of the Elementary and High School Bonds is not shown on the SCCS Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006. Voters are entitled to full disclosure regarding all bond details. 4. Contrary to the language of the Voter Information Pamphlet, the bond terms of both the Elementary and High School bonds are greater than twenty-five years. 5. Property owners in the Santa Cruz City Schools District are paying a higher percentage of their property taxes to repay bonds E and H in the 2005-2006 tax year than they paid in the 2004-2005 tax year. To date, the decreased bond interest rates have not reduced property taxes. 6. Over the next twenty-three years, property tax deposits will earn interest that could be used to reduce bond debt. 7. The SCCS District has exceeded its fiscal authority granted in Measures E and H by selling bonds for more than the voter-approved limit. By so doing, it could make it more difficult for voters to approve future bond projects. Project Management 8. As of April 30, 2006, expenses for architects/engineers, and construction management total sixteen percent (16%) of the total bond project expenditures, or over $18 million. - 34 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: 9. The district did not have personnel on staff with adequate construction knowledge to manage large construction projects. 10. The district could not find an efficient and cost-effective method of construction program management. There were many layers of construction supervision and coordination paid for with bond dollars: general contractors, architects, Strategic Construction Management, and the district’s Construction Program Coordinator. 11. Originally, the Strategic Construction Management contract was for $1.2 million and all projects were to be completed by December 2004. By the end of 2006, payments to Strategic Construction Management will reach nearly $3 million, and projects are still continuing. 12. Additional payments were made to Strategic Construction Management for moving services that were part of their original contract with SCCS for which a fixed-price bid had been submitted. 13. Total bond project construction management fees from 1998 to present appear excessive, and will top $7 million before the end of 2006. 14. The bidding process for the Construction Program Manager was not conducted according to Public Contract Code Procedures. Bid documentation is not available from the district to determine whether the lowest bidder was accepted; and documentation that the bids were opened in public as mandated by the Public Contract Code has not been made available by the district. Bidding 15. When the board voted to no longer require re-bidding projects that surpassed the ten percent change order threshold, it removed the cap on change orders. 16. A contractor should not have been considered “responsible” if that contractor’s previous jobs had excessive change orders and if court action was necessary. 17. When projects were bid with alternates, this allowed contractors to manipulate the system by giving a low bid or zero on alternates, thereby allowing a contractor to submit the lowest bid. The bid would not necessarily be awarded to a responsible bidder. Change Orders 18. The SCCS Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006 is incomplete; therefore, a true assessment of costs and overruns cannot easily be made. 19. The amount of change orders appears excessive. This could be due, in part, to the removal of the ten percent (10%) cap requiring project re-bidding. 20. There was no financial incentive for contractors and architects to keep change orders to a minimum. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 35 Division of the State Architect Oversight 21. The Architects of Record have not fulfilled their responsibilities to secure project closeout and certification by the DSA. 22. District administrative staff has not seen the projects through to closeout by insisting that the Architects of Record submit all closeout documentation. 23. The district, architect, and engineer failed to file DSA Form-5 before IORs started project 01-103363 as required by the California Code of Regulations. 24. IOR documentation for project 01-103363 is incomplete and shows a gap of eighteen days with no IOR site notations or reports. It is a violation of the California Code of Regulations for a project to proceed without an IOR. 25. Since district and DSA documentation of IOR assignments and dates do not match, the Grand Jury was unable to determine whether projects progressed without an assigned IOR, or without a DSA-approved IOR. School Closures/Leasing 26. Although bond funds were used to renovate the Natural Bridges and Loma Prieta sites, lease revenues have not been used to repay bond debt. District Office Relocation/Renovation 27. Despite the fact that the Voter Information Pamphlet arguments in favor of the bond measures clearly stated that bond funds were not to be used for administrative offices, the SCCS Board used bond funds for this purpose. 28. The SCCS Board ignored BOC recommendations not to use bond funds for district office renovations and relocation. 29. Lack of planning resulted in wasted money at Soquel High when ten classrooms that had already undergone renovation and modernization were remodeled for district offices. 30. The SCCS District spent more than $1.2 million on district office renovations and relocations. The district inappropriately approved $1 million for this purpose; no bond money should have been used. Oversight/Public Communication 31. The BOC is scheduled to disband in November 2006. Projects may continue until at least Spring 2007, and there will be no BOC oversight. Bonds were passed under the assumption that an oversight committee would be in place for the duration of the projects. - 36 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: 32. The district has not maintained the bond project information on its web site. This could have been a valuable means of providing ongoing, up-to-date public information on the bond projects. 33. Over the last eight years, there has been no ongoing form of public communication with district residents regarding the bond projects. Efforts made, such as starting a web page, being interviewed for Santa Cruz Community Television, and producing a brochure, all took place between 1998-2000. 34. As of this late date, the BOC has not yet determined the format and scope of its final report. The Grand Jury questions whether this will give the BOC time to prepare a comprehensive report. 35. Paying Strategic Construction Management $34,500 to help prepare a final report detailing the bond projects could result in a loss of objectivity and detail in evaluating the projects’ successes and failures. Recommendations 1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Auditor initiate an outside, independent audit to scrutinize the bond sales and refinancing, and expenditure of bond funds. If there was surplus cash gained from the refinancing, it should be accounted for and used to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The County Auditor-Controller does not generally have authority to audit School District activities. The County Auditor-Controller is generally responsible for the fiscal oversight of County functions or those under the Board of Supervisor’s control. However, if a district has funds in the County treasury, the Board of Supervisors can direct the Auditor-Controller to perform an audit of that district as well. California Government Code Section 26883 states: In addition to the power now possessed by the Board of Supervisors to enter into contracts for audits, the Board shall have the power to require that the County Auditor-Controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department, office, board or institution under its control and of any district whose funds are kept in the County treasury. . . Nevertheless, the issues raised in this Grand Jury report are important and should be addressed. The County Auditor-Controller has communicated with Santa Cruz City Schools District staff to research and respond to the findings and recommendation contained in this reply. Unfortunately, the School District’s reply is not due for another 30 days. Consequently, the response to a few of the findings in this report are incomplete, particularly Findings 7 and 10 regarding the legal cap on the amount of the refunding bonds and the 29 year life of the bonds. Hopefully, the School District’s response will include an independent legal opinion that the issues raised in The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 37 Findings 7 and 10 are within the confines of the law. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. If the County Auditor decides to audit the bond sales and refinancing, the District will cooperate with the County Auditor. The District did not realize any surplus cash from the refinancing. The refinancing did reduce the bonded debt. 2. An outside, independent performance audit should be conducted to analyze, assess, and report on the Santa Cruz City Schools District’s operational and construction management policies, procedures, and practices regarding Bond Measures E and H. Investigation as to whether all California Code of Regulations, Title 24 standards were followed should be included. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The District will not conduct an independent performance audit of the construction program for the following reasons: 1. The Board and the BOC have been satisfied with the program. 2. The schools have been satisfied with the outcome of the projects. 3. The Bond projects are nearly complete. There would be no future projects to which to apply any recommendations from a performance audit. 4. Low priority for the expenditure of funds for an audit. The plans and specifications for the projects were approved by the DSA before bidding to ensure compliance with Title 24. DSA-certified inspectors inspected the projects during construction to ensure plans and specifications were followed by the contractors. 3. The SCCS District should insist that the architects submit all documents related to completed bond projects under DSA supervision so the projects can be certified and closed out. Architect fees should be withheld until DSA certification is complete. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District is insisting that the architects submit all documents on completed projects so the projects can be closed out by the DSA. The current architect contracts do not provide for withholding of fees pending completion of final DSA project close- out. 4. For future major construction projects, the SCCS District should consider hiring an experienced, qualified construction project manager or team as a limited-term district - 38 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: employee(s). This would cost less than hiring a construction management firm. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. For future major construction projects, the District will consider hiring an experienced qualified construction project manager or team as limited-term District employees. It is not clear that this would cost less or be more effective than hiring a construction management firm. The BOC has been very satisfied with the decision to engage the services of Strategic Construction Management. 5. The SCCS District should replace the funds used for District Office relocation and renovation to reduce bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 56. 6. The SCCS District should use lease revenues and interest on future property tax collections to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 51. 7. The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects budget document that includes bond refinancing details. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 8. 8. The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects closeout document detailing all bond construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The Bond Oversight Committee will produce a final report of the Bond Projects by November 2006. 9. Future construction projects should be awarded to the contractor submitting the lowest base bid. Alternates should be bid separately. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 39 The process being used complies with Public Contract Code and has been approved by District legal counsel. 10. For future construction projects, the contractors hired should adhere to the ten-percent cap on change orders previously in effect. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. Future modernization projects may require exceeding the 10% change order threshold for the reasons outlined in the response to Findings # 31 and 32. 11. The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006. 12. The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site. 13. The BOC should continue to operate until all bond projects are completed. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The BOC has recommended and the Board has approved that the last BOC meeting will be on November 16, 2006. The only construction project that will continue after that date will be the Santa Cruz High School swimming pool. The Board and the BOC do not think that the BOC needs to continue to meet to oversee one project that is funded 50% by Bond Funds. - 40 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: 14. District support staff is to be commended for its helpfulness, promptness, and courtesy when providing requested documentation. Responses Required Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within Santa Cruz City 2-12, 14, 15, Schools Board of 19, 20, 23, 24, 90 Days Trustees 27-29, 31, 32, 1-13 (October 1, 2006) 34-44, 46, 47, 51, 53-56, 64- 70 Santa Cruz County 60 Days Auditor/Controller 1-15 1 (September 1, 2006) The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 41
F09:
The contract was awarded for $1,204,700 when the lowest bid was actually $1,151,399. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Contracts are always awarded to the lowest bidder as defined in section 10 of our Instructions to Bidders (Exhibit 5) which are based on Public Contract Code section 20103.8 (Exhibit 6), and advice from District legal counsel (Exhibit 7). A copy of bid # 2006-09 (Exhibit 8) shows that, as defined in our bid documents, Robert Bothman was the low bidder based on the total bid with all alternates. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 25 Change Orders
F9:
According to the Official Statements for the bond sales, property owners residing in the Santa Cruz City Schools District will be repaying bonds E and H until 2029. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 13
F10:
The Voter Information Pamphlet for Bond Measures E and H contained an “impartial analysis by County Counsel” stating that “under current California law, the term of the bonds cannot exceed twenty-five years.”9 This term is also stated in the California Education Code, Section 15144: “The number of years the whole or any part of the bonds are to run shall not exceed 25 years, from the date of the bonds or the date of any series thereof.”10 Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller PARTIALLY AGREES. The voter information pamphlet did include this statement. California Education Code Section 15144 authorizes bonds up to 25 years. California Government Code authorizes bonds up to 40 years. Whether the 29 year bonds that were issued under the Government Code are legally compliant for a School District is a legal matter which the Auditor-Controller is not qualified to determine. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The bonds were authorized by resolution adopted by the Governing Board, with the following stipulations: Said bonds proposed to be issued and sold shall bear interest at a rate not exceeding the maximum rate allowable by law, at the time or times of the sale thereof, such interest to be payable annually or semiannually thereafter, and the number of years the whole or any part of the principal amount of the bonds shall be payable shall not exceed twenty-five (25) years (or such greater maximum term as may be permitted by law) from the date of the bonds or the date of any series thereof. (emphasis added) Section 53506 of the California Government Code provides full authority for the issuance of bonds by a school district and is intended to provide a complete additional and alternative method for doing so, supplemental and additional to the powers conferred by any other laws. This section authorizes the issuance of bonds for up to 40 years. The School District has no control over the analysis of ballot measures written by the County Counsel, who did not mention the authority that school districts have under the Government Code to issue general obligation bonds for terms up to 40 years. The terms on Series A and B of Measures E and H were 28 years.
F11:
On April 13, 2005, the SCCS Board of Education passed resolutions authorizing the refinancing (refunding) of the general obligation Bond Measures E and H, Series A 9 County of Santa Cruz Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet for Special School District Election, Tuesday, April 14, 1998. California Education Code, Section 15144, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/edc.html. - 14 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: and B to take advantage of decreased interest rates. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller AGREES. School District staff advised the Auditor-Controller that this is an accurate finding, but the Auditor-Controller has not verified this information. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES.
F12:
SCCS District’s bond financial advisor stated that the refunding of the bonds will result in lower debt service payments, with the majority of savings in 2006-2010, and that the refinancing will lower taxes. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller PARTIALLY AGREES. The Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller does not know whether the District’s financial advisor made this statement, but law requires any debt refinancings to result in lower annual debt service payments. The debt service payments for the Santa Cruz City Schools Series A and B bonds were reduced after the refinancing. Debt service payments for A and B totaled $4,714,087 in FY 2004-05 before the refinancing. Debt service payments were reduced to $4,439,449 in FY 2005-06 and $4,010,865 in FY 2006-07 after refinancing. Following is a schedule detailing this. 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Elementary Schools A (1998) 466,655 B (1998) 1,083,070 A and B Total 1,549,725 A and B Refinanced (2005) 1,453,347 1,319,610 C (1998) 400,000 400,000 405,001 Total 1,949,725 1,853,347 1,724,611 High School A (1998) 1,002,470 B (1998) 2,161,892 A and B Total 3,164,362 A and B Refinanced (2005) 2,986,102 2,691,255 C (1998) 855,000 855,000 855,751 Total 4,019,362 3,841,102 3,547,006 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 15 Total Elementary and High Schools A (1998) 1,469,125 B (1998) 3,244,962 A and B Total 4,714,087 A and B Refinanced (2005) 4,439,449 4,010,865 C (1998) 1,255,000 1,255,000 1,260,752 Total 5,969,087 5,694,449 5,271,617 Debt service for the refinancing bonds (A and B) will continue at approximately $4 million until FY 2010-11, at which time it will increase to about $4.7 million, where it will remain until the bonds mature in 2029. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The taxpayers for both the elementary school district and the high school district will see significantly lower tax rate on the bills they receive during the fall of 2006. These bills will be for the fiscal year 2006-07. The timing of the savings is consistent with the statement referenced above.
F13:
For tax year 2004-2005, property owners residing in the Santa Cruz City Schools District within the City of Santa Cruz were paying property taxes at a rate of .068% toward bonds E and H. In tax year 2005-2006, the rate increased to .081%. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller AGREES. These property tax rates are stated correctly. However, these rates include the Series C bonds which were not refunded. The property tax rates for just the Series A and B bonds (excluding the Series C bonds) were .054% for FY 2004-05 and .068% for FY 2005-2006. There was a one time increase in the tax rates for FY 2005-06, but it was followed by a significant decrease to .008% for FY 2006-07. The primary reason for the one time rate increase in FY 2005-06 is because taxes are collected in the previous fiscal year to make the August debt service payment in the following fiscal year, further complicated by the mechanisms of the bond refinancing and the associated reserve funds during this period. The much lower rate in FY 2006-07 compensates for the higher rate the previous year. In the future, the property tax rates to pay this debt service will stabilize at below the pre-refunding rate of .054%, tracking with the total debt service payments indicated in item 12 above. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The tax rate is calculated by the County of Santa Cruz. The primary considerations are the debt service on the bonds, the reserve factor established by the county and the assessed value. Of the three factors the district can control only the debt service on - 16 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: the bonds. The High School refunding resulted in $2.5 million in total debt service savings and the Elementary School refunding resulted in $1.2 million in total debt service savings. In the tax year 2005-06 the combined refundings resulted in 6,393.99 of debt service savings. In 2006-07 the combined tax rate on the E and H bonds is .024272% (see Exhibit 1).
F14:
Interest earned on bond sale proceeds has been used for the bond projects and has not been used to repay the bond.11 Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller AGREES. School District staff advised the Auditor-Controller that this is an accurate finding, but the Auditor-Controller has not verified this information. This is a legally acceptable and common practice. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES.
F15:
As property tax is collected to repay bonds E and H, the money is deposited in the pooled investment fund of the county until the district draws it out. These deposits earn interest. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller PARTIALLY AGREES As property tax is collected to repay bonds E and H, the money is deposited in the County’s pooled investment fund. However, the District does not draw the funds out of the County. Rather, the County makes the debt service payments directly to the Bond Paying Agent. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District does not draw the funds out of the County pooled investment fund. The County transfers the funds directly to the Bond Paying Agent, who uses the funds to make interest payments to Bond holders and to retire Bonds as they come due. Budget Expense Summary
F16:
Following is a summary of the SCCS Bond Projects Budget expenses from July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006:12 ITEM EXPENSE PERCENTAGE OF EXPENSES Construction Contracts $82,431,328 74% Architects/Engineers $11,212,596 10% 11 Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 11, 1998 to April 30, 2006. Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 11, 1998 to April 30, 2006. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 17 Construction Management $6,928,864 6% Miscellaneous Construction Costs $4,178,084 4% Reserves $3,901,483 4% Staff Salaries and Other Support $2,225,522 2% TOTAL EXPENSES $110,877,877 100% Table 3. Summary of SCCS Bond Projects Budget Expenses, July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006. Project Management
F17:
In January 2001, the Bond Projects staff requested authority from the school board and the BOC to use their discretion before bidding projects in the future, and to decide whether to bid projects with one general contractor or use multiple-prime contractors.
F18:
Results of the first four major bond projects undertaken at one high school, one junior high school and two elementary were described as follows: “All four projects were completed late, two of the four projects are over budget, the quality of some of the work was sub-standard on two projects, and sub-standard work was allowed to stand when first done, assuming it would be rectified as part of the punch list at the end of the projects, but after many spaces had been reoccupied. Some work that was planned to be included in some projects was left out of the initial plans and specs and had to be added with change orders, adding time and cost to the project.”13
F19:
At the October 24, 2001, SCCS Board of Education meeting, district administrative staff dissatisfaction with the ability of the construction managers to monitor and control the work on multiple prime projects was reported. District staff recommended: • bidding future construction projects using general contractors • terminating the two elementary and secondary Construction Managers’ contracts • increasing Inspector of Record time on projects to better monitor quality of work • increasing architect involvement in construction administration • reorganizing district support and oversight of projects • pre-qualifying bidders for future projects Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES.
F20:
District administrative staff stated that using general contractors had the advantages of less contract administration, total coverage of work, and direct lines of accountability. Disadvantages were that the general contractor might not select the 13 Santa Cruz City Schools, Request for Proposals, Management Services for Construction Projects, 2001. - 18 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: lowest subcontractor bid and could charge up to a fifteen percent markup on subcontractor change orders.14 District administrative staff stated that using general contractors could cost more, but there would be clear lines of responsibility and “headaches would be reduced.” Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. District administrative staff also believed that bidding projects with General Contractors instead of multiple-prime contractors would reduce legal costs. The District has been involved in two construction lawsuits, both with contractors on multiple-prime projects and none with general contractors. The clear lines of responsibility and accountability for any construction issues are with the general contractor. When multiple-prime contractors are on a project, the lines of responsibility and accountability can become blurred between prime contractors.
F21:
On November 15, 2001, district administrative staff reported to the BOC that the SCCS Board had approved a plan to hire a consultant to provide general oversight and management of the construction program. The board’s preference was to hire professionals in the construction management field to manage future projects, instead of having district employees in the project management role. The board stated that it did not have confidence that district employees could provide management, in light of the problems that had been reported by school staff at Branciforte Junior High on that school’s projects.15
F22:
Seven firms responded to the district’s Request for Proposal (RFP) for a construction program manager. Three finalists were interviewed, and Strategic Construction Management was chosen by the SCCS Board as the Construction Program Manager to be effective February 1, 2002. District administrative staff and volunteers stated the board liked the fact that Strategic Construction Management was local and had ties to the community.
F23:
The district has not been able to produce the fixed-price bids and requested supporting documentation for this selection process. This documentation is public record. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The selection of a CM firm was not a bid process. It was a Request for Proposals for selecting professional services, for which the public bid requirements do not apply. Four CM firms were interviewed by the BOC Interview Committee, who ranked them as follows:
F24:
The Grand Jury could find no documentation that the bids for the Construction Program Manager were opened publicly as required by the Public Contract Code.16 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. Contracting for construction management services is contracting for professional services and is not subject to the lowest bid requirements of the Public Contract code. The fees for professional services are typically negotiated from a proposal and are not bid. This process is the same process used when hiring architects or state-certified inspectors. According to the District’s legal counsel on our construction program, Paul Taylor of Hefner, Stark and Marois, the District is not subject to section 10180 of the Public Contract Code that applies to State agencies but is subject to Government code section 4525 et seq. (See Exhibit 2.) 25. “Previously, the district used its staff to oversee multiple contractors at individual schools. Officials expect the new system, which includes hiring a general contractor for each project, will simplify the process and attract more bids, particularly from area contractors. The district will pay Strategic $1.2 million. District officials expect to finish all projects by December 2004.”17
F25:
Since district and DSA documentation of IOR assignments and dates do not match, the Grand Jury was unable to determine whether projects progressed without an assigned IOR, or without a DSA-approved IOR. School Closures/Leasing
F26:
Construction Management budgets were reduced by $2,128,663 due to termination of the two previous Construction Management contracts. Architect Fee budgets were then increased $1,288,160 for increased services for construction administration due to reorganization of management for the projects. These adjustments, when combined with the new Strategic Construction Management contract for $1.2 16 California Public Contract Code, Section 10180, http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/contents.html?sec=pcc 17 Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Firm will oversee school construction projects,” February 15, 2002. - 20 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: million, produced an immediate overall increase for the bond projects of over $360,000.
F27:
Since February 1, 2002, there have been numerous contract extensions and additional payments approved for Strategic Construction Management, summarized as follows: Original Moving Contract Contract Moving Contract Contract18 Services19 Renewal20 Extension21 Contract22 Extension23 TOTAL Term 2/2/02 – 8/23/02 – 3/1/04 – 10/1/05 – 5/05 – 7/1/06 – 2/28/04 2/28/04 8/31/05 6/30/06 9/05 12/31/06 Amount $1,205,104 $99,825 $958,058 $374,325 $27,254 $224,500 $2,889,066 Table 4. Approved Contracts for Strategic Construction Management Paid by Bond Funds. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The original contract with Strategic Construction management was based on the projects originally planned out of the $86 million in E and H bond funds. The renewal and subsequent extensions in the SCM contract were added when the District received an additional $26.5 million in State SB50 funds. The District also added $15 million in other District funds to the projects that increased the need for Strategic CM services. Refer to attached spreadsheet (Exhibit 3).
F28:
In addition to bond funds, payments totaling $68,273 to Strategic Construction Management have been approved by the SCCS Board: $48,221 from the General Fund to “plan and coordinate moving of furniture, equipment and supplies (March 24, 2004); and $20,052 from the Capital Facilities Fund to “plan and coordinate the relocation of 21 portable classrooms” (April 21, 2004). Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, February 27, 2002. Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, August 14, 2002. Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, December 10, 2003. Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, June 8, 2005 22 Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, June 8, 2005. Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, April 26, 2006. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 21 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. These services were related to school reorganization and consolidation and were not paid for with Bond funds (see Exhibit 3).
F29:
In the RFP for Management Services for Construction Projects that was part of the Strategic Construction Management Agreement with the district, one requirement is to “plan and coordinate the moving of staff, furniture, material and equipment related to the construction projects.” Strategic Construction Management submitted a fixed fee proposal to secure this contract. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. Strategic Construction Management’s original scope included moving as it related to construction projects, such as moving classroom furniture as part of on-going construction, and moving furniture and equipment within a given campus as a result of work directly related to the Bond construction projects. The increase in services/fees were required for the management and coordination of moves at the various construction sites beyond those considered in the District’s scope of services as described in the Request for Proposals (RFP) for management services for construction projects. The Strategic Construction Management original fee proposal was based on the District’s scope of services as described in the RFP. The District’s RFP was not specific regarding the scope, phasing requirements and amount of time required to coordinate and direct the moves at the numerous school sites. Included in Strategic Construction Management’s scope of services and fixed fee was 200 hours dedicated for planning and coordinating the moving of staff, furniture, materials and equipment during construction. The allocated fee for this service was $15,000. At the time of the request for the fee increase, Strategic Construction Management had expended approximately 390 hours related to the moves. Strategic Construction Management was providing services that included: preparing documents to solicit a minimum of three (3) moving quotes, leading pre-quotation school site walks, receiving quotations, developing phasing plans, meeting with staff and faculty to determine packing needs, arranging for the delivery of cardboard boxes and storage containers and being available to coordinate and facilitate moves. In addition to the amount of time needed to support the District with their moves, Strategic Construction Management had not been provided with “full-time clerical support” as described in the RFP. Not having this support took Strategic staff away from the duties they anticipated.
F30:
In March 2002, the board approved a district Construction Projects Coordinator position to serve as a liaison between Strategic Construction Management and the district sites. The position is funded through the elementary and secondary bonds. The head of the district Maintenance Department was appointed to the position. - 22 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Bidding
F31:
The SCCS Board of Education approved a resolution to no longer require a public re-bidding of work once change orders exceeded the cost of the original bid by over ten percent (10%), as had been previously required. It was stated that the re-bid process can cause a six- to eight-week delay, and since the district had a general contractor in charge of bond-funded projects, the chances of exceeding a ten percent overrun were considerably less. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY DISAGREES. A copy of Board resolution #22-01-02 authorizing exceeding the 10% limit on change orders and the cover memo that went to the Board with the resolution, are attached as Exhibit 4. Nowhere in the cover memo does it say that the chances of exceeding the 10% limit were less because of having a general contractor in charge of the construction projects, as alleged by the Grand Jury in this finding. There were two reasons that the Board approved the resolution allowing change orders to exceed 10% of the original bid. They were:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R10:
For future construction projects, the contractors hired should adhere to the ten-percent cap on change orders previously in effect. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. Future modernization projects may require exceeding the 10% change order threshold for the reasons outlined in the response to Findings # 31 and 32.
R04-05:
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Natural Bridges $68,000 $83,232 $84,897 $86,595 $88,326 Loma Prieta $140,000 $165,000 $200,000 $228,400 $275,500 $208,000 $248,232 $284,897 $314,995 $363,826 Table 5. Santa Cruz City Schools Lease Revenues, 2004-2009. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The lease revenue in the table is reversed for Natural Bridges and Loma Prieta. 50. In August 2004, a citizen who attended two BOC meetings expressed concern about bond funds that had been used on schools that were later closed. The citizen felt that the lease money from those schools should be used to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The BOC discussed the citizen’s recommendation, but felt that the amount of tax savings to the individual tax payer would be an insignificant amount, whereas the amount of revenue loss to the General Fund would be significant. 51. District administrative staff reported to the BOC committee that legal counsel said it was not illegal to lease out the renovated schools and not use the revenues to defray 27 Agenda Packet, Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Oversight Committee Meeting, November 18, 2004. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 29 the debt. The BOC approved a motion to not recommend using lease revenues to retire bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The lease revenue is deposited to the General Fund to support operating expenses at the schools. Transferring this revenue to reduce Bond debt would require cuts in school budgets. District Office Relocation/Renovation 52. Even after Natural Bridges and Branciforte elementary schools had been closed, and the four alternative schools on three sites were moved to the former Branciforte Elementary campus, the district still needed to reduce overhead and save operating expenses due to declining enrollment. The district offices on Mission Street were sold, and ten classrooms at Soquel High School were chosen to serve as administrative offices (Soquel High School’s enrollment dropped from 1693 students in 1998 to 1234 students in 2005-06). The Adult Education Office, the Purchasing Department, and District Warehouse were moved to Palm Street. The Workability Program and Food Services Office were moved to DeLaveaga Elementary School. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The sale of 2931 Mission Street and the relocation of the District office occurred prior to the reorganization of the schools. The Workability Office was moved to Harbor High School. 53. Classrooms identified to house the district offices at Soquel High had already been remodeled using bond funds. At least an additional $460,537 in bond money was spent for the district office remodel. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The additional cost was to convert classrooms to office space, to add electrical, a telephone system, data wiring, and to add parking. 54. At its April 9, 2003 meeting, the SCCS Board approved the use of up to $1 million in bond funds for district office relocation and improvements. In its advisory capacity, the BOC did not recommend this action. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. 55. To date, at least $1,285,486 of bond project money has been spent on district office and adult education relocation. This total includes $274,424 for change orders, or - 30 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: twenty-seven (27%) of the original contract amount of $1,011,062. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. $1,291,631 has been spent on District Office/Adult Education relocation. Of that amount, $280,659 was for change orders, 27.7% of the original contract amounts. 56. A BOC member called the use of bond money for offices “not ethical,” and stated that the district could use anticipated redevelopment revenue to pay for the classroom conversions and other relocation projects. “There was a promise (the bond money) would never be used for administrative costs. It was to improve the student environment, not the district office environment.”28 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The ballot measure said that Bond funds would not be used for administrative salaries. The District’s Bond Counsel advised the District that it would be a legal use of the Bond funds, given the ballot language, for relocating District Office facilities. Selling the old District Office at 2931 Mission Street will save $400,000 per year in debt service payments in the General Fund, which provides more operating funds for schools and students. Oversight/Public Communication 57. The BOC has been meeting bi-monthly since 1998. These meetings are open to the public. Minutes and any reports released are public information. Meetings are held at Soquel High School, Room 312. Oversight committee members stated that meeting notices are posted at school sites and the district office. 58. In 1998, a bond web page was developed with links to each school site providing regular updates on bond-related issues. 59. In June 1999, the communications sub-committee of the BOC worked on placing bond-related information on the SCCS web page. Signs relating to bond projects were designed for placement at the school sites. 60. On August 26, 1999, the BOC stated that the Board of Education, Bond Oversight Committee, and district administration should work jointly to create a public relations program and method of presentation for each school site, the press, and the public in general. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The BOC has made repeated attempts to have the stories about the Bond Projects reported in the press. The press has not responded favorably to their attempts. We 28 Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Moving costs stir school-bond debate,” May 29, 2003. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 31 think that the school sites have been kept informed. However, the general public has not been very well informed because the press has been unresponsive. The BOC has had discussions about how to handle this. Most of the ways the BOC could find to inform the public involved the use of bond funds. The BOC has been very reluctant to spend bond funds on mailings and ads. The BOC has tried to ensure that the money was used to the benefit of the students in the classroom. 61. District staff and BOC members were interviewed for “Community Express,” a Community Television of Santa Cruz show. The show aired four times in Fall 1999 and outlined the school bond issues and future project plans. 62. A brochure “The Road to Renovation” detailed the status of Measure E and H projects and was distributed to parents from the school sites and mailed to households within the district in May 2000. This brochure indicated there would be ongoing communication to keep the public aware of progress and improvements. 63. In July 2000, a Board of Education member noted that the district’s web site was in need of updating. 64. The Grand Jury observed that as late as October 17, 2005, there was a “Bond Projects” section on the Santa Cruz City Schools web site. Information was out of date; the last update had been posted in 2001. By February of 2006, that section of the web site was no longer accessible, and posts “Forbidden: You don’t have permission to access … (this site) on this server.” Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District did not maintain detailed information on the Bond Projects on the SCCS website. There were not adequate resources dedicated to maintaining the SCCS website, including the Bond Projects information on the website. However, the SCCS website had a link to the Strategic Construction Management (SCM) website, where information on projects at each school site was available. When the District website was redesigned in September 2005, the link to SCM was inadvertently omitted. It was reinstated on 9/26/06. Without knowing specifically which website the Grand Jury attempted to access when receiving the “Forbidden: You don’t have permission to access…” message, it is difficult to respond to why that message was received. That message is a standard response on any web server when a web page cannot be found. 65. When asked about the inaccessibility of the web site, district staff responded that the webmaster worked one half-day per week and that there were no resources in the district to put more effort into the web site. - 32 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. 66. Strategic Construction Management publishes SCCS site construction newsletters on its web site. Newsletters for completed bond projects include construction budget summaries, schedules, and architect, inspector, and contractor information. Web site summaries of current projects have none of this information.29 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. 67. The construction budget summaries for “Completed Projects” on the Strategic Construction Management web site do not match the figures printed on the Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May10, 2006. The Strategic Construction Management web site is the only one displaying information on the SCCS bond construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The costs reported on the website include hard costs and soft costs (architect fees, DSA fees, IOR fees, bidding costs). The costs reported on the Project Close-out Report are only hard costs paid to contractors. 68. According to district administrative staff, by the end of summer 2006, ninety-eight percent (98%) of bond funds will be spent. The BOC’s final meeting is scheduled for November 2006. If there is any money left over, district staff will oversee expenditures. Construction projects could extend into Spring 2007. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The only remaining project after November, 2006, will be the new Santa Cruz High School swimming pool projects that will be funded 50% with Bond Funds. 69. Strategic Construction Management will be paid $34,500 to produce a Bond Projects Report. This fee is included in their July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 contract extension. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. Strategic Construction Management, http://strategic-cm.com/main/santacruzcityschools.htm. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 33 This was a proposal based on ill-defined scope and provided to the BOC for discussion purposes. This was never approved. 70. At its May 18, 2006 meeting, the BOC reviewed options for its final committee report which may be in the form of newspaper ads or inserts, postcards, a newsletter, a twenty-four page report, or a video. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Conclusions Bonds E and H 1. Measure E, Series A, B, and C bond sales exceeded the voter-approved amount of $28 million by $98,115.65. The $28 million cap was exceeded a second time when the Measure E, Series A and B bonds were refinanced, this time by $383,115.65. 2. A savings of over $3 million in interest is projected due to the refinancing of the Elementary and High School Bonds, Series A and B that were sold for $4,280,000 million more than the principal remaining. Although interest was decreased, the total debt was increased. The purpose of the refinancing appears to be to extract more funds and not to lower property taxes. 3. The 2005 refinancing of the Elementary and High School Bonds is not shown on the SCCS Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006. Voters are entitled to full disclosure regarding all bond details. 4. Contrary to the language of the Voter Information Pamphlet, the bond terms of both the Elementary and High School bonds are greater than twenty-five years. 5. Property owners in the Santa Cruz City Schools District are paying a higher percentage of their property taxes to repay bonds E and H in the 2005-2006 tax year than they paid in the 2004-2005 tax year. To date, the decreased bond interest rates have not reduced property taxes. 6. Over the next twenty-three years, property tax deposits will earn interest that could be used to reduce bond debt. 7. The SCCS District has exceeded its fiscal authority granted in Measures E and H by selling bonds for more than the voter-approved limit. By so doing, it could make it more difficult for voters to approve future bond projects. Project Management 8. As of April 30, 2006, expenses for architects/engineers, and construction management total sixteen percent (16%) of the total bond project expenditures, or over $18 million. - 34 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: 9. The district did not have personnel on staff with adequate construction knowledge to manage large construction projects. 10. The district could not find an efficient and cost-effective method of construction program management. There were many layers of construction supervision and coordination paid for with bond dollars: general contractors, architects, Strategic Construction Management, and the district’s Construction Program Coordinator. 11. Originally, the Strategic Construction Management contract was for $1.2 million and all projects were to be completed by December 2004. By the end of 2006, payments to Strategic Construction Management will reach nearly $3 million, and projects are still continuing. 12. Additional payments were made to Strategic Construction Management for moving services that were part of their original contract with SCCS for which a fixed-price bid had been submitted. 13. Total bond project construction management fees from 1998 to present appear excessive, and will top $7 million before the end of 2006. 14. The bidding process for the Construction Program Manager was not conducted according to Public Contract Code Procedures. Bid documentation is not available from the district to determine whether the lowest bidder was accepted; and documentation that the bids were opened in public as mandated by the Public Contract Code has not been made available by the district. Bidding 15. When the board voted to no longer require re-bidding projects that surpassed the ten percent change order threshold, it removed the cap on change orders. 16. A contractor should not have been considered “responsible” if that contractor’s previous jobs had excessive change orders and if court action was necessary. 17. When projects were bid with alternates, this allowed contractors to manipulate the system by giving a low bid or zero on alternates, thereby allowing a contractor to submit the lowest bid. The bid would not necessarily be awarded to a responsible bidder. Change Orders 18. The SCCS Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006 is incomplete; therefore, a true assessment of costs and overruns cannot easily be made. 19. The amount of change orders appears excessive. This could be due, in part, to the removal of the ten percent (10%) cap requiring project re-bidding. 20. There was no financial incentive for contractors and architects to keep change orders to a minimum. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 35 Division of the State Architect Oversight 21. The Architects of Record have not fulfilled their responsibilities to secure project closeout and certification by the DSA. 22. District administrative staff has not seen the projects through to closeout by insisting that the Architects of Record submit all closeout documentation. 23. The district, architect, and engineer failed to file DSA Form-5 before IORs started project 01-103363 as required by the California Code of Regulations. 24. IOR documentation for project 01-103363 is incomplete and shows a gap of eighteen days with no IOR site notations or reports. It is a violation of the California Code of Regulations for a project to proceed without an IOR. 25. Since district and DSA documentation of IOR assignments and dates do not match, the Grand Jury was unable to determine whether projects progressed without an assigned IOR, or without a DSA-approved IOR. School Closures/Leasing 26. Although bond funds were used to renovate the Natural Bridges and Loma Prieta sites, lease revenues have not been used to repay bond debt. District Office Relocation/Renovation 27. Despite the fact that the Voter Information Pamphlet arguments in favor of the bond measures clearly stated that bond funds were not to be used for administrative offices, the SCCS Board used bond funds for this purpose. 28. The SCCS Board ignored BOC recommendations not to use bond funds for district office renovations and relocation. 29. Lack of planning resulted in wasted money at Soquel High when ten classrooms that had already undergone renovation and modernization were remodeled for district offices. 30. The SCCS District spent more than $1.2 million on district office renovations and relocations. The district inappropriately approved $1 million for this purpose; no bond money should have been used. Oversight/Public Communication 31. The BOC is scheduled to disband in November 2006. Projects may continue until at least Spring 2007, and there will be no BOC oversight. Bonds were passed under the assumption that an oversight committee would be in place for the duration of the projects. - 36 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: 32. The district has not maintained the bond project information on its web site. This could have been a valuable means of providing ongoing, up-to-date public information on the bond projects. 33. Over the last eight years, there has been no ongoing form of public communication with district residents regarding the bond projects. Efforts made, such as starting a web page, being interviewed for Santa Cruz Community Television, and producing a brochure, all took place between 1998-2000. 34. As of this late date, the BOC has not yet determined the format and scope of its final report. The Grand Jury questions whether this will give the BOC time to prepare a comprehensive report. 35. Paying Strategic Construction Management $34,500 to help prepare a final report detailing the bond projects could result in a loss of objectivity and detail in evaluating the projects’ successes and failures. Recommendations 1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Auditor initiate an outside, independent audit to scrutinize the bond sales and refinancing, and expenditure of bond funds. If there was surplus cash gained from the refinancing, it should be accounted for and used to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The County Auditor-Controller does not generally have authority to audit School District activities. The County Auditor-Controller is generally responsible for the fiscal oversight of County functions or those under the Board of Supervisor’s control. However, if a district has funds in the County treasury, the Board of Supervisors can direct the Auditor-Controller to perform an audit of that district as well. California Government Code Section 26883 states: In addition to the power now possessed by the Board of Supervisors to enter into contracts for audits, the Board shall have the power to require that the County Auditor-Controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department, office, board or institution under its control and of any district whose funds are kept in the County treasury. . . Nevertheless, the issues raised in this Grand Jury report are important and should be addressed. The County Auditor-Controller has communicated with Santa Cruz City Schools District staff to research and respond to the findings and recommendation contained in this reply. Unfortunately, the School District’s reply is not due for another 30 days. Consequently, the response to a few of the findings in this report are incomplete, particularly Findings 7 and 10 regarding the legal cap on the amount of the refunding bonds and the 29 year life of the bonds. Hopefully, the School District’s response will include an independent legal opinion that the issues raised in The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 37 Findings 7 and 10 are within the confines of the law. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. If the County Auditor decides to audit the bond sales and refinancing, the District will cooperate with the County Auditor. The District did not realize any surplus cash from the refinancing. The refinancing did reduce the bonded debt. 2. An outside, independent performance audit should be conducted to analyze, assess, and report on the Santa Cruz City Schools District’s operational and construction management policies, procedures, and practices regarding Bond Measures E and H. Investigation as to whether all California Code of Regulations, Title 24 standards were followed should be included. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The District will not conduct an independent performance audit of the construction program for the following reasons: 1. The Board and the BOC have been satisfied with the program. 2. The schools have been satisfied with the outcome of the projects. 3. The Bond projects are nearly complete. There would be no future projects to which to apply any recommendations from a performance audit. 4. Low priority for the expenditure of funds for an audit. The plans and specifications for the projects were approved by the DSA before bidding to ensure compliance with Title 24. DSA-certified inspectors inspected the projects during construction to ensure plans and specifications were followed by the contractors. 3. The SCCS District should insist that the architects submit all documents related to completed bond projects under DSA supervision so the projects can be certified and closed out. Architect fees should be withheld until DSA certification is complete. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District is insisting that the architects submit all documents on completed projects so the projects can be closed out by the DSA. The current architect contracts do not provide for withholding of fees pending completion of final DSA project close- out. 4. For future major construction projects, the SCCS District should consider hiring an experienced, qualified construction project manager or team as a limited-term district - 38 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: employee(s). This would cost less than hiring a construction management firm. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. For future major construction projects, the District will consider hiring an experienced qualified construction project manager or team as limited-term District employees. It is not clear that this would cost less or be more effective than hiring a construction management firm. The BOC has been very satisfied with the decision to engage the services of Strategic Construction Management. 5. The SCCS District should replace the funds used for District Office relocation and renovation to reduce bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 56. 6. The SCCS District should use lease revenues and interest on future property tax collections to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 51. 7. The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects budget document that includes bond refinancing details. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 8. 8. The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects closeout document detailing all bond construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The Bond Oversight Committee will produce a final report of the Bond Projects by November 2006. 9. Future construction projects should be awarded to the contractor submitting the lowest base bid. Alternates should be bid separately. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 39 The process being used complies with Public Contract Code and has been approved by District legal counsel. 10. For future construction projects, the contractors hired should adhere to the ten-percent cap on change orders previously in effect. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. Future modernization projects may require exceeding the 10% change order threshold for the reasons outlined in the response to Findings # 31 and 32. 11. The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006. 12. The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site. 13. The BOC should continue to operate until all bond projects are completed. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The BOC has recommended and the Board has approved that the last BOC meeting will be on November 16, 2006. The only construction project that will continue after that date will be the Santa Cruz High School swimming pool. The Board and the BOC do not think that the BOC needs to continue to meet to oversee one project that is funded 50% by Bond Funds. - 40 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: 14. District support staff is to be commended for its helpfulness, promptness, and courtesy when providing requested documentation. Responses Required Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within Santa Cruz City 2-12, 14, 15, Schools Board of 19, 20, 23, 24, 90 Days Trustees 27-29, 31, 32, 1-13 (October 1, 2006) 34-44, 46, 47, 51, 53-56, 64- 70 Santa Cruz County 60 Days Auditor/Controller 1-15 1 (September 1, 2006) The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 41
F32:
The SCCS Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006, revealed that out of sixty-nine projects, thirty-seven (or 54%) exceeded a ten percent cost overrun due to change orders. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Most of the change orders that exceeded 10% of the original bid were based on additional work requested by the District, or were due to unforeseen conditions discovered during the construction process. Budget contingency reserves had been established to cover these costs.
F33:
In October 2005, the SCCS Board voted to become subject to the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Procedures and to provide for informal bidding procedures under the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act Procedures. This allowed projects from $35,000 to $125,000 to be bid using a pre-approved list of satisfactory contractors, while projects over $125,000 were subject to formal bidding procedures. The rationale was that this would allow more flexibility in the execution of work; speed up bidding procedures; improve timeliness of project completion; reduce paperwork and expenses related to advertising; and simplify administration.
F34:
The SCCS District was advised by legal counsel to set a consistent policy for the acceptance of bids. Subsequently, it was decided to award contracts based on the lowest total bid on each project. Projects often contain several alternates, which may or may not be actually included in the final project. The contract, however, is still awarded on the total bid. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. Legal Counsel advice was based on the methodology used to define lowest bid in conformance with Public Contract Code. - 24 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:
F35:
When projects contain alternates, contractors can bid low or even zero (0) on some alternates, thereby lowering their overall total bid. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY DISAGREES. If a contractor bids low or zero on the alternates and they have the lowest total bid that is accepted by the District, they are still obligated to complete the alternates for the amount of their bid.
F36:
In March 2006, the district awarded a bond project contract to a bidder whose past projects for the district included a project that had change orders totaling 34.1% of the original contact amount, a Stop Notice, and had gone to court. That same bidder had previously completed district bond projects with change orders of 32.3%, 36.9%, and 118.8% of the original contract amounts. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This contractor was CRW Industries, Inc. The cause of change orders on previous CRW projects exceeding 10% of the original contract amount was primarily due to the District requesting additional work and on unforeseen conditions. The “Stop Notice” that was filed on CRW was based on employees of a subcontractor filing a lawsuit against the subcontractor over a pay dispute, and filing the Stop Notice to keep the District from paying CRW so CRW could not pay the subcontractor until the pay dispute was resolved with the subcontractor. The Stop Notice had nothing to do with any action by CRW. CRW was the low bidder on the Santa Cruz High School Kiln Building project at $131,792. The fact that CRW change orders on previous projects exceeded 10% of the original contract amounts is not legal grounds for declaring CRW a “not responsible” bidder on future projects.
F37:
Contracts were not always awarded to the lowest bidder as evidenced by Bid # 2006-
F38:
The SCCS Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006, document does not include all bond projects, notably those undertaken in 1998-1999. Approximately $4 million worth of projects are not detailed, nor are their change orders. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The first projects were done in 1999. They were small projects consisting of installing new play structures at the elementary schools, resurfacing the Soquel High School student parking lot, installing an outdoor eating area cover at Mission Hill, termite eradication at Branciforte Junior High and installing new gym roofs at Santa Cruz High School and Harbor High School. Many of these projects were maintenance projects and did not require Department of the State Architect approval. The project close-out report was not started until the first round of major modernization projects were begun in 2000 and began close-out in 2001. The small early projects were not added to the report.
F39:
The SCCS, Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006, showed twenty projects with change orders exceeding twenty percent (20%) of the original project contract. These percentages range from 21.7% to 118.8%, resulting in additional costs of $5,479,544 above the original contract amount of $17,779,162 for those twenty projects. This reflected a 30.8% increase over the original contract amounts. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. For all projects listed on the 5/10/06 Status of Project Close Report, total change order costs were $9,621,580, or 14.1% of total original contract amounts of $68,468,271. This is not an unreasonable average change order percentage for renovation and modernization projects. As mentioned in the response to Finding # 32, many of these change orders were generated by District requests for additional work and additional work required to correct unforeseen conditions.
F40:
Sixty-nine completed or nearly-completed projects detailed on the SCCS, Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006, had change orders totaling $9,621,580, or fourteen and one-half percent (14.5%) of their original contract total of $66,457,279. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to finding #39. - 26 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:
F41:
District officials stated that general contractors typically make a fifteen-percent markup on change orders. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The General Contractor’s 15% mark-up on change orders is to cover the General Contractor’s bonds, insurance overhead and profit, and was specified in the contract documents. Division of the State Architect Oversight
F42:
According to the Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, dated May 10, 2006, sixty-four projects have had Notices of Completion filed. Of those sixty-four projects, only one is listed in the “DSA Closeout Complete” column, and only two are listed in the “Closeout Sent to DSA” column. The Architect of Record is responsible for submitting the required closeout documents for final certification.24 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The Bond Project Status of Projects Close-Out Report of 7/12/06 (Exhibit 9 attached) indicates that all project close-out documents have been submitted to DSA on twelve projects. Eight of the projects listed are still under construction and not ready for close-out document submittal. Four projects have final DSA close-out. Final DSA close-out can take from two to five years. Both architect firms, DES and Beverly Prior, have staff that are actively working on gathering and completing project close-out documents for submittal to DSA, and are making regular reports to the District on their status. Close-out documents come from some material suppliers, from portable classroom manufacturers, and from the IOR Once close-out documents are received by DSA, it can take DSA staff as long as two years to complete processing of those documents and closing out of the project files. This is due to understaffing at DSA.
F43:
The Grand Jury found at least one instance of a project being started without prior DSA notification by the IOR (DSA Project Code 01-106000). This appears to be a violation of the Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1, Section 4-331. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. This was the Soquel High School Ag Facility relocation project. The IOR’s (Fred Powers) Qualification Record DSA-5 was submitted to DSA on 9/30/04. It was 24 2001 California Building Standards Administrative Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1, Sections 4-339 and 4-341, http://www.bsc.ca.gov/title_24/documents/Part1/2001_part1.pdf. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 27 approved by DSA on 10/4/04. The Contract Information form SSS-102 was submitted to DSA on 11/1/04 and indicated that work would start on 11/1/04. We recall that work actually started around the first of December. This does not appear to be an accurate statement.
F44:
Inspector of Record assignment date records obtained from the SCCS District and the DSA do not match. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The District was not provided copies of the records provided to the Grand Jury by the DSA and therefore cannot comment on this finding. 45. “The school board must provide for and require competent, adequate and continuous inspection by an inspector . . .” and; “The project inspector . . . must be approved by the DSA for each individual project.”25
F46:
In reviewing the IOR field reports for Santa Cruz High Modernization, project number 01-103363, there is a gap of eighteen days with no IOR reports or notations. One inspector had been terminated on May 2, 2002, and the next IOR report was dated May 20, 2002. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools: The Santa Cruz High School Inspector was released for specified reasons. A second inspector was engaged but replaced by the DSA Field Engineer. A third inspector was subsequently replaced by a fourth inspector by the DSA Field Engineer. Since only demolition was underway and no structural or fire/life safety work was involved, lapse in coverage was less stringent. DSA drove the missing coverages due to their manipulation of the inspector selection process – no fault of the District.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2:
An outside, independent performance audit should be conducted to analyze, assess, and report on the Santa Cruz City Schools District’s operational and construction management policies, procedures, and practices regarding Bond Measures E and H. Investigation as to whether all California Code of Regulations, Title 24 standards were followed should be included. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The District will not conduct an independent performance audit of the construction program for the following reasons:
R4:
Low priority for the expenditure of funds for an audit. The plans and specifications for the projects were approved by the DSA before bidding to ensure compliance with Title 24. DSA-certified inspectors inspected the projects during construction to ensure plans and specifications were followed by the contractors.
F47:
DSA Field Notes from the supervising field engineer from July 10, 2002, stated the first item requiring resolution on project 01-103363 was that the IOR had been replaced by two subsequent IORs, the last of which had not submitted DSA Form-5. The DSA Form-5, which must be signed by the district, architect, and engineer, must be filed ten days prior to an IOR beginning a project.26 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools: 25 2001 California Building Standards Administrative Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 124, Part 1, Section 4-333(b). California Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect, Project Inspector Qualification Record, DSA-5, revised, March 27, 2003. - 28 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: See the response to #46. DSA pulled inspectors from the project and, since no inspections were required or called for, no Form 5 was filed. School Closures/Leasing
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2:
An outside, independent performance audit should be conducted to analyze, assess, and report on the Santa Cruz City Schools District’s operational and construction management policies, procedures, and practices regarding Bond Measures E and H. Investigation as to whether all California Code of Regulations, Title 24 standards were followed should be included. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The District will not conduct an independent performance audit of the construction program for the following reasons:
R4:
Low priority for the expenditure of funds for an audit. The plans and specifications for the projects were approved by the DSA before bidding to ensure compliance with Title 24. DSA-certified inspectors inspected the projects during construction to ensure plans and specifications were followed by the contractors.
F48:
In January 2001, the BOC questioned the prudence of using bond funds to modernize schools that might be closed in the future due to declining enrollment.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Bond projects are nearly complete. There would be no future projects to which to apply any recommendations from a performance audit.
F49:
In June 2004, Natural Bridges and Branciforte Elementary schools closed. Branciforte became a campus for small district alternative schools. Natural Bridges is leased by Pacific Collegiate, a charter school that is funded by the state. This site is not being used as part of Santa Cruz City Schools. Proposition 39 obligates the district to provide a certain amount of space rent free since sixty percent of the students come from within SCCS boundaries. Pacific Collegiate leases space for the forty percent of the students from outside the district. The district also leases space to another school, Carden El Encanto, at the former Loma Prieta High School site. Lease funds go into the general fund. Following is a summary of the current and projected lease income for these two sites:27 LEASE REVENUES 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Natural Bridges $68,000 $83,232 $84,897 $86,595 $88,326 Loma Prieta $140,000 $165,000 $200,000 $228,400 $275,500 $208,000 $248,232 $284,897 $314,995 $363,826 Table 5. Santa Cruz City Schools Lease Revenues, 2004-2009. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The lease revenue in the table is reversed for Natural Bridges and Loma Prieta.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Bond projects are nearly complete. There would be no future projects to which to apply any recommendations from a performance audit.
F50:
In August 2004, a citizen who attended two BOC meetings expressed concern about bond funds that had been used on schools that were later closed. The citizen felt that the lease money from those schools should be used to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The BOC discussed the citizen’s recommendation, but felt that the amount of tax savings to the individual tax payer would be an insignificant amount, whereas the amount of revenue loss to the General Fund would be significant.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Bond projects are nearly complete. There would be no future projects to which to apply any recommendations from a performance audit.
F51:
District administrative staff reported to the BOC committee that legal counsel said it was not illegal to lease out the renovated schools and not use the revenues to defray 27 Agenda Packet, Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Oversight Committee Meeting, November 18, 2004. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 29 the debt. The BOC approved a motion to not recommend using lease revenues to retire bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The lease revenue is deposited to the General Fund to support operating expenses at the schools. Transferring this revenue to reduce Bond debt would require cuts in school budgets. District Office Relocation/Renovation
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R3:
The Bond projects are nearly complete. There would be no future projects to which to apply any recommendations from a performance audit.
R6:
The SCCS District should use lease revenues and interest on future property tax collections to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 51.
R04-05:
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Natural Bridges $68,000 $83,232 $84,897 $86,595 $88,326 Loma Prieta $140,000 $165,000 $200,000 $228,400 $275,500 $208,000 $248,232 $284,897 $314,995 $363,826 Table 5. Santa Cruz City Schools Lease Revenues, 2004-2009. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The lease revenue in the table is reversed for Natural Bridges and Loma Prieta. 50. In August 2004, a citizen who attended two BOC meetings expressed concern about bond funds that had been used on schools that were later closed. The citizen felt that the lease money from those schools should be used to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The BOC discussed the citizen’s recommendation, but felt that the amount of tax savings to the individual tax payer would be an insignificant amount, whereas the amount of revenue loss to the General Fund would be significant. 51. District administrative staff reported to the BOC committee that legal counsel said it was not illegal to lease out the renovated schools and not use the revenues to defray 27 Agenda Packet, Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Oversight Committee Meeting, November 18, 2004. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 29 the debt. The BOC approved a motion to not recommend using lease revenues to retire bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The lease revenue is deposited to the General Fund to support operating expenses at the schools. Transferring this revenue to reduce Bond debt would require cuts in school budgets. District Office Relocation/Renovation 52. Even after Natural Bridges and Branciforte elementary schools had been closed, and the four alternative schools on three sites were moved to the former Branciforte Elementary campus, the district still needed to reduce overhead and save operating expenses due to declining enrollment. The district offices on Mission Street were sold, and ten classrooms at Soquel High School were chosen to serve as administrative offices (Soquel High School’s enrollment dropped from 1693 students in 1998 to 1234 students in 2005-06). The Adult Education Office, the Purchasing Department, and District Warehouse were moved to Palm Street. The Workability Program and Food Services Office were moved to DeLaveaga Elementary School. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The sale of 2931 Mission Street and the relocation of the District office occurred prior to the reorganization of the schools. The Workability Office was moved to Harbor High School. 53. Classrooms identified to house the district offices at Soquel High had already been remodeled using bond funds. At least an additional $460,537 in bond money was spent for the district office remodel. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The additional cost was to convert classrooms to office space, to add electrical, a telephone system, data wiring, and to add parking. 54. At its April 9, 2003 meeting, the SCCS Board approved the use of up to $1 million in bond funds for district office relocation and improvements. In its advisory capacity, the BOC did not recommend this action. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. 55. To date, at least $1,285,486 of bond project money has been spent on district office and adult education relocation. This total includes $274,424 for change orders, or - 30 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: twenty-seven (27%) of the original contract amount of $1,011,062. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. $1,291,631 has been spent on District Office/Adult Education relocation. Of that amount, $280,659 was for change orders, 27.7% of the original contract amounts. 56. A BOC member called the use of bond money for offices “not ethical,” and stated that the district could use anticipated redevelopment revenue to pay for the classroom conversions and other relocation projects. “There was a promise (the bond money) would never be used for administrative costs. It was to improve the student environment, not the district office environment.”28 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The ballot measure said that Bond funds would not be used for administrative salaries. The District’s Bond Counsel advised the District that it would be a legal use of the Bond funds, given the ballot language, for relocating District Office facilities. Selling the old District Office at 2931 Mission Street will save $400,000 per year in debt service payments in the General Fund, which provides more operating funds for schools and students. Oversight/Public Communication 57. The BOC has been meeting bi-monthly since 1998. These meetings are open to the public. Minutes and any reports released are public information. Meetings are held at Soquel High School, Room 312. Oversight committee members stated that meeting notices are posted at school sites and the district office. 58. In 1998, a bond web page was developed with links to each school site providing regular updates on bond-related issues. 59. In June 1999, the communications sub-committee of the BOC worked on placing bond-related information on the SCCS web page. Signs relating to bond projects were designed for placement at the school sites. 60. On August 26, 1999, the BOC stated that the Board of Education, Bond Oversight Committee, and district administration should work jointly to create a public relations program and method of presentation for each school site, the press, and the public in general. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The BOC has made repeated attempts to have the stories about the Bond Projects reported in the press. The press has not responded favorably to their attempts. We 28 Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Moving costs stir school-bond debate,” May 29, 2003. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 31 think that the school sites have been kept informed. However, the general public has not been very well informed because the press has been unresponsive. The BOC has had discussions about how to handle this. Most of the ways the BOC could find to inform the public involved the use of bond funds. The BOC has been very reluctant to spend bond funds on mailings and ads. The BOC has tried to ensure that the money was used to the benefit of the students in the classroom. 61. District staff and BOC members were interviewed for “Community Express,” a Community Television of Santa Cruz show. The show aired four times in Fall 1999 and outlined the school bond issues and future project plans. 62. A brochure “The Road to Renovation” detailed the status of Measure E and H projects and was distributed to parents from the school sites and mailed to households within the district in May 2000. This brochure indicated there would be ongoing communication to keep the public aware of progress and improvements. 63. In July 2000, a Board of Education member noted that the district’s web site was in need of updating. 64. The Grand Jury observed that as late as October 17, 2005, there was a “Bond Projects” section on the Santa Cruz City Schools web site. Information was out of date; the last update had been posted in 2001. By February of 2006, that section of the web site was no longer accessible, and posts “Forbidden: You don’t have permission to access … (this site) on this server.” Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District did not maintain detailed information on the Bond Projects on the SCCS website. There were not adequate resources dedicated to maintaining the SCCS website, including the Bond Projects information on the website. However, the SCCS website had a link to the Strategic Construction Management (SCM) website, where information on projects at each school site was available. When the District website was redesigned in September 2005, the link to SCM was inadvertently omitted. It was reinstated on 9/26/06. Without knowing specifically which website the Grand Jury attempted to access when receiving the “Forbidden: You don’t have permission to access…” message, it is difficult to respond to why that message was received. That message is a standard response on any web server when a web page cannot be found. 65. When asked about the inaccessibility of the web site, district staff responded that the webmaster worked one half-day per week and that there were no resources in the district to put more effort into the web site. - 32 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. 66. Strategic Construction Management publishes SCCS site construction newsletters on its web site. Newsletters for completed bond projects include construction budget summaries, schedules, and architect, inspector, and contractor information. Web site summaries of current projects have none of this information.29 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. 67. The construction budget summaries for “Completed Projects” on the Strategic Construction Management web site do not match the figures printed on the Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May10, 2006. The Strategic Construction Management web site is the only one displaying information on the SCCS bond construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The costs reported on the website include hard costs and soft costs (architect fees, DSA fees, IOR fees, bidding costs). The costs reported on the Project Close-out Report are only hard costs paid to contractors. 68. According to district administrative staff, by the end of summer 2006, ninety-eight percent (98%) of bond funds will be spent. The BOC’s final meeting is scheduled for November 2006. If there is any money left over, district staff will oversee expenditures. Construction projects could extend into Spring 2007. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The only remaining project after November, 2006, will be the new Santa Cruz High School swimming pool projects that will be funded 50% with Bond Funds. 69. Strategic Construction Management will be paid $34,500 to produce a Bond Projects Report. This fee is included in their July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 contract extension. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. Strategic Construction Management, http://strategic-cm.com/main/santacruzcityschools.htm. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 33 This was a proposal based on ill-defined scope and provided to the BOC for discussion purposes. This was never approved. 70. At its May 18, 2006 meeting, the BOC reviewed options for its final committee report which may be in the form of newspaper ads or inserts, postcards, a newsletter, a twenty-four page report, or a video. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Conclusions Bonds E and H 1. Measure E, Series A, B, and C bond sales exceeded the voter-approved amount of $28 million by $98,115.65. The $28 million cap was exceeded a second time when the Measure E, Series A and B bonds were refinanced, this time by $383,115.65. 2. A savings of over $3 million in interest is projected due to the refinancing of the Elementary and High School Bonds, Series A and B that were sold for $4,280,000 million more than the principal remaining. Although interest was decreased, the total debt was increased. The purpose of the refinancing appears to be to extract more funds and not to lower property taxes. 3. The 2005 refinancing of the Elementary and High School Bonds is not shown on the SCCS Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006. Voters are entitled to full disclosure regarding all bond details. 4. Contrary to the language of the Voter Information Pamphlet, the bond terms of both the Elementary and High School bonds are greater than twenty-five years. 5. Property owners in the Santa Cruz City Schools District are paying a higher percentage of their property taxes to repay bonds E and H in the 2005-2006 tax year than they paid in the 2004-2005 tax year. To date, the decreased bond interest rates have not reduced property taxes. 6. Over the next twenty-three years, property tax deposits will earn interest that could be used to reduce bond debt. 7. The SCCS District has exceeded its fiscal authority granted in Measures E and H by selling bonds for more than the voter-approved limit. By so doing, it could make it more difficult for voters to approve future bond projects. Project Management 8. As of April 30, 2006, expenses for architects/engineers, and construction management total sixteen percent (16%) of the total bond project expenditures, or over $18 million. - 34 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: 9. The district did not have personnel on staff with adequate construction knowledge to manage large construction projects. 10. The district could not find an efficient and cost-effective method of construction program management. There were many layers of construction supervision and coordination paid for with bond dollars: general contractors, architects, Strategic Construction Management, and the district’s Construction Program Coordinator. 11. Originally, the Strategic Construction Management contract was for $1.2 million and all projects were to be completed by December 2004. By the end of 2006, payments to Strategic Construction Management will reach nearly $3 million, and projects are still continuing. 12. Additional payments were made to Strategic Construction Management for moving services that were part of their original contract with SCCS for which a fixed-price bid had been submitted. 13. Total bond project construction management fees from 1998 to present appear excessive, and will top $7 million before the end of 2006. 14. The bidding process for the Construction Program Manager was not conducted according to Public Contract Code Procedures. Bid documentation is not available from the district to determine whether the lowest bidder was accepted; and documentation that the bids were opened in public as mandated by the Public Contract Code has not been made available by the district. Bidding 15. When the board voted to no longer require re-bidding projects that surpassed the ten percent change order threshold, it removed the cap on change orders. 16. A contractor should not have been considered “responsible” if that contractor’s previous jobs had excessive change orders and if court action was necessary. 17. When projects were bid with alternates, this allowed contractors to manipulate the system by giving a low bid or zero on alternates, thereby allowing a contractor to submit the lowest bid. The bid would not necessarily be awarded to a responsible bidder. Change Orders 18. The SCCS Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006 is incomplete; therefore, a true assessment of costs and overruns cannot easily be made. 19. The amount of change orders appears excessive. This could be due, in part, to the removal of the ten percent (10%) cap requiring project re-bidding. 20. There was no financial incentive for contractors and architects to keep change orders to a minimum. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 35 Division of the State Architect Oversight 21. The Architects of Record have not fulfilled their responsibilities to secure project closeout and certification by the DSA. 22. District administrative staff has not seen the projects through to closeout by insisting that the Architects of Record submit all closeout documentation. 23. The district, architect, and engineer failed to file DSA Form-5 before IORs started project 01-103363 as required by the California Code of Regulations. 24. IOR documentation for project 01-103363 is incomplete and shows a gap of eighteen days with no IOR site notations or reports. It is a violation of the California Code of Regulations for a project to proceed without an IOR. 25. Since district and DSA documentation of IOR assignments and dates do not match, the Grand Jury was unable to determine whether projects progressed without an assigned IOR, or without a DSA-approved IOR. School Closures/Leasing 26. Although bond funds were used to renovate the Natural Bridges and Loma Prieta sites, lease revenues have not been used to repay bond debt. District Office Relocation/Renovation 27. Despite the fact that the Voter Information Pamphlet arguments in favor of the bond measures clearly stated that bond funds were not to be used for administrative offices, the SCCS Board used bond funds for this purpose. 28. The SCCS Board ignored BOC recommendations not to use bond funds for district office renovations and relocation. 29. Lack of planning resulted in wasted money at Soquel High when ten classrooms that had already undergone renovation and modernization were remodeled for district offices. 30. The SCCS District spent more than $1.2 million on district office renovations and relocations. The district inappropriately approved $1 million for this purpose; no bond money should have been used. Oversight/Public Communication 31. The BOC is scheduled to disband in November 2006. Projects may continue until at least Spring 2007, and there will be no BOC oversight. Bonds were passed under the assumption that an oversight committee would be in place for the duration of the projects. - 36 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: 32. The district has not maintained the bond project information on its web site. This could have been a valuable means of providing ongoing, up-to-date public information on the bond projects. 33. Over the last eight years, there has been no ongoing form of public communication with district residents regarding the bond projects. Efforts made, such as starting a web page, being interviewed for Santa Cruz Community Television, and producing a brochure, all took place between 1998-2000. 34. As of this late date, the BOC has not yet determined the format and scope of its final report. The Grand Jury questions whether this will give the BOC time to prepare a comprehensive report. 35. Paying Strategic Construction Management $34,500 to help prepare a final report detailing the bond projects could result in a loss of objectivity and detail in evaluating the projects’ successes and failures. Recommendations 1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Auditor initiate an outside, independent audit to scrutinize the bond sales and refinancing, and expenditure of bond funds. If there was surplus cash gained from the refinancing, it should be accounted for and used to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The County Auditor-Controller does not generally have authority to audit School District activities. The County Auditor-Controller is generally responsible for the fiscal oversight of County functions or those under the Board of Supervisor’s control. However, if a district has funds in the County treasury, the Board of Supervisors can direct the Auditor-Controller to perform an audit of that district as well. California Government Code Section 26883 states: In addition to the power now possessed by the Board of Supervisors to enter into contracts for audits, the Board shall have the power to require that the County Auditor-Controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department, office, board or institution under its control and of any district whose funds are kept in the County treasury. . . Nevertheless, the issues raised in this Grand Jury report are important and should be addressed. The County Auditor-Controller has communicated with Santa Cruz City Schools District staff to research and respond to the findings and recommendation contained in this reply. Unfortunately, the School District’s reply is not due for another 30 days. Consequently, the response to a few of the findings in this report are incomplete, particularly Findings 7 and 10 regarding the legal cap on the amount of the refunding bonds and the 29 year life of the bonds. Hopefully, the School District’s response will include an independent legal opinion that the issues raised in The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 37 Findings 7 and 10 are within the confines of the law. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. If the County Auditor decides to audit the bond sales and refinancing, the District will cooperate with the County Auditor. The District did not realize any surplus cash from the refinancing. The refinancing did reduce the bonded debt. 2. An outside, independent performance audit should be conducted to analyze, assess, and report on the Santa Cruz City Schools District’s operational and construction management policies, procedures, and practices regarding Bond Measures E and H. Investigation as to whether all California Code of Regulations, Title 24 standards were followed should be included. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The District will not conduct an independent performance audit of the construction program for the following reasons: 1. The Board and the BOC have been satisfied with the program. 2. The schools have been satisfied with the outcome of the projects. 3. The Bond projects are nearly complete. There would be no future projects to which to apply any recommendations from a performance audit. 4. Low priority for the expenditure of funds for an audit. The plans and specifications for the projects were approved by the DSA before bidding to ensure compliance with Title 24. DSA-certified inspectors inspected the projects during construction to ensure plans and specifications were followed by the contractors. 3. The SCCS District should insist that the architects submit all documents related to completed bond projects under DSA supervision so the projects can be certified and closed out. Architect fees should be withheld until DSA certification is complete. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District is insisting that the architects submit all documents on completed projects so the projects can be closed out by the DSA. The current architect contracts do not provide for withholding of fees pending completion of final DSA project close- out. 4. For future major construction projects, the SCCS District should consider hiring an experienced, qualified construction project manager or team as a limited-term district - 38 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: employee(s). This would cost less than hiring a construction management firm. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. For future major construction projects, the District will consider hiring an experienced qualified construction project manager or team as limited-term District employees. It is not clear that this would cost less or be more effective than hiring a construction management firm. The BOC has been very satisfied with the decision to engage the services of Strategic Construction Management. 5. The SCCS District should replace the funds used for District Office relocation and renovation to reduce bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 56. 6. The SCCS District should use lease revenues and interest on future property tax collections to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 51. 7. The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects budget document that includes bond refinancing details. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 8. 8. The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects closeout document detailing all bond construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The Bond Oversight Committee will produce a final report of the Bond Projects by November 2006. 9. Future construction projects should be awarded to the contractor submitting the lowest base bid. Alternates should be bid separately. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 39 The process being used complies with Public Contract Code and has been approved by District legal counsel. 10. For future construction projects, the contractors hired should adhere to the ten-percent cap on change orders previously in effect. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. Future modernization projects may require exceeding the 10% change order threshold for the reasons outlined in the response to Findings # 31 and 32. 11. The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006. 12. The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site. 13. The BOC should continue to operate until all bond projects are completed. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The BOC has recommended and the Board has approved that the last BOC meeting will be on November 16, 2006. The only construction project that will continue after that date will be the Santa Cruz High School swimming pool. The Board and the BOC do not think that the BOC needs to continue to meet to oversee one project that is funded 50% by Bond Funds. - 40 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: 14. District support staff is to be commended for its helpfulness, promptness, and courtesy when providing requested documentation. Responses Required Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within Santa Cruz City 2-12, 14, 15, Schools Board of 19, 20, 23, 24, 90 Days Trustees 27-29, 31, 32, 1-13 (October 1, 2006) 34-44, 46, 47, 51, 53-56, 64- 70 Santa Cruz County 60 Days Auditor/Controller 1-15 1 (September 1, 2006) The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 41
F52:
Even after Natural Bridges and Branciforte elementary schools had been closed, and the four alternative schools on three sites were moved to the former Branciforte Elementary campus, the district still needed to reduce overhead and save operating expenses due to declining enrollment. The district offices on Mission Street were sold, and ten classrooms at Soquel High School were chosen to serve as administrative offices (Soquel High School’s enrollment dropped from 1693 students in 1998 to 1234 students in 2005-06). The Adult Education Office, the Purchasing Department, and District Warehouse were moved to Palm Street. The Workability Program and Food Services Office were moved to DeLaveaga Elementary School. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The sale of 2931 Mission Street and the relocation of the District office occurred prior to the reorganization of the schools. The Workability Office was moved to Harbor High School.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Bond projects are nearly complete. There would be no future projects to which to apply any recommendations from a performance audit.
F53:
Classrooms identified to house the district offices at Soquel High had already been remodeled using bond funds. At least an additional $460,537 in bond money was spent for the district office remodel. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The additional cost was to convert classrooms to office space, to add electrical, a telephone system, data wiring, and to add parking.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Bond projects are nearly complete. There would be no future projects to which to apply any recommendations from a performance audit.
F54:
At its April 9, 2003 meeting, the SCCS Board approved the use of up to $1 million in bond funds for district office relocation and improvements. In its advisory capacity, the BOC did not recommend this action. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Bond projects are nearly complete. There would be no future projects to which to apply any recommendations from a performance audit.
F55:
To date, at least $1,285,486 of bond project money has been spent on district office and adult education relocation. This total includes $274,424 for change orders, or - 30 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: twenty-seven (27%) of the original contract amount of $1,011,062. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. $1,291,631 has been spent on District Office/Adult Education relocation. Of that amount, $280,659 was for change orders, 27.7% of the original contract amounts.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Bond projects are nearly complete. There would be no future projects to which to apply any recommendations from a performance audit.
F56:
A BOC member called the use of bond money for offices “not ethical,” and stated that the district could use anticipated redevelopment revenue to pay for the classroom conversions and other relocation projects. “There was a promise (the bond money) would never be used for administrative costs. It was to improve the student environment, not the district office environment.”28 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The ballot measure said that Bond funds would not be used for administrative salaries. The District’s Bond Counsel advised the District that it would be a legal use of the Bond funds, given the ballot language, for relocating District Office facilities. Selling the old District Office at 2931 Mission Street will save $400,000 per year in debt service payments in the General Fund, which provides more operating funds for schools and students. Oversight/Public Communication
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R3:
The Bond projects are nearly complete. There would be no future projects to which to apply any recommendations from a performance audit.
R5:
The SCCS District should replace the funds used for District Office relocation and renovation to reduce bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 56.
R04-05:
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Natural Bridges $68,000 $83,232 $84,897 $86,595 $88,326 Loma Prieta $140,000 $165,000 $200,000 $228,400 $275,500 $208,000 $248,232 $284,897 $314,995 $363,826 Table 5. Santa Cruz City Schools Lease Revenues, 2004-2009. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The lease revenue in the table is reversed for Natural Bridges and Loma Prieta. 50. In August 2004, a citizen who attended two BOC meetings expressed concern about bond funds that had been used on schools that were later closed. The citizen felt that the lease money from those schools should be used to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The BOC discussed the citizen’s recommendation, but felt that the amount of tax savings to the individual tax payer would be an insignificant amount, whereas the amount of revenue loss to the General Fund would be significant. 51. District administrative staff reported to the BOC committee that legal counsel said it was not illegal to lease out the renovated schools and not use the revenues to defray 27 Agenda Packet, Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Oversight Committee Meeting, November 18, 2004. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 29 the debt. The BOC approved a motion to not recommend using lease revenues to retire bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The lease revenue is deposited to the General Fund to support operating expenses at the schools. Transferring this revenue to reduce Bond debt would require cuts in school budgets. District Office Relocation/Renovation 52. Even after Natural Bridges and Branciforte elementary schools had been closed, and the four alternative schools on three sites were moved to the former Branciforte Elementary campus, the district still needed to reduce overhead and save operating expenses due to declining enrollment. The district offices on Mission Street were sold, and ten classrooms at Soquel High School were chosen to serve as administrative offices (Soquel High School’s enrollment dropped from 1693 students in 1998 to 1234 students in 2005-06). The Adult Education Office, the Purchasing Department, and District Warehouse were moved to Palm Street. The Workability Program and Food Services Office were moved to DeLaveaga Elementary School. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The sale of 2931 Mission Street and the relocation of the District office occurred prior to the reorganization of the schools. The Workability Office was moved to Harbor High School. 53. Classrooms identified to house the district offices at Soquel High had already been remodeled using bond funds. At least an additional $460,537 in bond money was spent for the district office remodel. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The additional cost was to convert classrooms to office space, to add electrical, a telephone system, data wiring, and to add parking. 54. At its April 9, 2003 meeting, the SCCS Board approved the use of up to $1 million in bond funds for district office relocation and improvements. In its advisory capacity, the BOC did not recommend this action. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. 55. To date, at least $1,285,486 of bond project money has been spent on district office and adult education relocation. This total includes $274,424 for change orders, or - 30 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: twenty-seven (27%) of the original contract amount of $1,011,062. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. $1,291,631 has been spent on District Office/Adult Education relocation. Of that amount, $280,659 was for change orders, 27.7% of the original contract amounts. 56. A BOC member called the use of bond money for offices “not ethical,” and stated that the district could use anticipated redevelopment revenue to pay for the classroom conversions and other relocation projects. “There was a promise (the bond money) would never be used for administrative costs. It was to improve the student environment, not the district office environment.”28 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The ballot measure said that Bond funds would not be used for administrative salaries. The District’s Bond Counsel advised the District that it would be a legal use of the Bond funds, given the ballot language, for relocating District Office facilities. Selling the old District Office at 2931 Mission Street will save $400,000 per year in debt service payments in the General Fund, which provides more operating funds for schools and students. Oversight/Public Communication 57. The BOC has been meeting bi-monthly since 1998. These meetings are open to the public. Minutes and any reports released are public information. Meetings are held at Soquel High School, Room 312. Oversight committee members stated that meeting notices are posted at school sites and the district office. 58. In 1998, a bond web page was developed with links to each school site providing regular updates on bond-related issues. 59. In June 1999, the communications sub-committee of the BOC worked on placing bond-related information on the SCCS web page. Signs relating to bond projects were designed for placement at the school sites. 60. On August 26, 1999, the BOC stated that the Board of Education, Bond Oversight Committee, and district administration should work jointly to create a public relations program and method of presentation for each school site, the press, and the public in general. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The BOC has made repeated attempts to have the stories about the Bond Projects reported in the press. The press has not responded favorably to their attempts. We 28 Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Moving costs stir school-bond debate,” May 29, 2003. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 31 think that the school sites have been kept informed. However, the general public has not been very well informed because the press has been unresponsive. The BOC has had discussions about how to handle this. Most of the ways the BOC could find to inform the public involved the use of bond funds. The BOC has been very reluctant to spend bond funds on mailings and ads. The BOC has tried to ensure that the money was used to the benefit of the students in the classroom. 61. District staff and BOC members were interviewed for “Community Express,” a Community Television of Santa Cruz show. The show aired four times in Fall 1999 and outlined the school bond issues and future project plans. 62. A brochure “The Road to Renovation” detailed the status of Measure E and H projects and was distributed to parents from the school sites and mailed to households within the district in May 2000. This brochure indicated there would be ongoing communication to keep the public aware of progress and improvements. 63. In July 2000, a Board of Education member noted that the district’s web site was in need of updating. 64. The Grand Jury observed that as late as October 17, 2005, there was a “Bond Projects” section on the Santa Cruz City Schools web site. Information was out of date; the last update had been posted in 2001. By February of 2006, that section of the web site was no longer accessible, and posts “Forbidden: You don’t have permission to access … (this site) on this server.” Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District did not maintain detailed information on the Bond Projects on the SCCS website. There were not adequate resources dedicated to maintaining the SCCS website, including the Bond Projects information on the website. However, the SCCS website had a link to the Strategic Construction Management (SCM) website, where information on projects at each school site was available. When the District website was redesigned in September 2005, the link to SCM was inadvertently omitted. It was reinstated on 9/26/06. Without knowing specifically which website the Grand Jury attempted to access when receiving the “Forbidden: You don’t have permission to access…” message, it is difficult to respond to why that message was received. That message is a standard response on any web server when a web page cannot be found. 65. When asked about the inaccessibility of the web site, district staff responded that the webmaster worked one half-day per week and that there were no resources in the district to put more effort into the web site. - 32 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. 66. Strategic Construction Management publishes SCCS site construction newsletters on its web site. Newsletters for completed bond projects include construction budget summaries, schedules, and architect, inspector, and contractor information. Web site summaries of current projects have none of this information.29 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. 67. The construction budget summaries for “Completed Projects” on the Strategic Construction Management web site do not match the figures printed on the Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May10, 2006. The Strategic Construction Management web site is the only one displaying information on the SCCS bond construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The costs reported on the website include hard costs and soft costs (architect fees, DSA fees, IOR fees, bidding costs). The costs reported on the Project Close-out Report are only hard costs paid to contractors. 68. According to district administrative staff, by the end of summer 2006, ninety-eight percent (98%) of bond funds will be spent. The BOC’s final meeting is scheduled for November 2006. If there is any money left over, district staff will oversee expenditures. Construction projects could extend into Spring 2007. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The only remaining project after November, 2006, will be the new Santa Cruz High School swimming pool projects that will be funded 50% with Bond Funds. 69. Strategic Construction Management will be paid $34,500 to produce a Bond Projects Report. This fee is included in their July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 contract extension. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. Strategic Construction Management, http://strategic-cm.com/main/santacruzcityschools.htm. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 33 This was a proposal based on ill-defined scope and provided to the BOC for discussion purposes. This was never approved. 70. At its May 18, 2006 meeting, the BOC reviewed options for its final committee report which may be in the form of newspaper ads or inserts, postcards, a newsletter, a twenty-four page report, or a video. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Conclusions Bonds E and H 1. Measure E, Series A, B, and C bond sales exceeded the voter-approved amount of $28 million by $98,115.65. The $28 million cap was exceeded a second time when the Measure E, Series A and B bonds were refinanced, this time by $383,115.65. 2. A savings of over $3 million in interest is projected due to the refinancing of the Elementary and High School Bonds, Series A and B that were sold for $4,280,000 million more than the principal remaining. Although interest was decreased, the total debt was increased. The purpose of the refinancing appears to be to extract more funds and not to lower property taxes. 3. The 2005 refinancing of the Elementary and High School Bonds is not shown on the SCCS Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006. Voters are entitled to full disclosure regarding all bond details. 4. Contrary to the language of the Voter Information Pamphlet, the bond terms of both the Elementary and High School bonds are greater than twenty-five years. 5. Property owners in the Santa Cruz City Schools District are paying a higher percentage of their property taxes to repay bonds E and H in the 2005-2006 tax year than they paid in the 2004-2005 tax year. To date, the decreased bond interest rates have not reduced property taxes. 6. Over the next twenty-three years, property tax deposits will earn interest that could be used to reduce bond debt. 7. The SCCS District has exceeded its fiscal authority granted in Measures E and H by selling bonds for more than the voter-approved limit. By so doing, it could make it more difficult for voters to approve future bond projects. Project Management 8. As of April 30, 2006, expenses for architects/engineers, and construction management total sixteen percent (16%) of the total bond project expenditures, or over $18 million. - 34 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: 9. The district did not have personnel on staff with adequate construction knowledge to manage large construction projects. 10. The district could not find an efficient and cost-effective method of construction program management. There were many layers of construction supervision and coordination paid for with bond dollars: general contractors, architects, Strategic Construction Management, and the district’s Construction Program Coordinator. 11. Originally, the Strategic Construction Management contract was for $1.2 million and all projects were to be completed by December 2004. By the end of 2006, payments to Strategic Construction Management will reach nearly $3 million, and projects are still continuing. 12. Additional payments were made to Strategic Construction Management for moving services that were part of their original contract with SCCS for which a fixed-price bid had been submitted. 13. Total bond project construction management fees from 1998 to present appear excessive, and will top $7 million before the end of 2006. 14. The bidding process for the Construction Program Manager was not conducted according to Public Contract Code Procedures. Bid documentation is not available from the district to determine whether the lowest bidder was accepted; and documentation that the bids were opened in public as mandated by the Public Contract Code has not been made available by the district. Bidding 15. When the board voted to no longer require re-bidding projects that surpassed the ten percent change order threshold, it removed the cap on change orders. 16. A contractor should not have been considered “responsible” if that contractor’s previous jobs had excessive change orders and if court action was necessary. 17. When projects were bid with alternates, this allowed contractors to manipulate the system by giving a low bid or zero on alternates, thereby allowing a contractor to submit the lowest bid. The bid would not necessarily be awarded to a responsible bidder. Change Orders 18. The SCCS Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006 is incomplete; therefore, a true assessment of costs and overruns cannot easily be made. 19. The amount of change orders appears excessive. This could be due, in part, to the removal of the ten percent (10%) cap requiring project re-bidding. 20. There was no financial incentive for contractors and architects to keep change orders to a minimum. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 35 Division of the State Architect Oversight 21. The Architects of Record have not fulfilled their responsibilities to secure project closeout and certification by the DSA. 22. District administrative staff has not seen the projects through to closeout by insisting that the Architects of Record submit all closeout documentation. 23. The district, architect, and engineer failed to file DSA Form-5 before IORs started project 01-103363 as required by the California Code of Regulations. 24. IOR documentation for project 01-103363 is incomplete and shows a gap of eighteen days with no IOR site notations or reports. It is a violation of the California Code of Regulations for a project to proceed without an IOR. 25. Since district and DSA documentation of IOR assignments and dates do not match, the Grand Jury was unable to determine whether projects progressed without an assigned IOR, or without a DSA-approved IOR. School Closures/Leasing 26. Although bond funds were used to renovate the Natural Bridges and Loma Prieta sites, lease revenues have not been used to repay bond debt. District Office Relocation/Renovation 27. Despite the fact that the Voter Information Pamphlet arguments in favor of the bond measures clearly stated that bond funds were not to be used for administrative offices, the SCCS Board used bond funds for this purpose. 28. The SCCS Board ignored BOC recommendations not to use bond funds for district office renovations and relocation. 29. Lack of planning resulted in wasted money at Soquel High when ten classrooms that had already undergone renovation and modernization were remodeled for district offices. 30. The SCCS District spent more than $1.2 million on district office renovations and relocations. The district inappropriately approved $1 million for this purpose; no bond money should have been used. Oversight/Public Communication 31. The BOC is scheduled to disband in November 2006. Projects may continue until at least Spring 2007, and there will be no BOC oversight. Bonds were passed under the assumption that an oversight committee would be in place for the duration of the projects. - 36 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: 32. The district has not maintained the bond project information on its web site. This could have been a valuable means of providing ongoing, up-to-date public information on the bond projects. 33. Over the last eight years, there has been no ongoing form of public communication with district residents regarding the bond projects. Efforts made, such as starting a web page, being interviewed for Santa Cruz Community Television, and producing a brochure, all took place between 1998-2000. 34. As of this late date, the BOC has not yet determined the format and scope of its final report. The Grand Jury questions whether this will give the BOC time to prepare a comprehensive report. 35. Paying Strategic Construction Management $34,500 to help prepare a final report detailing the bond projects could result in a loss of objectivity and detail in evaluating the projects’ successes and failures. Recommendations 1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Auditor initiate an outside, independent audit to scrutinize the bond sales and refinancing, and expenditure of bond funds. If there was surplus cash gained from the refinancing, it should be accounted for and used to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The County Auditor-Controller does not generally have authority to audit School District activities. The County Auditor-Controller is generally responsible for the fiscal oversight of County functions or those under the Board of Supervisor’s control. However, if a district has funds in the County treasury, the Board of Supervisors can direct the Auditor-Controller to perform an audit of that district as well. California Government Code Section 26883 states: In addition to the power now possessed by the Board of Supervisors to enter into contracts for audits, the Board shall have the power to require that the County Auditor-Controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department, office, board or institution under its control and of any district whose funds are kept in the County treasury. . . Nevertheless, the issues raised in this Grand Jury report are important and should be addressed. The County Auditor-Controller has communicated with Santa Cruz City Schools District staff to research and respond to the findings and recommendation contained in this reply. Unfortunately, the School District’s reply is not due for another 30 days. Consequently, the response to a few of the findings in this report are incomplete, particularly Findings 7 and 10 regarding the legal cap on the amount of the refunding bonds and the 29 year life of the bonds. Hopefully, the School District’s response will include an independent legal opinion that the issues raised in The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 37 Findings 7 and 10 are within the confines of the law. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. If the County Auditor decides to audit the bond sales and refinancing, the District will cooperate with the County Auditor. The District did not realize any surplus cash from the refinancing. The refinancing did reduce the bonded debt. 2. An outside, independent performance audit should be conducted to analyze, assess, and report on the Santa Cruz City Schools District’s operational and construction management policies, procedures, and practices regarding Bond Measures E and H. Investigation as to whether all California Code of Regulations, Title 24 standards were followed should be included. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The District will not conduct an independent performance audit of the construction program for the following reasons: 1. The Board and the BOC have been satisfied with the program. 2. The schools have been satisfied with the outcome of the projects. 3. The Bond projects are nearly complete. There would be no future projects to which to apply any recommendations from a performance audit. 4. Low priority for the expenditure of funds for an audit. The plans and specifications for the projects were approved by the DSA before bidding to ensure compliance with Title 24. DSA-certified inspectors inspected the projects during construction to ensure plans and specifications were followed by the contractors. 3. The SCCS District should insist that the architects submit all documents related to completed bond projects under DSA supervision so the projects can be certified and closed out. Architect fees should be withheld until DSA certification is complete. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District is insisting that the architects submit all documents on completed projects so the projects can be closed out by the DSA. The current architect contracts do not provide for withholding of fees pending completion of final DSA project close- out. 4. For future major construction projects, the SCCS District should consider hiring an experienced, qualified construction project manager or team as a limited-term district - 38 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: employee(s). This would cost less than hiring a construction management firm. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. For future major construction projects, the District will consider hiring an experienced qualified construction project manager or team as limited-term District employees. It is not clear that this would cost less or be more effective than hiring a construction management firm. The BOC has been very satisfied with the decision to engage the services of Strategic Construction Management. 5. The SCCS District should replace the funds used for District Office relocation and renovation to reduce bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 56. 6. The SCCS District should use lease revenues and interest on future property tax collections to reduce the bond debt. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 51. 7. The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects budget document that includes bond refinancing details. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. See response to Finding # 8. 8. The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects closeout document detailing all bond construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The Bond Oversight Committee will produce a final report of the Bond Projects by November 2006. 9. Future construction projects should be awarded to the contractor submitting the lowest base bid. Alternates should be bid separately. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 39 The process being used complies with Public Contract Code and has been approved by District legal counsel. 10. For future construction projects, the contractors hired should adhere to the ten-percent cap on change orders previously in effect. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. Future modernization projects may require exceeding the 10% change order threshold for the reasons outlined in the response to Findings # 31 and 32. 11. The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006. 12. The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site. 13. The BOC should continue to operate until all bond projects are completed. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The BOC has recommended and the Board has approved that the last BOC meeting will be on November 16, 2006. The only construction project that will continue after that date will be the Santa Cruz High School swimming pool. The Board and the BOC do not think that the BOC needs to continue to meet to oversee one project that is funded 50% by Bond Funds. - 40 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: 14. District support staff is to be commended for its helpfulness, promptness, and courtesy when providing requested documentation. Responses Required Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within Santa Cruz City 2-12, 14, 15, Schools Board of 19, 20, 23, 24, 90 Days Trustees 27-29, 31, 32, 1-13 (October 1, 2006) 34-44, 46, 47, 51, 53-56, 64- 70 Santa Cruz County 60 Days Auditor/Controller 1-15 1 (September 1, 2006) The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 41
F57:
The BOC has been meeting bi-monthly since 1998. These meetings are open to the public. Minutes and any reports released are public information. Meetings are held at Soquel High School, Room 312. Oversight committee members stated that meeting notices are posted at school sites and the district office.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R11:
The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006.
R12:
The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site.
F58:
In 1998, a bond web page was developed with links to each school site providing regular updates on bond-related issues.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R11:
The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006.
R12:
The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site.
F59:
In June 1999, the communications sub-committee of the BOC worked on placing bond-related information on the SCCS web page. Signs relating to bond projects were designed for placement at the school sites.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R11:
The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006.
R12:
The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site.
F60:
On August 26, 1999, the BOC stated that the Board of Education, Bond Oversight Committee, and district administration should work jointly to create a public relations program and method of presentation for each school site, the press, and the public in general. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The BOC has made repeated attempts to have the stories about the Bond Projects reported in the press. The press has not responded favorably to their attempts. We 28 Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Moving costs stir school-bond debate,” May 29, 2003. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 31 think that the school sites have been kept informed. However, the general public has not been very well informed because the press has been unresponsive. The BOC has had discussions about how to handle this. Most of the ways the BOC could find to inform the public involved the use of bond funds. The BOC has been very reluctant to spend bond funds on mailings and ads. The BOC has tried to ensure that the money was used to the benefit of the students in the classroom.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R11:
The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006.
R12:
The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site.
F61:
District staff and BOC members were interviewed for “Community Express,” a Community Television of Santa Cruz show. The show aired four times in Fall 1999 and outlined the school bond issues and future project plans.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R11:
The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006.
R12:
The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site.
F62:
A brochure “The Road to Renovation” detailed the status of Measure E and H projects and was distributed to parents from the school sites and mailed to households within the district in May 2000. This brochure indicated there would be ongoing communication to keep the public aware of progress and improvements.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R11:
The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006.
R12:
The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site.
F63:
In July 2000, a Board of Education member noted that the district’s web site was in need of updating.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R11:
The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006.
R12:
The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site.
F64:
The Grand Jury observed that as late as October 17, 2005, there was a “Bond Projects” section on the Santa Cruz City Schools web site. Information was out of date; the last update had been posted in 2001. By February of 2006, that section of the web site was no longer accessible, and posts “Forbidden: You don’t have permission to access … (this site) on this server.” Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District did not maintain detailed information on the Bond Projects on the SCCS website. There were not adequate resources dedicated to maintaining the SCCS website, including the Bond Projects information on the website. However, the SCCS website had a link to the Strategic Construction Management (SCM) website, where information on projects at each school site was available. When the District website was redesigned in September 2005, the link to SCM was inadvertently omitted. It was reinstated on 9/26/06. Without knowing specifically which website the Grand Jury attempted to access when receiving the “Forbidden: You don’t have permission to access…” message, it is difficult to respond to why that message was received. That message is a standard response on any web server when a web page cannot be found.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R8:
The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects closeout document detailing all bond construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The Bond Oversight Committee will produce a final report of the Bond Projects by November 2006.
R11:
The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006.
R12:
The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site.
F65:
When asked about the inaccessibility of the web site, district staff responded that the webmaster worked one half-day per week and that there were no resources in the district to put more effort into the web site. - 32 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R8:
The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects closeout document detailing all bond construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The Bond Oversight Committee will produce a final report of the Bond Projects by November 2006.
R11:
The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006.
R12:
The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site.
F66:
Strategic Construction Management publishes SCCS site construction newsletters on its web site. Newsletters for completed bond projects include construction budget summaries, schedules, and architect, inspector, and contractor information. Web site summaries of current projects have none of this information.29 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)
R8:
The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects closeout document detailing all bond construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The Bond Oversight Committee will produce a final report of the Bond Projects by November 2006.
R9:
Future construction projects should be awarded to the contractor submitting the lowest base bid. Alternates should be bid separately. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 39 The process being used complies with Public Contract Code and has been approved by District legal counsel.
R11:
The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006.
R12:
The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site.
F67:
The construction budget summaries for “Completed Projects” on the Strategic Construction Management web site do not match the figures printed on the Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May10, 2006. The Strategic Construction Management web site is the only one displaying information on the SCCS bond construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The costs reported on the website include hard costs and soft costs (architect fees, DSA fees, IOR fees, bidding costs). The costs reported on the Project Close-out Report are only hard costs paid to contractors.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)
R8:
The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects closeout document detailing all bond construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The Bond Oversight Committee will produce a final report of the Bond Projects by November 2006.
R9:
Future construction projects should be awarded to the contractor submitting the lowest base bid. Alternates should be bid separately. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 39 The process being used complies with Public Contract Code and has been approved by District legal counsel.
R11:
The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has provided on-going bi-monthly reports to the Board and BOC, including project status and budget status. These reports are available to anyone interested in them. The BOC will produce a final report on all of the projects by November, 2006.
R12:
The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Financial resources will first need to be identified to fund the regular updates of the District’s web site. The Bond Projects Final Report will be available on the District web site.
F68:
According to district administrative staff, by the end of summer 2006, ninety-eight percent (98%) of bond funds will be spent. The BOC’s final meeting is scheduled for November 2006. If there is any money left over, district staff will oversee expenditures. Construction projects could extend into Spring 2007. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The only remaining project after November, 2006, will be the new Santa Cruz High School swimming pool projects that will be funded 50% with Bond Funds.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R3:
The Bond projects are nearly complete. There would be no future projects to which to apply any recommendations from a performance audit.
R8:
The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects closeout document detailing all bond construction projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. The Bond Oversight Committee will produce a final report of the Bond Projects by November 2006.
R13:
The BOC should continue to operate until all bond projects are completed. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. The BOC has recommended and the Board has approved that the last BOC meeting will be on November 16, 2006. The only construction project that will continue after that date will be the Santa Cruz High School swimming pool. The Board and the BOC do not think that the BOC needs to continue to meet to oversee one project that is funded 50% by Bond Funds. - 40 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:
F69:
Strategic Construction Management will be paid $34,500 to produce a Bond Projects Report. This fee is included in their July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 contract extension. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools DISAGREES. Strategic Construction Management, http://strategic-cm.com/main/santacruzcityschools.htm. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 33 This was a proposal based on ill-defined scope and provided to the BOC for discussion purposes. This was never approved.
F70:
At its May 18, 2006 meeting, the BOC reviewed options for its final committee report which may be in the form of newspaper ads or inserts, postcards, a newsletter, a twenty-four page report, or a video. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools AGREES. Conclusions Bonds E and H
F2002:
The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 7 Reviewed: Memoranda/Reports/Minutes/Agendas: Advantages/Disadvantages of Using Multiple Prime v. Single General Contractor, agenda packet, Bond Oversight Committee meeting, January 27, 2000. California Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect, Project Inspector Qualification Record, DSA-5, revised March 27, 2003. Communications Matrix for Bond Projects Participants, November 29, 2001. IOR Bi-Monthly Progress Reports, Santa Cruz High, May 2002. Memo from Northcross, Hill and Ach, June 8, 2006. Official Statements, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District, General Obligation Bonds, Election of 1998, Series A, B, and C. Official Statements, Santa Cruz City High School District, General Obligation Bonds, Election of 1998, Series A, B, and C. Official Statement, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District, 2005 General Obligation Refunding Bonds. Official Statement, Santa Cruz City High School District, 2005 General Obligation Refunding Bonds. Santa Cruz City Schools, Agreement for Consultant Services, Construction Program Management Services, Strategic Construction Management, February 1, 2002. Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, May 12, 1999 to May 10, 2006. [Please see Appendix for specific dates.] Santa Cruz City School Bond Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes, May 16, 1998 to May 18, 2006. [Please see Appendix for specific dates.] Santa Cruz City Schools “Bond Oversight Committee Roles and Responsibilities,” revised April 17, 2002. Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006. Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006. Santa Cruz City Schools District Bond Projects Status Reports, November 17, 1999 to January 25, 2006. [Please see Appendix for specific dates.] Santa Cruz City Schools, Request for Proposals, Management Services for Construction Projects, undated. Soquel High School Bond II Modernization Project IIIA, Bid #2004-21, Opened June 3, 2004. Soquel High School Bond 2 Phase II Rebid, Bid #2006-09, Opened December 22, 2005. Newspaper Articles/Pamphlets: Contra Costa Times, “Schools’ refinancing questioned,” April 30, 2006. County of Santa Cruz Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet for Special School District Election, Tuesday, April 14, 1998. “Road to Renovation: Keeping You Informed,” Santa Cruz City Schools, undated. - 8 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Santa Cruz Sentinel: “Bond-funded school repairs set to start in Santa Cruz,” May 13, 1999. “Bonds making a difference,” March 22, 2001. “Branciforte remodeling project disappoints staff,” October 14, 2001. “Error could cost schools thousands,” April 8, 2005. “Firm will oversee school construction projects,” February 15, 2002. “Moving costs stir school-bond debate,” May 29, 2003. “Santa Cruz City Schools finds surplus in general fund,” April 20, 2006. “Students say last goodbye to Natural Bridges, Branciforte schools,” June 12, 2004. Web sites: Building Standards Commission, http://www.bsc.ca.gov. California Code of Regulations, http://www.bsc.ca.gov/title_24/documents/part1/2001_part1.pdf. California Education Code, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/edc/15200- 15205.html. California State Constitution, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const.html. California Public Contract Code, http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/contents.html?sec=pcc. “Choosing the Best Delivery Method for Your Facility Projects,” http://www.mbpce.com/news_pubs_delivery.html. Division of the State Architect, http://www.dsa.dgs.ca.gov. Division of the State Architect On-Line Project Tracking System, http://www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/etrackerweb/DistrictProject.asp?client id=44-h2 and http://www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/etrackerweb/DistrictProject.asp?client id=44-42. General Obligation Bonds, http://www.calschools.com/static/GOBond.htm. Santa Cruz City Schools, http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us. Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Projects, http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/bizservices/BondProject/bondproject.htm (this web site is no longer accessible). Santa Cruz County Office of Education, http://www.santacruz.k12.ca.us/board/index.html. Santa Cruz Sentinel, http://www.santacruzsentinel.com. State Education Oversight Commissions, http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/57/86/5786.htm. Strategic Construction Management, http://strategic- cm.com/main/santacruzcityschools.htm. TBW&B, Public Finance Strategies, LLC, http://www.tbwb.com/clients.htm. 2001 California Building Standards Administrative Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1, http://www.bsc.ca.gov/title_24/documents/Part1/2001_part1.pdf. The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: - 9 Visited: Ten Santa Cruz City School sites. Findings Bonds E and H 1. The E and H bonds were originally each sold in three series: A, B, and C:7 Bond Sold Date Bond Amount Bond Term Ends Series A, Elementary July 1, 1998 $7,000,000.00 August 1, 2027 Series B, Elementary March 1, 2000 $15,500,000.00 August 1, 2029 Series C, Elementary October 2001 $5,598,115.65 February 1, 2026 TOTAL ELEM. $28,098,115.65 Series A, High School July 1, 1998 $15,000,000.00 August 1, 2027 Series B, High School March 1, 2000 $31,000,000.00 August 1, 2029 Series C, High School October 2001 $11,997,433.50 February 1, 2026 TOTAL HIGH SCH. $57,997,433.50 In April 2005, Series A and B Elementary and High School bonds were refinanced: Refinance, Series A and B, Elementary April 2005 $22,785,000 August 1, 2029 Refinance, Series A and B, High School April 2005 $45,500,000 August 1, 2029 Table 2. Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Sales, Measures E and H.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R14:
District support staff is to be commended for its helpfulness, promptness, and courtesy when providing requested documentation.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
39 hallazgos
F1:
AMBAG has declared that the City of Watsonville must plan for 2,283 new housing units in the 2000-2007 period.6
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
While the City of Watsonville has a mandated housing goal, it does not have a mandated location for the housing.
F2:
City Council Resolution 199-02 was the text for Measure U and amended 1994’s “Watsonville 2005 General Plan” (now replaced by WatsonvilleVISTA 2030) by extending the city boundaries to include Buena Vista areas I, II, and III as proposed locations for meeting mandated housing goals.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
While the City of Watsonville has a mandated housing goal, it does not have a mandated location for the housing.
F3:
Santa Cruz County’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) must approve any city boundary extensions. Response: LAFCO AGREES.
F4:
Measure U as presented in the pre-election voter information pamphlet reduced the text of Resolution 199-02 from eighteen (18) pages to a single sentence with a generic analysis by the City Attorney regarding Urban Limit Lines: 6City of Watsonville Housing Element, chart 4, p. 4-1. - 6 Watsonville Municipal Airport: “Shall the City of Watsonville amend the Watsonville 2005 General Plan thereby imposing certain restrictions on growth, as specified, and restricting later amendments all as provided in the Watsonville Urban Limit Line and Development Timing Initiative?” A copy of the full text of Resolution 199-02 was only available upon request.7
F5:
A group called the Friends of Buena Vista presented their opposition to Measure U on the voter’s information pamphlet, but because the area is currently outside the city limits, none of the residents of the areas to be annexed were able to vote on the measure. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F6:
The Friends of Buena Vista and other entities hired an attorney in 2005 to challenge the City of Watsonville’s draft environmental impact document regarding construction in the Buena Vista areas.
F7:
Neither City Council Resolution 199-02, nor Measure U, mentioned any possible impact on the airport nor possible conflicts between housing and the airport, such as safety and noise pollution. Response: City of Watsonville: Measure U was circulated to establish a voter approved Urban Growth Boundary to protect important agricultural lands and environmentally sensitive habitats within the Pajaro Valley while providing the City with some assurance as to the opportunity to meet the housing and employment needs of its residents. The initiative established a phased approach to development along with assuring a public review mechanism (Specific Plan) for future development proposals. It is of note that citizen initiatives, such as Measure U, are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
F8:
The Watsonville Air Show is a significant regional event, generating annual revenue between $500,000 and $3 million.8
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Watsonville Municipal Airport is not sufficiently valued as an economic asset to the City of Watsonville and to Santa Cruz County.
F9:
Studies show the overall annual economic impact of the airport to the region is a minimum of $45 million (in 2006 dollars) and could range as high as $600 million when indirect economic impacts are included.9 Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: 7City of Watsonville Voter Information Pamphlet, Measure U, 2002. 8www.watsonvilleairport.com; Don French, quoted in Register-Pajaronian, p. 6, June 18, 2005. 9AMBAG Airports Economic Impact Study, p 14, 2003. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 7 The County agrees that Watsonville Airport has significant economic benefit to the County, but cannot confirm the specific dollar amounts cited. The source cited for this finding is AMBAG’s 2003 Airports Economic Impacts Study, which is likely the most recent and authoritative study on this topic. The County cannot find any reference to the airport’s annual regional economic benefit being a “minimum of $45 million (in 2006 dollars)” in the AMBAG Airport Study, however, we note that it states that the annual benefit would top $662 million if indirect as well as direct impacts are counted.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Watsonville Municipal Airport is not sufficiently valued as an economic asset to the City of Watsonville and to Santa Cruz County.
F10:
Businesses and independent owners from all over the county base their aircraft at the airport.10
F11:
Itinerant aircraft use the airport, bringing business and recreational visitors who add approximately $9 million a year to the area.11
F12:
Watsonville Airport is used in the day-to-day operations of local government entities including the California Highway Patrol, Civil Air Patrol, Drug Enforcement Agency, FEMA, the FBI, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Services, and the Department of Fish and Game.
F13:
The Watsonville City Council has discussed the possibility of shortening Runway 8-26. This would limit the number of aircraft that could land there, particularly in restrictive weather conditions. The Watsonville City Council rejected this option. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES that this would limit the number of aircraft that could land there but PARTIALLY AGREES about shortening the runway. Shortening a runway can potentially limit the type of aircraft able to utilize the runway. Limiting the type could also be said to therefore, limit the number. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES to “particularly in restrictive weather conditions.” Local pilot users of the airport have indicated that the fog bank often covers Runway 2-20, but often does not reach Runway 8-26. Therefore, pilots who do not have a Federal Aviation Administration issued instrument rating, which would be required to use Runway 2-20 in this example, are still able to utilize the airport under visual conditions by using Runway 8-26. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES that “the Watsonville City Council rejected this option.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 threatens the viability of the Crosswind Runway 8-26.
F14:
One of the guiding principles of Watsonville planners is to “encourage development patterns that protect and are compatible with agricultural lands”12 which also exist in the Buena Vista areas I, II, and III. In addition, these areas are part of aircraft 10AMBAG Monterey Bay Regional Airport System Plan, Table 2-10, 2005. 11AMBAG Airports Economic Impact Study, p. 12, 2003. 12WatsonvilleVISTA2030. - 8 Watsonville Municipal Airport: safety zones. In Buena Vista I, this space includes Safety Zone 1, 2, and 3 (Runway Protection Zone, Inner Approach Zone, and Inner Turning Zone) for Runway 8. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County has no jurisdiction over Watsonville planners and cannot comment on the accuracy of this finding. Response: City of Watsonville: Measure U established the Buena Vista Area as the preferred future growth area after exhaustive consultation with various stakeholders including the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau, California Association of Family Farmers, Santa Cruz County and Watsonville Wetlands Watch. Measure U amended the Watsonville 2005 General Plan (since replaced) and was most recently, as required by the initiative, incorporated in the adopted Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan and evaluated as part of the general Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It is not unusual for airports within the State to have residential uses near them. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (CALUP) fully contemplates residential development in proximity to airports and provides examples of ways that local jurisdictions might address this. The Handbook establishes strategies to employ when local considerations result in decisions to allow residential development that might normally be considered incompatible. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES to “One of the guiding principles of Watsonville planners is to ‘encourage development patterns that protect and are compatible with agricultural lands’ which also exist in the Buena Vista areas I, II, and III.” This is not within the area of expertise of the Division of Aeronautics. However, the California Land Conservation Act, better known as the Williamson Act, has been the State’s premier agricultural land protection program since its enactment in 1965. The California Legislature passed the Williamson Act in 1965 to preserve agricultural and open-space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. It is our understanding that property within the Buena Vista development, may be subject to the Williamson Act. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES to “In addition, these areas are part of aircraft safety zones.” It is unknown how much of the agricultural lands are part of “aircraft safety zones.” However, portions of the Buena Vista I, II, and III development are within what the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook refers to as Safety Compatibility Zones 1, 2, 3, part of 4, and 6. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 9 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES to “In Buena Vista I, this space includes Safety Zone 1, 2, and 3 (Runway Protection Zone, Inner Approach Zone, and Inner Turning Zone) for Runway 8.” The Safety Compatibility Zones under which the Buena Vista I project lies are Zones 1, 2, 3, part of 4 and 6 for Runway 8, and are referred to as the following: Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone Zone 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone Zone 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone
F15:
Watsonville Airport provided essential logistical support during the Loma Prieta earthquake disaster relief operation. County emergency planners assume the airport, if available, will be used again in this capacity during future major disaster relief operations. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Office of Emergency Services AGREE.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Watsonville Airport is an essential regional asset in future disaster relief operations in Santa Cruz County.
F16:
County emergency planners believe that in the event of a massive evacuation, all highways would be gridlocked with outbound traffic, as happened in Houston during the 2005 Hurricane Rita evacuation. Should a massive evacuation occur here, Watsonville Airport will be the only practical means of getting significant disaster relief assistance into Santa Cruz County. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Office of Emergency Services AGREE. In the unlikely need for a massive evacuation, local highways would indeed be of limited utility in moving large numbers of people or resources. While Watsonville Airport would be a vital asset in the response effort, and would remain the only facility capable of handling fixed wing cargo aircraft, other air support could be staged in multiple areas of the County using helicopters. Additionally, in an event that would require massive evacuation, it is possible that seaborne logistical support may also be activated.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Watsonville Airport is an essential regional asset in future disaster relief operations in Santa Cruz County.
F17:
The airport is not included in the county’s OES planning process. Although it is acknowledged as an essential facility in the Santa Cruz County Operational Area Emergency Management Plan, there has been no significant direct contact between county or city emergency planners and airport personnel regarding the coordination of emergency efforts. - 10 Watsonville Municipal Airport: Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Office of Emergency Services DISAGREE. The airport is included in the County’s emergency planning process and it is considered an essential asset in area plans. As a fixed facility with known capacities, the airport would be utilized by command authorities in the most flexible manner for a given incident. Detailed plans are not required for the airport to be tasked accordingly. Additionally, Watsonville’s emergency personnel are actively engaged with the County’s emergency management agencies and are well aware of how the airport facility could be tasked in a disaster through the Standardized Emergency Management System. There is close coordination between the County and the City of Watsonville. Response: City of Watsonville: The City believes that the level of coordination has been appropriate. Furthermore, the Airport is under the direct supervision of the Public Works and Utilities Director who is directly involved with the City’s emergency response program as well as those of neighboring jurisdictions. The City is willing to provide any additional information or details as deemed necessary by the Santa Cruz County OES. Response: The City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES. The airport is included in the County’s emergency planning process, and it is considered an essential asset in area plans. As a fixed facility with known capacities, the airport would be utilized by command authorities in the most flexible manner for a given incident, and detailed plans are not required for it to be tasked accordingly. Additionally, Watsonville’s emergency personnel are actively engaged with the County’s emergency management agencies and are well aware of how the airport facility could be tasked in a disaster and how that would occur through the Standardized Emergency Management System. The City of Santa Cruz is required to coordinate with County OES when requesting use of the Watsonville Airport. Response: The City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. For emergency planning purposes the Airport comes under the jurisdiction of the City of Watsonville for local emergency planning and then County OES for regional planning. The logistical use and planning around that use of the Watsonville airport for regional emergency response matters is the responsibility of County OES. Response: The City of Scotts Valley AGREES. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 11
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Watsonville Airport is an essential regional asset in future disaster relief operations in Santa Cruz County.
F18:
Runway 8-26 has been used to significantly increase capacity during disaster relief operations. Response: City of Watsonville: We do not believe that Runway 8-26 has been used to significantly increase capacity. Runway 8-26 is intended for use during certain weather conditions (wind/fog), which may or may not limit use of Runway 2-20. Runway 2-20 is and continues to be the principal runway providing 24-hour access to general aviation. These runways continue to function as intended and there would be neither an increase nor decrease in proportion during disasters.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Crosswind Runway 8-26 is critical to the vitality and efficacy of Watsonville Municipal Airport.
F19:
Runway 8-26 is used in twelve percent (12%) of all takeoffs and landings at the airport.13 Response: City of Watsonville: This is true. It is of note that takeoff and landing figures for Runway 8-26 include what are considered “optional” operations such as practice (touch and goes) and shortcut flights that are not dictated by weather conditions. We would recommend that footnote 13 be revised to reflect the most recent adopted Airport Master Plan (dated April 12, 2005).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Crosswind Runway 8-26 is critical to the vitality and efficacy of Watsonville Municipal Airport.
F20:
Runway 8-26 can be used by all aircraft currently based at the airport. The importance of the runway to future airport operation is demonstrated by the improvements planned, such as the blast pads built at each end of the runway to protect against erosion from heavier aircraft taking off. Response: City of Watsonville: The Airport Master Plan includes a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) that identifies potential airport improvements and potential timing of those improvements. Blast pads and the other airport improvements are typical airport improvements regardless of the type of runway. Furthermore, these improvements are planned to coincide with proposed industrial development next to Runway 8-26.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Crosswind Runway 8-26 is critical to the vitality and efficacy of Watsonville Municipal Airport.
F21:
Runway 8-26 increases airport availability from ninety-four (94%) to ninety-nine percent (99%). Crosswind Runway 8-26 is particularly important during adverse wind and fog conditions14 prevalent in the summer. Summer weekends tend to be the busiest time at the airport. Response: City of Watsonville: 13Watsonville Municipal Airport Master Plan, p. 26, 2002. 14Watsonville Municipal Airport Master Plan, p. 36, 2002 - 12 Watsonville Municipal Airport: Runway 2-20 is adequate and available to serve General Aviation needs. Runway 8-26 provides additional availability above and beyond general aviation needs and FAA guidelines. In fact, the FAA would not likely fund construction of a Runway 8- 26 if Watsonville Municipal Airport were to be built today because Runway 2-20 is more than adequate. Furthermore, the City has initiated improvements to Runway 2-20 including extension and installation of an Instrument Landing System (ILS) that will increase the availability of Runway 2-20.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Crosswind Runway 8-26 is critical to the vitality and efficacy of Watsonville Municipal Airport.
F22:
Runway 8-26 can keep the airport open during maintenance of Runway 2-20 or if an accident closes 2-20 again. Response: City of Watsonville: Runway 8-26 is a secondary crosswind runway for use when wind/fog preclude use of Runway 2-20. Runway 8-26 is an inferior runway to Runway 2-20 for a number of reasons notably its length and lack of night lighting. Proper planning and scheduling of maintenance of 2-20 would eliminate material downtime of Runway 2-20 much as what occurs on major transportation facilities such as Highway 1. For these same reasons, an accident on 2-20 would not necessarily require use of Runway 8.26. Single runway airports exist throughout the state, many of which also serve commercial air traffic and experience similar weather conditions. These airports include Camarillo, Half Moon Bay, Lake Tahoe, Lompoc, Marina, Oxnard, San Carlos, Santa Monica and Visalia to name just a few. Single runway airports throughout the state are able to address both maintenance and accident scenarios.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Crosswind Runway 8-26 is critical to the vitality and efficacy of Watsonville Municipal Airport.
F23:
The proposed densities for Buena Vista I specified in WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 will result in more households being exposed to the risks of off-airport accidents and subject to noise pollution. Response: City of Watsonville: There are no proposed densities under the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan, only potential densities. The General Plan calls for the entire Buena Vista Area to be studied under a future Specific Plan process with full public dialogue on potential densities. The Specific Plan process includes an extensive public process and evaluation under CEQA. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. As referenced in Finding 14 and our response, Buena Vista I is within Safety Compatibility Zones 1, 2, 3, part of 4, and 6, according to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (“Handbook”). The Handbook recommends certain Basic Safety Compatibility Qualities for each Safety Compatibility Zone (Table 9- B). They are as follows: Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 13 Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone Risk Factors / Runway Proximity Basic Compatibility Qualities • Very high risk • Airport ownership of property • Runway protection zone as encouraged defined by FAA criteria • Prohibit all new structures • For military airports, clear • Prohibit residential land uses zones as defined by AICUZ • Avoid nonresidential uses except if very criteria low intensity in character and confined to the sides and outer end of the area Zone 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone Risk Factors / Runway Proximity Basic Compatibility Qualities • Substantial risk: RPZs • Prohibit residential uses except on large, together with inner safety agricultural parcels zones encompass 30% to 50% • Limit nonresidential uses to activities of near-airport aircraft which attract few people (uses such as accident sites (air carrier and shopping centers, most eating general aviation) establishments, theaters, meeting halls, • Zone extends beyond and, if multi-story office buildings, and labor- RPZ is narrow, along sides of intensive manufacturing plants RPZ unacceptable) • Encompasses areas overflown • Prohibit children’s schools, day care at low altitudes — typically centers, hospitals, nursing homes only 200 to 400 feet above • Prohibit hazardous uses (e.g. runway elevation aboveground bulk fuel storage) Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone Risk Factors / Runway Proximity Basic Compatibility Qualities • Zone primarily applicable to • Limit residential uses to very low general aviation airports densities (if not deemed unacceptable because of noise) • Encompasses locations where aircraft are typically turning • Avoid nonresidential uses having from the base to final moderate or higher usage intensities approach legs of the standard (e.g., major shopping centers, fast food traffic pattern and are restaurants, theaters, meeting halls, descending from traffic buildings with more than three pattern altitude aboveground habitable floors are generally unacceptable) • Zone also includes the area where departing aircraft • Prohibit children’s schools, large day - 14 Watsonville Municipal Airport: normally complete the care centers, hospitals, nursing homes transition from takeoff power • Avoid hazardous uses (e.g. aboveground and flap settings to a climb bulk fuel storage) mode and have begun to turn to their en route heading Zone 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone Risk Factors / Runway Proximity Basic Compatibility Qualities • Situated along extended • In undeveloped areas, limit residential runway centerline beyond uses to very low densities (if not deemed Zone 3 unacceptable because of noise); if alternative uses are impractical, allow • Approaching aircraft usually higher densities as infill in urban areas at less than traffic pattern altitude • Limit nonresidential uses as in Zone 3 • Particularly applicable for • Prohibit children’s schools, large day busy general aviation care centers, hospitals, nursing homes runways (because of elongated traffic pattern), runways with straight-in instrument approach procedures, and other runways where straight-in or straight-out flight paths are common • Zone can be reduced in size or eliminated for runways with very-low activity levels Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone • Risk Factors / Runway Basic Compatibility Qualities Proximity • Allow residential uses • Generally low likelihood of • Allow most nonresidential uses; prohibit accident occurrence at most outdoor stadiums and similar uses with airports; risk concern very high intensities primarily is with uses for • Avoid children’s schools, large day care which potential consequences centers, hospitals, nursing homes are severe • Zone includes all other portions of regular traffic patterns and pattern entry Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 15 routes Public Utilities Code 21674.7(b) states in pertinent part: “It is the intent of the Legislature to discourage incompatible land uses near existing airports. Therefore, prior to granting permits for the renovation or remodeling of an existing building, structure, or facility, and before the construction of a new building, it is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies shall be guided by the height, use, noise, safety and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations, as established by this article, and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, published by the division… .” Safety compatibility criteria are a reflection of the potential consequences of an accident. Basic safety compatibility qualities for each zone are based on risk factors and runway proximity. Therefore, since most of the Buena Vista I project is in conflict with the recommended Basic Safety Compatibility Qualities in the Handbook, more households will be exposed to the risks of off-airport accidents.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)
R5:
If development proceeds according to WatsonvilleVISTA 2030, noise pollution may become a serious issue in the Buena Vista areas.
R6:
If development proceeds according to WatsonvilleVISTA 2030, the risk that an engine failure will have life threatening consequences to those on the ground is unacceptably increased.
R8:
The Watsonville City Council’s failure to enforce the maximum population densities in airport safety zones may increase Watsonville’s exposure to legal liability in the event of an off-airport accident in these areas. The fact that there are high populations within the safety zones of other runways at the airport does not justify continuing the practice of violating airport safety zone building densities northwest of Runway 8.
R10:
The Watsonville City Council has chosen to fulfill its housing planning needs at the expense of airport safety and noise pollution.
F24:
The Watsonville City Council has eliminated Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone), northwest of Runway 8 to justify greater housing density in Buena Vista I.15 This action has been opposed by Santa Cruz County Second District Supervisor Ellen Pirie, CalTrans, and others.16 Response: City of Watsonville: Safety Zone 3 has been eliminated following extensive public review and hearings. The City determined that Runway 8 is a low activity runway and that, based upon the CALUP handbook and unique operational conditions of Watsonville Municipal Airport, in consultation with the Director of the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, Gillfillan Associates, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Airport Manager, local pilots, airport business owners and other interested parties, Safety Zones 1, 2, 4 and 5 were adequate. City Council, Caltrans and the FAA were provided notice of the hearing of April 12, 2005 in which revisions to Runway 8 were proposed. No comments were received from Caltrans or the FAA. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. Eliminating Safety Zone 3 is not necessarily justification for greater housing density, rather its elimination would allow for greater housing density.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R9:
WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 threatens the viability of the Crosswind Runway 8-26.
R35:
CalTrans has stated that formally designating a runway as low activity does not justify the elimination of Safety Zone 3.30 Enforcing lower population densities in 29Recommendations on Revision to the Watsonville Airport Crosswind Runway (8-26), City Council Airport Committee, p. 4, April 1, 2006. 30ALUP Handbook, fig. 9K; Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 21 Safety Zone 3 by limiting housing construction is intended to reduce the consequences of an off-airport accident. Safety zones are intended to delineate higher probabilities of an off-aircraft accident based on large numbers of operations at airports across the country. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County is familiar with the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines, but does not necessarily agree with the rest of the finding. The County believes that the issue of how best to address safety issues regarding Zone 3 requires a more complex interpretation of the guidelines. Response: City of Watsonville: This finding is incorrect. The April 21, 2006 letter indicates that the action violated the Division of Aeronautics interpretation of the CALUP Handbook. The FAA has no regulation authority over Safety Compatibility Zones 3, 4, 5 and 6. We would note that the footnoted Figure 9k from the CALUP clearly notes that the “examples are for general guidance only.” It is also of note that relocating the Runway Protection Zone entirely on airport property to comply with FAA regulations was a large part of the City’s consideration of Runway 8-26 modifications. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. Safety Zones are intended to delineate higher probabilities of an off-airport accident, not an “off-aircraft” accident. Safety Zones were derived from concentrations of historic accidents. Safety Zone compatibility criteria are a reflection of the potential consequences of an accident and that potential does not change even if the activity is low. Basic safety compatibility qualities for each zone are based on risk factors and runway proximity.
R36:
The recommendation approved by Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee was inconsistent with the report prepared by their airport planning consultant, Walter Gillfillan and Associates. That report’s Option 3 presents the pros and cons for shortening Runway 8 and moving Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone) onto airport property. The Gillfillan report did not recommend eliminating Safety Zone 3 in any of its options. Response: City of Watsonville: The Committee recommendation was consistent with the Gillfillan Report, although not specifically called out. Gillfillan was directly involved in the Committee process and identified the ultimate approved option. The Gillfillan report clearly indicated that it was not an exhaustive evaluation of options and during the presentations Mr. Gillfillan also noted this fact. - 22 Watsonville Municipal Airport: Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES that “the recommendation approved by Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee was inconsistent with the report prepared by their airport planning consultant, Walter Gillfillan and Associates.” The Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES “that report’s Option 3 presents the pros and cons for shortening Runway 8 and moving Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone) onto airport property.” The report’s Option 3 does present the pros and cons for shortening the east end of Runway 8 by approximately 500 feet. However, it would not move Safety Zone 3 in its entirety onto airport property. Approximately half of Zone 3 would remain off airport property. The Division of Aeronautics DISAGREES that “the Gillfillan report did not recommend eliminating Safety Zone 3 in any of its options.” Option 2 of the Gillfillan report was to permanently close Runway 8-26. This would in fact result in the elimination of Safety Zone 3, the Inner Turning Zone. Other than Option 2, there were no other recommendations in the Gillfillan report for eliminating Safety Zone 3.
F25:
Construction of additional housing northwest of Runway 8-26 will increase the danger from an off-airport landing. Such an event occurred to aircraft N23039 in 15City Council Resolution 74-05, p.3 & p. 5 16Pirie letter to Watsonville, May 5, 2006; Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006; agenda packet for Watsonville City Council meeting, May 23, 2006. - 16 Watsonville Municipal Airport: the late 1970’s in the Buena Vista area. At that time, there were no serious consequences because the aircraft was able to land safely in a plowed field.17 Response: City of Watsonville: Off airport landings are rare, but unavoidable. Additional housing does not increase danger for off airport landings. Obviously, open space, no matter where located, provides opportunities for safe off field landings. The city is complying with the
Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)
R6:
If development proceeds according to WatsonvilleVISTA 2030, the risk that an engine failure will have life threatening consequences to those on the ground is unacceptably increased.
R7:
In the event of an off-airport accident in the Buena Vista areas, there will likely be a significant demand for closure of Crosswind Runway 8-26 or even the airport itself.
R8:
The Watsonville City Council’s failure to enforce the maximum population densities in airport safety zones may increase Watsonville’s exposure to legal liability in the event of an off-airport accident in these areas. The fact that there are high populations within the safety zones of other runways at the airport does not justify continuing the practice of violating airport safety zone building densities northwest of Runway 8.
R10:
The Watsonville City Council has chosen to fulfill its housing planning needs at the expense of airport safety and noise pollution.
F26:
Watsonville VISTA 2030 proposes a school in the Buena Vista II area within Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone), less than a mile from the northwest end of Runway 8-26. CalTrans has stated that Watsonville City Council cannot omit school placement safety investigation requirements within Zone 6.18 Response: City of Watsonville: Watsonville Vista 2030 does not propose a school site within the Buena Vista II area. The City Council did nothing to remove the State’s statutory obligations to perform school placement safety assessments. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES.
F27:
Discussion has occurred by attendees at Watsonville City Council meetings regarding the possibility of shortening Runway 8 to reduce Safety Zones 2 (Inner Safety Zone) and 4 (Outer Safety Zone). Response: City of Watsonville: 17Maintenance log of aircraft N23093, January 1, 1976. 18Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 17 There has been no discussion regarding the shortening of pavement on Runway 8. There has, however, been discussion of relocating the landing threshold of Runway
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 threatens the viability of the Crosswind Runway 8-26.
F28:
A shortened runway could raise safety concerns, as was demonstrated when an aircraft had to abort a takeoff from Runway 8. The extra length of the runway allowed the aircraft to land safely, just barely within the confines of the airport.19 Response: City of Watsonville: It is possible that a significantly reduced runway length could raise concerns. There is not currently nor has there ever been a proposal to shorten any runway. In fact, the City is in the process of extending the primary runway, Runway 2-20, by 800 feet. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. A shortened runway is a concern; however, we have no information on the incident referred to.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 threatens the viability of the Crosswind Runway 8-26.
F29:
Excessive noise is already becoming an issue at the new Pajaro Valley High School.20 Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County has no jurisdiction over the High School and is not in a position to comment on this finding. Response: City of Watsonville: To the best of our knowledge there has been no significant credible complaints regarding noise and its negative impact on school operations. The Airport Manager did receive one complaint from a PVUSC official since the school opened and it was concerning one specific outdoor weekend event. The school site was the subject of significant review by the State of California as required by State law and the City’s Local Coastal Plan and Program. 19Chauvet, power point presentation to APV, February 25, 2005. 20Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006. - 18 Watsonville Municipal Airport:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R5:
If development proceeds according to WatsonvilleVISTA 2030, noise pollution may become a serious issue in the Buena Vista areas.
R10:
The Watsonville City Council has chosen to fulfill its housing planning needs at the expense of airport safety and noise pollution.
F30:
The purpose of an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is “to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.”21 Santa Cruz County is specifically excepted from requiring the formation of an ALUC by Public Utilities Code, PUC, Section 21670.1 (e), provided that they follow the requirements of Section 21670.1 (d)(2) that “height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations” are adopted as part of the general plans of the county and city.22 Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville: The California Legislature specifically said that no ALUC was required in certain California counties under certain conditions. There is no ALUC required for Watsonville Municipal Airport. Response: LAFCO AGREES.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R39:
CalTrans has recommended that an independent ALUC be formed.32 Conclusions
F31:
The Watsonville City Council has been acting in the capacity of an ALUC. Because it is acting as an ALUC, the Watsonville City Council is mandated by PUC Section 21670.1 (e) to incorporate height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations, as described in the ALUP Handbook. Response: City of Watsonville: The City Council is not acting as an ALUC nor is it required to act as an ALUC. The City is the sole owner and the City Council is the governing body of the Watsonville Municipal Airport. ALUCs, where required, are an advisory body that is charged to develop compatibility plans, review master plans and to review and advise on development activity in and around the airport. Per State law, no airport owner is bound by the recommendations of an ALUC. The City (and County) has met the requirements established by the legislature under PUC Section 21670.1 including the preparation of compatibility plans and an Airport Master Plan.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R11:
Failure to enforce ALUP Handbook regulations to achieve the planning goals of Measure U demonstrates an inherent conflict of interest in the City of Watsonville’s ability to serve in the role of an ALUC.
R12:
The Watsonville City Council has not given appropriate weight to either the airport’s or Santa Cruz County’s interests while serving as Watsonville Airport’s ALUC. 32Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 25 Recommendations
R39:
CalTrans has recommended that an independent ALUC be formed.32 Conclusions
F32:
Because Watsonville Airport does not have a separate ALUC, CalTrans often has not received timely notifications of Watsonville City Council actions, especially those outside the guidelines of the ALUP Handbook. CalTrans has stated that this has hampered its ability to offer expert opinions, and has precluded it from timely 21ALUP Handbook, p 1-1, 2002. 22California Public Utilities Code 21670.1(e). Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 19 oversight of planning decisions. Response: City of Watsonville: Omitted in report. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. Often in the past, Caltrans has not received timely notifications of Watsonville City council Actions. An example regarding the CEQA process was discussed in the Division of Aeronautics’ letter to the City of Watsonville dated April 21, 2006.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R11:
Failure to enforce ALUP Handbook regulations to achieve the planning goals of Measure U demonstrates an inherent conflict of interest in the City of Watsonville’s ability to serve in the role of an ALUC.
R12:
The Watsonville City Council has not given appropriate weight to either the airport’s or Santa Cruz County’s interests while serving as Watsonville Airport’s ALUC. 32Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 25 Recommendations
R39:
CalTrans has recommended that an independent ALUC be formed.32 Conclusions
F33:
Without adequate documentation to support the critical change to this designation, the Watsonville City Council designated Runway 8 as a low activity runway.23 (cid:190) Waddel Engineering Corporation provided data in 1994 to the airport showing that Runway 8-26 carried twelve percent (12%) of all airport traffic, with five percent (5%) on Runway 8 and seven percent (7%) on Runway 26.24 Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee reported an adjustment of this pattern [two percent (2%) on Runway 8 and ten percent (10%) on Runway 26] based solely on the estimates of the airport manager.25 (cid:190) Extrapolating from a ten-day airport count, total annual aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) were estimated at 120,000 in 1991,26 and were later estimated at 122,500 annually.27 Two percent (2%) of this number (2,450) exceeds the guidelines for a low activity threshold (less than 2,000 annual operations)28 by twenty-two percent (22%). However, the new estimate is less than 100,000 aircraft operations annually, again based solely on the estimates of the airport manager without a published study. Response: City of Watsonville: Don French, Airport Manager was the source of both data sets (1994 and 2005). Mr. French confirmed that the 2005 data, provided to the Airport Committee and City Council, represents the most appropriate percentage split for Runway 8-26 usage. Mr. French has, following release of the Grand Jury Report, reaffirmed that the information was correct at the time and remains reliable and accurate. 23Boyle, Principal Planner, “Final EIR Comments”, citing Don French, Airport Manager, March 22, 2006. 24Watsonville Municipal Airport Master Plan 2001-2020, p. 28, August 2002. 25Recommendations on Revision to the Watsonville Airport Crosswind Runway (8-26), City Council Airport Committee, April 1, 2006. 26Watsonville Airport: Airport Economic Impact Study, Appendix, 1991. 27Watsonville Municipal Airport Master Plan 2001-2020, p.30, August 2002. 28ALUP Handbook, p. 9-42 - 20 Watsonville Municipal Airport:
F34:
In its April 12, 2005 report, the City Council Airport Committee claims “CalTrans confirmed that the policies in the ALUP Handbook are intended as guidelines and that variations in design, configuration and land use compatibility was [sic] available and within the scope of the City Council.”29 This authority is used to eliminate Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone), thereby overriding housing densities mandated by the ALUP Handbook. Response: City of Watsonville: The CALUP clearly and repeatedly notes that the handbook is a policy document intended solely to provide guidance. The CALUP also states that compatibility policies differ from airport to airport and community to community and that no single solution is universally acceptable (CALUP Summary ). Per the CALUP, no ALUC in California is required to amend its plans to comply with the Handbook nor are they implementing agencies. An ALUC need only to examine and consider the Handbook and make their recommendation. The City spent extensive time and effort to evaluate options, their implications and the opinions of experts and stakeholders. The City Council formed a Committee to more fully evaluate Runway 8-26 and the specific conditions of Watsonville and Watsonville Municipal Airport. Consultation was sought from many sources over several months from parties including the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, Gillfillan Associates, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Airport Manager, local pilots, airport business owners and other interested parties. A community workshop was held and four City Council hearings were held to consider options and recommendations from the experts in the aviation field, the public and ultimately the City Council Committee. Only upon this extensive public dialogue and information gathering process did the City Council determine that Safety Compatibility Zones 1, 2, 4 and 5 were adequate. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. The City of Watsonville is always required to comply with the laws of the State of California. In particular, Public Utilities Code 21670.1(e)(B)(i) requires that the city of Watsonville adopt the height, use, noise, safety and density criteria of the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The city of Watsonville is responsible for ensuring land use compatibility between the Watsonville airport and its environs. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code 21670(a)(1), the city of Watsonville must prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems.
F35:
CalTrans has stated that formally designating a runway as low activity does not justify the elimination of Safety Zone 3.30 Enforcing lower population densities in 29Recommendations on Revision to the Watsonville Airport Crosswind Runway (8-26), City Council Airport Committee, p. 4, April 1, 2006. 30ALUP Handbook, fig. 9K; Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 21 Safety Zone 3 by limiting housing construction is intended to reduce the consequences of an off-airport accident. Safety zones are intended to delineate higher probabilities of an off-aircraft accident based on large numbers of operations at airports across the country. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County is familiar with the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines, but does not necessarily agree with the rest of the finding. The County believes that the issue of how best to address safety issues regarding Zone 3 requires a more complex interpretation of the guidelines. Response: City of Watsonville: This finding is incorrect. The April 21, 2006 letter indicates that the action violated the Division of Aeronautics interpretation of the CALUP Handbook. The FAA has no regulation authority over Safety Compatibility Zones 3, 4, 5 and 6. We would note that the footnoted Figure 9k from the CALUP clearly notes that the “examples are for general guidance only.” It is also of note that relocating the Runway Protection Zone entirely on airport property to comply with FAA regulations was a large part of the City’s consideration of Runway 8-26 modifications. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. Safety Zones are intended to delineate higher probabilities of an off-airport accident, not an “off-aircraft” accident. Safety Zones were derived from concentrations of historic accidents. Safety Zone compatibility criteria are a reflection of the potential consequences of an accident and that potential does not change even if the activity is low. Basic safety compatibility qualities for each zone are based on risk factors and runway proximity.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R35:
CalTrans has stated that formally designating a runway as low activity does not justify the elimination of Safety Zone 3.30 Enforcing lower population densities in 29Recommendations on Revision to the Watsonville Airport Crosswind Runway (8-26), City Council Airport Committee, p. 4, April 1, 2006. 30ALUP Handbook, fig. 9K; Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 21 Safety Zone 3 by limiting housing construction is intended to reduce the consequences of an off-airport accident. Safety zones are intended to delineate higher probabilities of an off-aircraft accident based on large numbers of operations at airports across the country. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County is familiar with the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines, but does not necessarily agree with the rest of the finding. The County believes that the issue of how best to address safety issues regarding Zone 3 requires a more complex interpretation of the guidelines. Response: City of Watsonville: This finding is incorrect. The April 21, 2006 letter indicates that the action violated the Division of Aeronautics interpretation of the CALUP Handbook. The FAA has no regulation authority over Safety Compatibility Zones 3, 4, 5 and 6. We would note that the footnoted Figure 9k from the CALUP clearly notes that the “examples are for general guidance only.” It is also of note that relocating the Runway Protection Zone entirely on airport property to comply with FAA regulations was a large part of the City’s consideration of Runway 8-26 modifications. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. Safety Zones are intended to delineate higher probabilities of an off-airport accident, not an “off-aircraft” accident. Safety Zones were derived from concentrations of historic accidents. Safety Zone compatibility criteria are a reflection of the potential consequences of an accident and that potential does not change even if the activity is low. Basic safety compatibility qualities for each zone are based on risk factors and runway proximity.
F36:
The recommendation approved by Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee was inconsistent with the report prepared by their airport planning consultant, Walter Gillfillan and Associates. That report’s Option 3 presents the pros and cons for shortening Runway 8 and moving Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone) onto airport property. The Gillfillan report did not recommend eliminating Safety Zone 3 in any of its options. Response: City of Watsonville: The Committee recommendation was consistent with the Gillfillan Report, although not specifically called out. Gillfillan was directly involved in the Committee process and identified the ultimate approved option. The Gillfillan report clearly indicated that it was not an exhaustive evaluation of options and during the presentations Mr. Gillfillan also noted this fact. - 22 Watsonville Municipal Airport: Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES that “the recommendation approved by Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee was inconsistent with the report prepared by their airport planning consultant, Walter Gillfillan and Associates.” The Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES “that report’s Option 3 presents the pros and cons for shortening Runway 8 and moving Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone) onto airport property.” The report’s Option 3 does present the pros and cons for shortening the east end of Runway 8 by approximately 500 feet. However, it would not move Safety Zone 3 in its entirety onto airport property. Approximately half of Zone 3 would remain off airport property. The Division of Aeronautics DISAGREES that “the Gillfillan report did not recommend eliminating Safety Zone 3 in any of its options.” Option 2 of the Gillfillan report was to permanently close Runway 8-26. This would in fact result in the elimination of Safety Zone 3, the Inner Turning Zone. Other than Option 2, there were no other recommendations in the Gillfillan report for eliminating Safety Zone 3.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R36:
The recommendation approved by Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee was inconsistent with the report prepared by their airport planning consultant, Walter Gillfillan and Associates. That report’s Option 3 presents the pros and cons for shortening Runway 8 and moving Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone) onto airport property. The Gillfillan report did not recommend eliminating Safety Zone 3 in any of its options. Response: City of Watsonville: The Committee recommendation was consistent with the Gillfillan Report, although not specifically called out. Gillfillan was directly involved in the Committee process and identified the ultimate approved option. The Gillfillan report clearly indicated that it was not an exhaustive evaluation of options and during the presentations Mr. Gillfillan also noted this fact. - 22 Watsonville Municipal Airport: Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES that “the recommendation approved by Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee was inconsistent with the report prepared by their airport planning consultant, Walter Gillfillan and Associates.” The Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES “that report’s Option 3 presents the pros and cons for shortening Runway 8 and moving Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone) onto airport property.” The report’s Option 3 does present the pros and cons for shortening the east end of Runway 8 by approximately 500 feet. However, it would not move Safety Zone 3 in its entirety onto airport property. Approximately half of Zone 3 would remain off airport property. The Division of Aeronautics DISAGREES that “the Gillfillan report did not recommend eliminating Safety Zone 3 in any of its options.” Option 2 of the Gillfillan report was to permanently close Runway 8-26. This would in fact result in the elimination of Safety Zone 3, the Inner Turning Zone. Other than Option 2, there were no other recommendations in the Gillfillan report for eliminating Safety Zone 3.
F37:
The maximum densities recommended by the ALUP Handbook in Safety Zones as shown in the following table:31 Safety Zone Maximum Density (dwelling units per acre) 1: Runway Protection Zone 0 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone .05 to .10 3: Inner Turning Zone .20 to .50 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone .20 to .50 Response: City of Watsonville: As noted in response to Finding No. 23, the Watsonville Vista 2030 does not propose 2,250 homes in the Buena Vista area. The finding is purely hypothetical and should be left to the public process for the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. As noted in response to Finding No. 34, the action of the City Council was taken only after extensive review and public deliberation. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. 31ALUP Handbook, Table 9-C p 9-47. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 23 The maximum residential densities in the Handbook are as follows: Using the table for Zone 3 as indicated, the maximum density would be one dwelling unit per 2 -5 acres. Either of the density scenarios given in the finding would exceed the dwelling units per acre in Zone 3 as depicted in the Safety Compatibility Criteria Guidelines in the Handbook.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R37:
The maximum densities recommended by the ALUP Handbook in Safety Zones as shown in the following table:31 Safety Zone Maximum Density (dwelling units per acre) 1: Runway Protection Zone 0 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone .05 to .10 3: Inner Turning Zone .20 to .50 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone .20 to .50 Response: City of Watsonville: As noted in response to Finding No. 23, the Watsonville Vista 2030 does not propose 2,250 homes in the Buena Vista area. The finding is purely hypothetical and should be left to the public process for the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. As noted in response to Finding No. 34, the action of the City Council was taken only after extensive review and public deliberation. Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics PARTIALLY AGREES. 31ALUP Handbook, Table 9-C p 9-47. Watsonville Municipal Airport: - 23 The maximum residential densities in the Handbook are as follows: Using the table for Zone 3 as indicated, the maximum density would be one dwelling unit per 2 -5 acres. Either of the density scenarios given in the finding would exceed the dwelling units per acre in Zone 3 as depicted in the Safety Compatibility Criteria Guidelines in the Handbook.
F38:
If the proposed 2,250 homes are built on the 458 acres in the Buena Vista areas, the resulting average housing density (approximately 5 dwelling units per acre) will exceed the maximum density in Safety Zone 3 by a factor of 10 to 25. Any of the planned “medium” (10-17 dwelling units per acre) density occurring within Safety Zone 3 will exceed by 20 to 80 times the maximum density permitted. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: While the County is familiar with the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines, the issue of how best to address safety issues regarding Zone 3 requires a more complex interpretation of the guidelines. Response: City of Watsonville: The City Council has acted in the best interest of the airport consistent with the Public Utilities Code and no ALUC is necessary. There is no reason to believe that an ALUC would have come to a different conclusion. There is no reason to believe that, given the unique Watsonville circumstances, CALUP guidance and a seated ALUC advising, that the City Council would have come to a different conclusion. - 24 Watsonville Municipal Airport: Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R38:
If the proposed 2,250 homes are built on the 458 acres in the Buena Vista areas, the resulting average housing density (approximately 5 dwelling units per acre) will exceed the maximum density in Safety Zone 3 by a factor of 10 to 25. Any of the planned “medium” (10-17 dwelling units per acre) density occurring within Safety Zone 3 will exceed by 20 to 80 times the maximum density permitted. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: While the County is familiar with the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines, the issue of how best to address safety issues regarding Zone 3 requires a more complex interpretation of the guidelines. Response: City of Watsonville: The City Council has acted in the best interest of the airport consistent with the Public Utilities Code and no ALUC is necessary. There is no reason to believe that an ALUC would have come to a different conclusion. There is no reason to believe that, given the unique Watsonville circumstances, CALUP guidance and a seated ALUC advising, that the City Council would have come to a different conclusion. - 24 Watsonville Municipal Airport: Response: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics AGREES.
F39:
CalTrans has recommended that an independent ALUC be formed.32 Conclusions
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
counties, surrounding regions and the State of California. The 2004 rate in Santa Cruz is 2.10 per 1,000 females. The California rate is .53 per 1,000 females. Reported rapes in the City of Santa Cruz increased by 96% from 1984 to 2004. Reported rapes in California decreased by 18% during the same period. Rate of sexual assaults by strangers is higher in the City of Santa Cruz (36% in
F2:
2003 and 45% in 2004) and especially in the Downtown Beat (75%) than the national average of 17% (National Institute of Justice 2006). Arrest rate for rape in Santa Cruz in 2004 was 18%. Nationally, 42% of reported
F3:
rapes were cleared by arrest in 2004 (FBI data). Report data is consistent with national statistics which show that the majority of
F4:
rape victims are under the age of 25 while suspects are older. Report data is not consistent with national statistics which show that the race or ethnicity of the suspect and the victim are the same in the vast majority of cases. In Santa Cruz for 2003 and 2004, when the victim and suspect were of different races or ethnicities, it was predominantly in situations of rapes by strangers in the external environment.
F5:
Report data revealed that most victims were local residents. For suspects, the unknown category was too large to draw a conclusion. Report data revealed that alcohol and other drugs were noted in approximately 40% of cases although the unknown category was significant for suspects. Report data revealed that 62% of victims who reported the rape to law
F6:
enforcement did so immediately and 80% within one day. FISCAL IMPACT: Existing staff will need to prioritize the current workload to staff the proposed Task Force or additional staffing resources will need to be allocated. Submitted by: Katherine Martinez-Greenleaf Commission Chair Attachments: Task Force Charge and Membership Commission Report 2005-2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report MEMORANDUM SANTA CRUZ POLICE DEPARTMENT "Your Police, Our Community" DATE: April 24, 2006 TO: City Council FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: CPVAW Presentation Department Overview: Providing an immediate and compassionate response with the highest quality investigative skill to the victims of sexual assault is a top priority for the Santa Cruz Police Department and has been for many years. All officers of the Santa Cruz Police Department are trained to ensure the safety of and take a report from any victim of sexual assault as well as provide support services referral information upon first contact. The State of California through the Penal Code mandates that all police officers receive sexual assault investigation training in the basic police academy. The Penal Code also mandates that officers primarily assigned to investigate sexual assaults (usually detectives) must attend additional certified training. Santa Cruz Police Department prides itself on its ongoing training in sexual assault investigation for all of its officers and has exceeded the state mandated training for many years. Since January 2006, the officers received an additional 8 hours of sexual assault training with a nationally recognized trainer suggested by CPVAW. The Santa Cruz Police Department has had an in-house advocate for the victims of child and adult sexual assault for over 20 years. We are still the only agency in Santa Cruz County that provides this level of response. In addition, the department recently became the only agency in the county to offer a bilingual domestic violence and sexual assault resource page on our website. Report Comment: is: r. Our department believes the City has a great responsibility to the community to provide accurate information on crimes. To achieve this goal we worked extensively with CPVAW and ASR on correcting data and assumptions within their report to provide an accurate reflection of crime in our community. Unfortunately, the staff report mischaracterizes some of the crime information. The following outlines some specific examples of inaccurate data or mischaracterized statistical analysis: Reported rapes in the City of Santa Cruz increased by 96% from 1984 to 2004. Reported rapes in California decreased by 18% during the same period. Re: Item 23 2005-2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report It is statistically inaccurate to take two years of data (1984 and 2004) and represent it as a twenty-year trend. Under this logic, the following would be considered valid statistical analysis: If we experienced ten reported sexual assaults every year from 1984-2003 and then had no reported sexual assaults in 2004 the analysis would read we had a 100 percent decrease in sexual assaults over the twenty-year period (since 1984 would have ten and 2004 would have zero). Clearly this is not statistically sound and does not represent true crime trends in our community. These facts were presented to the Commission and ASR and the decision was made to leave this information in the report.
F7:
Reported rapes in California decreased by 18% during the same period. "It is statistically inaccurate to take two years of data (1984 and 2004) and represent it as a twenty-year trend." Chief Skerry, memo to Council 4/24/06 There are references in both the UCR (Uniform Crime Report) and the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey) to the percentage decline in rape from 1994 to 2004. It would be misleading if the two years in question were anomalous years and no reference made to the data for the intervening years, but that was not the case here. The data for each of the 20 years was clearly displayed in the presentation. Arrest rate for rape in Santa Cruz in 2004 was 18%. Nationally, 42% of reported . rapes were cleared by arrest in 2004 (FBI data). "The Commission mischaracterized our arrest data as clearance data. At 49% the Santa Cruz Police Department clearance rate exceeds the average national sexual assault arrest rate of 42 percent." Chief Skerry, memo 4/24/06 "Cleared by Arrest" is a term explicitly defined by UCR. It is different from # of arrests. As of writing the Report, the Commission did not have the "Clearance by Arrest" data for SCPD. We had only the total number of arrests from the actual police reports, upon which we based the 2005-2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report Response to Memorandum of April 24, 2006 from Chief Skerry to City Council figure 18% for 2004. SCPD now lists its "Clearance by Arrest and Exceptional Means "data online. For 2004, the number of rapes or attempted rapes Cleared by Arrest or Exceptional Means by SCPD was 8 out of a total of 59. This is 13.5% and well below the UCR figure of 42% which is the national (or more explicitly, west coast) figure for Cleared by Arrest or Exceptional Means. The origin of the Chief's reference to 49% is unclear but it is certainly not the accurate Cleared by Arrest figure. "Comparing the Santa Cruz arrest rate to the national arrest rate shows an even greater discrepancy. The Santa Cruz Police Department arrest rate is 19 percent (listed as 18 percent in the report) compared to FBI national average arrest rate of 8.8 and an average regional rate of 7.6." Chief Skerry, memo 4/24/06 The FBI figure of 8.8 refers to the arrest rate per 100,000 people. The local arrest rate of 18% (or 19%) refers to the percentage of arrests made in one year out of the total incidents of rape or attempted rape reported, not rate of arrest per 100,000 people. Rate of sexual assaults by strangers is higher in the City of Santa Cruz (36% in 2003 and 45% in 2004), especially in the Downtown Beat (75%), than the national average of 17% (National Institute of Justice 2006). "It is important to note that the Relationship of Suspect to Victim was determined by members of the Commission, not by the investigating officers. The percentages also do not reflect raw numbers (the Downtown percentage is a reflection of eight reported cases) even though they erroneously lead the reader to believe a pervasive stranger sexual assault ratio in the Downtown corridor." Chief Skerry, memo 4/24/06 It is not difficult to extract this information from the police reports. Commission members who did this work include two who participated in the 8 hour police training from Sgt. Joanne Archambault and two who have 26 and 33 years experience respectively in the field of sexual assault response. While it is true that percentages are not the same as raw numbers, 8 cases of reported rapes or attempted rapes on women by complete strangers in one Police Beat in one year is a highly significant occurrence that warrants serious attention. Our goal is zero tolerance to rape. "In addition, the determination as to whether alcohol and/or drugs were involved in the 2003/2004 cases was made by members of the Commission. The detectives and victim advocate assigned to the sexual assault caseload believe that alcohol and/or drugs were involved in many of the cases listed as "unknown". Chief Skerry, memo 4/24/06 This may be true. However, the "Unknown" category meant that there was no reference to alcohol and/or drugs either in the Police Report or Supplemental Report for victim or suspect. Were drugs and/or alcohol involved, one would expect reference to that in the Report since such information would be relevant, if not definitive to any case. Thank you for this opportunity to respond to Chief Skerry's memo to Council. We hope this is sufficient reassurance that the Commission presented accurate data and sound statistical analysis to the City Council in April 2006. We look forward to continued good working relationships with Chief Skerry and the SCPD.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
119 hallazgos
F1:
Main Jail 2. Rountree Medium 3. Rountree Minimum 4. Blaine Street 5. Court Holding 6. Juvenile Hall 7. Camp 45 The first five facilities listed are operated by the Santa Cruz County Sheriff. Juvenile Hall is operated by the Probation Department. The budget for each of these facilities is under the control of the county Board of Supervisors. Camp 45 is operated by the California Department of Corrections, and its budget is under the control of the State of California. Scope The Grand Jury is mandated by California Penal Code § 919(b) to inspect and report on the conditions and management of the jail facilities within the county. To satisfy this mandate, the Criminal Justice Committee of the Grand Jury: • inspected each facility at least once; • spoke with management, staff, and inmates at each facility; - 2 Jails Review • reviewed previous Grand Jury reports, paying particular interest to prior recommendations; • reviewed relevant laws in the California Penal Code and Code of Regulation; • reviewed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation inspection reports for each facility. Main Jail The Santa Cruz Main Jail is located at 259 Water Street, across the street from the County Courthouse. Two visits were made. The first visit was during the day on September 29, 2005, and the second visit was in the evening on March 2, 2006. Main Jail Findings 1. On September 29, 2005, the total inmate population was 384. On March 2, 2006, the population was 330. The current rated capacity is 311, with a maximum capacity of 400. The jail population consists of both male and female inmates who have cases pending, have been sentenced, or who are awaiting sentencing. When beds are not available due to overcrowding, temporary beds called “boats” are used.
F2:
All law enforcement agencies must bring newly arrested individuals to the main jail for processing. This process is known as being “booked.” Additionally, all newly booked inmates are shown a video that explains the rules and what the inmate should expect while being housed at the jail. A copy of the video was provided to this Grand Jury for review. The video is available in English and Spanish.
F3:
The County of Santa Cruz had two significant issues of non-compliance issued by the California Department of Corrections. The issues included overcrowding and inadequate staffing.1 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. At the direction of the Sheriff, an overcrowding task force was formed in early 2005, which included local Judiciary, Defense Bar, the District Attorney’s Office, Community Based Organizations, Probation, Parole and law enforcement. The Sheriff’s Office also initiated an assessment by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) with cooperation from the above-mentioned task force members. Since the implementation of NIC recommendations, crowding has been reduced but Main Jail inmate population still exists over the rated capacity on a frequent basis. Working in cooperation with the CAO and the Board of Supervisors, the Sheriff was able to add five Correctional Officer positions to Main Jail staffing in the 2006-07 budget, which had been eliminated 1 California Department of Corrections Inspection Report, November 17, 2005. Jails Review - 3 several years ago due to budget adjustments.
F4:
In the 2004-2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report Jail Review, it was reported that the booking fees per inmate for the fiscal year through April 2005 were $168.00. This fee was paid by each city law enforcement agency, and then each city agency was reimbursed by the State of California. Figures provided by a county analyst reflect that revenue actually collected as of April 2005, was approximately $850,380.00. In May 2005, the booking fee was increased to $211.35. However, due to the change in Government Code § 29550, the county is now only able to bill for half of the actual costs of booking. The actual “reimbursed” booking fee amount is now $105.68. Due to this reduction in reimbursable booking fees, the actual revenue seen in the past year will be lowered by thirty-seven percent. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The 2004-05 booking fee was $168.08. The revenue for the past year was lowered by approximately 30 percent. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. The 2004-05 booking fees were actually $168.08. The actual revenue was lowered thirty percent. California State Sheriffs’ Association, California Chiefs’ of Police Association and the California State Association of Counties are working to seek a legislative solution next year.
F5:
The Grand Jury observed that this facility’s ongoing maintenance was apparent. The smell of fresh paint was in the air, and painting of the inside was reported to be continuous. Inside doors were being upgraded and/or repaired. Plans are in place to renovate the plumbing and shower system in one of the cell block areas. The jail was clean in appearance. Inmates were respectful toward all officers.
F6:
While there are cameras at the main entrance to the jail, surveillance cameras were lacking on the outside of the facility by the vehicle entrance to the booking area. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. Surveillance cameras currently observe all Main Jail perimeter property.
F7:
Visiting rooms, both “non-contact” and “contact” were inspected. Visiting hours for both attorneys and civilians had strict requirements. A survey was sent to ten defense attorney offices in the county soliciting input regarding conditions of the visiting rooms and hours of visiting.2 Soon after that survey, the visiting hours 2 See Appendix. - 4 Jails Review for attorneys were expanded to allow 24-hour access, except at meals. The “non- contact” attorney visiting rooms had been greatly improved. Feedback has been positive. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F8:
Inmate grievances are reviewed by detention staff. Responses to the inmates’ grievances are made both orally and in writing.
F9:
An upgraded “strip search room” is pending construction. Plans are in progress to enlarge and remodel the kitchen facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The strip search room is funded and under construction. A consultant is currently reviewing options for better utilization of the kitchen facilities, including possible remodel options. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. Consultants have been hired to assess potential remodels to include the Medical Housing area (known as “O” Unit) and the Kitchen facility.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The Sheriff’s Department should continue with its improvement projects currently in progress for the renovation of the plumbing, the kitchen, and the “strip search” rooms. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The “strip search” room is 90% completed. The kitchen and “O” Unit Medical Housing areas are being assessed for upgrade/enlargement.
R16:
Bringing the plumbing and septic system up to modern standards would reduce water usage and laundry services and should be implemented by the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: Reducing water usage at the Rountree detention complex has been a continuing project that is incrementally proceeding within available funding each fiscal year. Low flow toilets using less water were installed in 2003. Additionally, the County installed a new fresh water storage tank in 2005 at a cost of over $318,000; the tank provides service to the Rountree detention complex, as well as neighboring Public Works facilities and a non-profit group serving developmentally disabled adults. Current work that is underway includes mechanical upgrades to the fresh water well and maintenance of the freshwater tank. While the plumbing system could be upgraded, improvements are being made in an incremental fashion and the situation is not beyond the County’s maintenance capability. Further analyses by an energy consultant has been conducted in 2006 at all detention facilities to seek specific measures for achieving energy and water conservation, with engineering and planning to continue into the next fiscal year. During the plant budget cycle for 07/08, this planning work will be considered in view of both the Sheriff’s Office’s prioritizations for all of their detention sites and available funding for infrastructure projects. Therefore the recommendation requires further analysis. - 20 Jails Review Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The Sheriff’s Office is working with County GSD to solve this issue.
F10:
A formal meeting room, once used as a library, is now being used to conduct parole hearings.
F11:
Programs and classes that are available to the inmates include: educational and GED programs, religious services, counseling, anger management, parenting classes, domestic violence classes, and drug and alcohol classes. Attendance is high.
F12:
Prior to inmate placement in a housing unit, strict criteria of classification are followed. This placement process includes: an interview with the inmate to determine criminal sophistication, gender, whether there is a need for the inmate to be in protective custody due to gang affiliation and charges, if the inmate is an escape risk, if the inmate has any physical, medical, or mental health needs.
F13:
Tuberculosis (TB) testing is an optional component of the booking process. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Inmates can opt out of TB testing but, in an effort to protect other inmates and employees, they are housed in a negative air-flow room in the medical unit until they opt to be tested. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office DISAGREES. If an inmate refuses to submit to TB testing, he/she will be placed in a negative air-flow room in the medical unit, for preventative reasons, until he/she Jails Review - 5 complies with testing for the safety of other inmates and staff. Exceptions are only authorized via medial staff due to a recent, previous booking which would have included a TB test.
F14:
There was one reported death this year at the jail prior to our first site visit. A copy of the report on this incident was requested from the Sheriff, but has not been provided. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. The death-in-custody report is being reviewed by County Counsel and will not be available until notification by County Counsel.
F15:
There have been no escapes in the past year.
F16:
Correctional officers receive twenty-four hours of training each year under the Standard Training for Corrections, which is under the Department of Corrections. This is state-mandated training to review commonly accepted practice and to further educate officers and deputies on changes in the field and in dealing with inmates.
F17:
The Medical Unit treats inmates from all county jail facilities. All medical staff are employed by the county Health Services Agency (HSA), and their budget is approved by the Board of Supervisors.
F18:
A member of the medical staff is on-site twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Medical staff includes one physician, registered nurses, unlicensed assistive personnel (UAP), a mental health psychiatric technician, a nurse practitioner, and a medical assistant.
F19:
As stated in previous jail reviews, the nurses’ pay schedule is below what a nurse can earn in the private sector. Detention facility nurses earn $37.00 per hour, while a nurse at a local hospital could earn $51.00 per hour. In December 2005, there were three vacancies for registered nurses. These positions include nursing responsibilities at the Main Jail, Juvenile Hall, and Rountree. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The difference in hourly wage reflects, in part, skills that are required of nurses working in a hospital setting (including intravenous insertion, naso-gastric tube placement and telemetry monitoring) that are not required in the detention medical system. A salary review will be completed for all health care positions for the next Memorandum of Understanding negotiations scheduled for September 2007. Presently, there is one .65 FTE RN position vacancy, a decrease from the 3 vacancies in December 2005.
F20:
When an inmate requires medical treatment that cannot be provided by the medical unit, for conditions such as stroke, heart attack, cancer, or broken bones, the inmate is taken by ambulance or patrol car to Dominican Hospital, Doctors - 6 Jails Review on Duty, or the County Health Clinic. The hourly cost for a deputy to transport an inmate is $65.00. The Sheriff’s Department has a contract for services with a private security company to guard hospitalized inmates for $18.08 per hour. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The Detention Bureau has a contract for security services with First Alarm at $19.45 per hour for unarmed security and $30.00 per hour for armed security. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. The First Alarm Security contract for private security is: Unarmed $19.45 hr./Armed $30.00 hr. 21. “O” unit is designated for inmates with serious psychiatric problems. Seven of the rooms have video monitoring. One healthcare worker is present in this unit. There is a padded or “rubber” room known as Room 13 that is used to house inmates who are a danger to themselves or others. The room is monitored by video surveillance and physically inspected every fifteen minutes.
F21:
A mutually respectful relationship was consistently observed between the correctional officers and inmates. Medium Security Recommendations 7. The Board of Supervisors and the Health Services Agency should seek reduction of medical transportation and security costs by contracting with appropriate local medical personnel. Contracting with a Physician Assistant or Nurse Practitioner for one day a week (or even an on-call status) would reduce the costs of transportation for non-urgent medical care. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The recommendation requires further analysis. The medical clinic at the medium security facility is now partially staffed and additional medical staff - 14 Jails Review would be needed to meet medical needs within the facility. The provision of medical staffing at all county detention facilities is evaluated each year as part of the budget discussions between the Sheriff’s Office, the Health Services agency, and the County Administrative Office. This recommendation will be included in the discussions for the 2007-08 budget. In addition, contracting out services currently provided by County employees is a collective bargaining issue and would require negotiation with the General Representation union. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The Medium facility has a fully functional, modern medical unit, which remains partially staffed. To fully enable this unit would require the addition of two R.N.s, fulltime employees (FTE) and accompanying physician (PA) hours. Implementing this recommendation would also assist narcotic medication distribution issues.
F22:
Inmates who need to take medication receive it in the form of a bubble pack. By taking advantage of this method of dispensing medications to inmates, the jail is able to return any unused medications. The County of Santa Cruz, through the Health and Human Services Agency, has contracted with a company that allows unused medication to be returned. Approximately ten to eighteen percent of the jail population is on psychotropic drugs.
F23:
The jail has been, and continues to be, a no smoking facility.
F24:
The Grand Jury observed that the surrounding grounds were clean and well maintained. Main Jail Conclusions 1. All officers and staff conducted themselves in a professional manner during site inspections.
F25:
The necessity to contract a portion of the laundry services is costly.
F26:
The Grand Jury observed that the four visiting stations were clean and generally well maintained. Appointments for visiting are scheduled in advance and are usually for one hour, two times per week. Visitors cannot be on parole or have been in custody within the past sixty days. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to assess the accuracy of findings related to daily operations.
F27:
A statewide no smoking policy was initiated in all detention facilities in September 2005 and seems to be relatively well accepted. Correctional officers have assisted in facilitating inmate acceptance. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to assess the accuracy of findings related to daily operations.
F28:
There are several small, quiet rooms off a hallway across from the dormitories. Some of the rooms are equipped with a computer, although there is no internet access. The rooms allow for “time-off,” “cooling down,” separation of inmates, or a space to discuss personal problems with a correctional officer. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to assess the accuracy of findings related to daily operations.
F29:
The kitchen area is clean, and meals are sufficient in quantity. Inmates eat in two twenty-minute shifts and are free to sit where they wish in the cafeteria. Vending machines are located in the cafeteria area. - 10 Jails Review Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to assess the accuracy of findings related to daily operations.
F30:
The living areas are dormitory style with five bays, each with eleven beds. A correctional officer is present in the dormitory at all times. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to assess the accuracy of findings related to daily operations.
F31:
The SAFE Program (an in-house drug program) has forty allocated beds. The annual budget for the program is $200,000. There were twenty-seven inmates in the program in October and twenty-four in the program in February. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The SAFE Program was discontinued in June 2006 due to a lack of funding at the State and Federal level. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F32:
The SAFE Program is voluntary, but has eligibility criteria. Volunteers must complete all four phases of the program, even though it could result in an extension of an inmate’s release date from Medium Security. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The SAFE Program was discontinued in June 2006 due to a lack of funding at the State and Federal level. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F33:
Funding for the SAFE Program is in jeopardy. When funding ran out in January 2006, the County of Santa Cruz agreed to fund the program through June. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: As stated above, the SAFE Program was discontinued in June 2006 due to a lack of funding at the State and Federal level. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. Federal and State funding for the SAFE Program ended and was not continued, although the Inmate Welfare Fund/County bridged end-of-fiscal-year funding. Therefore, the SAFE Program officially ended on June 30, 2006. Jails Review - 11 34. Inmates in the SAFE Program have only one opportunity to participate in the program. A discipline problem may result in removal from the program. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F35:
Several classrooms exist within the facility. Classes offered include: GED, English as a Second Language, Substance Abuse, and Ray of Hope. Meetings include A.A. and anger management. An AIDS class and testing are scheduled quarterly. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F36:
During the October site visit, inmates were unable to view donated videos due to copyright infringement. The issue had been resolved by the February visit. The inmates now have satellite TV purchased entirely through the inmate welfare fund. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to assess the accuracy of findings related to daily operations.
F37:
Inmates who need frequent medical attention or have chronic conditions such as diabetes mellitus, or psychiatric disorders are, generally, not placed at either Rountree facility. However, on occasion, inmates who take single psychotropic drugs may be placed at either facility if they are considered stable. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. In the past, inmates that were considered stable might, on occasion, be housed at the medium detention facility. Currently, per Title 15 regulations, inmates who need psychotropic drugs are not placed at the Rountree facility due to the lack of staff that can legally dispense this kind of medication.
F38:
As noted in last year’s Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report, the lack of an on-site nurse precludes inmates who require cardiac, psychotropic drug combinations, or injectable medications from being placed in the medium or minimum security facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F39:
No physician comes to the facility. It is reported that a nurse comes to the facility eight hours every day, Monday through Friday, to check and/or replenish medications. The nurse may check an inmate’s temperature and/or blood pressure, if needed. - 12 Jails Review Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. A nurse is on duty 8 hours a day, Tuesday through Friday, for a total of 32 hours per week. The nurse also conducts a routine sick call at which time inmates’ medical requests are triaged and appropriate treatment provided.
F40:
Medications are in bubble packs, kept in an alphabetical file, and are dispensed under the supervision of an officer at mealtime. The process of medication administration involves an inmate identifying himself, removing appropriate medication from the bubble pack, taking the medication, and signing a card to indicate receipt of the medicine. The medicine and files are secured except for meal times. The most common medications are antihistamines, antibiotics, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F41:
An inmate requiring medical attention must be transported to the Main Jail Facility, Doctors On Duty, or a local emergency room. The costs for transportation, an accompanying officer, and services provided are significant. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F42:
Inmate dental work is performed at the Main Jail Facility one day a month. Only basic services are rendered such as pulling teeth; fillings and crown work are not considered basic. Transportation costs are incurred. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F43:
Testing for HIV, hepatitis C, tuberculosis, and sexually transmitted diseases is optional. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The testing is voluntary for all inmates except for those who want to work in the kitchen.
F44:
Grievance procedures are posted in several areas. Grievances are generally minor. The complaint form is filled out by the inmate and responded to by the subject of the complaint. Typically, the supervisor will review the complaint and subject’s response within several days and will seek a resolution. Jails Review - 13 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to assess the accuracy of findings related to daily operations.
F45:
Depending on the severity of the violation, discipline problems may be handled with a verbal warning, revocation of privileges, or a return to the Main Jail. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to assess the accuracy of findings related to daily operations. Medium Security Conclusions 12. The physical appearance of the facility, including the kitchen and visiting areas, is exemplary.
F47:
Other inmates attend vocational classes on-site, go to Adult Education Computer Assembly and Repair programs in Watsonville, or attend Adult Education GED classes in Watsonville. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R33:
Department of Corrections should continue to seek solutions to affordable housing problems to retain qualified professional staff. Responses requested but not required Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within California Dept. of 122, 126, 31-33 90 Days Corrections and 129 - 32 Jails Review Rehabilitation (October 1, 2006) Jails Review - 33
R47:
Due to the high cost of living in Santa Cruz County, retaining trained staff has been a problem.
F48:
Educational programs are provided through a contract with the Pajaro Valley Unified School District. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R32:
Department of Corrections staff should reach out to community organizations to obtain donations of appropriate books and learning materials for the educational enrichment of the inmates.
R48:
Additional books for the inmates to read would be a benefit.
F49:
On-site vocational programs include classes about: computer skills development, gardening and landscaping, English as a Second Language, substance abuse (in English and Spanish), anger management, bible study, and an animal bonding program. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to assess the accuracy of findings related to daily operations. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F50:
An immensely popular series of vocational courses includes auto body, advanced auto body, auto detailing, and auto paint mixing. This series has been in existence since 1979. It commonly has a waiting list of thirty applicants. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to assess the accuracy of findings related to daily operations. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F51:
Each of the programs/classes requires a certain number of hours (150-350) of participation in order to earn a certificate. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: Jails Review - 17 The County defers to the Sheriff to assess the accuracy of findings related to daily operations. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F52:
Certificates earned by an inmate may be a consideration when an inmate requests a modification of sentence. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to assess the accuracy of findings related to daily operations. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F53:
A separate bicycle refurbishing program was started in 1998 in cooperation with a local Marines Toys for Tots program. The Marines purchase parts for the bikes and inmates refurbish eighty to one hundred bicycles per year. Marines then distribute the bikes to children and teens in the Santa Cruz area. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to assess the accuracy of findings related to daily operations. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F54:
The facility is partially sustained by inmates who are responsible for a portion of the laundry service, maintenance of all buildings, and landscaping services. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F55:
The plumbing and septic systems are using outdated seven-gallon flush toilets. Due to the older plumbing system, some of the laundry must be contracted out to prevent system overload. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. The toilets are mid 1970 vintage units along with same era shower/sink fixtures, which leak water. Replacing those fixtures with low-flow units would save water, septic space and reduce our demand for outsourced laundry services.
F56:
There is no perimeter fence on the thirty-acre site between the facility and residential neighborhoods. - 18 Jails Review Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F57:
Inmates are screened and selected for the minimum facility based on interviews with the Sheriff’s Department correctional officers to determine appropriate fit. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F58:
In the past four years, escapes (walkaways) have been reduced in number from thirty-three per year to nine per year. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES.
F59:
Within the past year, cameras that monitor the facilities and grounds have been upgraded from black and white to color, but are still too limited in their range and clarity, according to detention staff. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. Cameras at both the Medium and Minimum facilities do not currently monitor the direct supervision units. Minimum Security Conclusions 22. The facility offers a substantial number of quality vocational programs.
F61:
The inmate population is often from the community transient population. When discharged, most inmates have no permanent residence.
F62:
The average monthly inmate population is twenty-seven. On October 13, 2005, the population was twenty-eight and on March 2, 2006, the population was thirty-two.
F63:
There were two escapes last year. If an inmate walks away from the facility, she is charged with the crime of escape. The facility has a no-chase policy on escapes in progress.
F64:
There is one correctional officer on duty each shift. The facility is supervised by a Supervising Correctional Officer.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should review nurses’ salaries and consider pay increases to attract and retain competent staff. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The recommendation will be implemented. County salaries and benefits are regularly reviewed as a part of negotiations in the various budget units.
F65:
The Grand Jury observed that staff and inmates show mutual respect to each other while at the facility.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (7)
R6:
Jail administrators and staff should be commended for their professionalism in managing day-to-day duties and keeping up with modern advances in running an efficient, secure facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County appreciates the Grand Jury’s comments.
R13:
Staff should be commended by the Board of Supervisors for their knowledge, professionalism, display of genuine concern for inmates, and the conscientious manner in which they fulfill their duties. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County appreciates the Grand Jury’s comments.
R18:
Staff should be commended for their success in screening and inmate placement. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County appreciates the Grand Jury’s comments. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented.
R20:
Staff is to be commended by the Board of Supervisors for their organization of programs, work-release scheduling, and dedication to the goals of operating a safe, structured, but humane facility. Jails Review - 21
R21:
The Board of Supervisors should commend the staff for their professionalism.
R24:
The Board of Supervisors should commend the staff for their professionalism.
R31:
Department of Corrections staff should continue to meet with neighborhood and community organizations and be an active partner in the community.
F66:
The Grand Jury observed that the grounds and facility are well maintained.
F67:
The Grand Jury observed that kitchen facilities were clean and appeared adequate despite their non-institutional design. Meals are prepared by inmate kitchen staff. - 22 Jails Review 68. Inmates at this facility can work in the kitchen at the main jail and learn food preparation job skills.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)
R12:
The Sheriff should remain open to the addition of vocational classes that build self-esteem and facilitate preparation for employment and re-entry into society. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Sheriff’s Office remains open and committed to inmate rehabilitation despite funding challenges.
R14:
The Sheriff should continue all vocational programs and work-release opportunities and should remain open to the addition of vocational programs that prepare for employment. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to evaluate this recommendation. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. Jails Review - 19 This recommendation has been implemented.
R19:
Staff should be commended for offering a variety of programs leading to potential future employment, self-esteem, and community benefit. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County appreciates the Grand Jury’s comments. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented.
R23:
The Sheriff should solicit additional job training classes from educational, professional, and community organizations to help inmates be successful upon their return to the community. - 24 Jails Review Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Inmate programs are vital to the County Jail system. Inmate programs are paid for through the Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF). The IWF is principally paid from the profit of inmate commissary and phone contracts. Due to a declining IWF, inmate program contracts are continually scrutinized to derive the greatest benefit for the most inmates as possible.
F69:
Inmates serve as Kitten Foster Parents, in cooperation with the Animal Shelter, caring for kittens until they are old enough to be placed for adoption.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R19:
Staff should be commended for offering a variety of programs leading to potential future employment, self-esteem, and community benefit. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County appreciates the Grand Jury’s comments. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented.
R49:
The camp provides a service to the community. Camp 45 Recommendations
F70:
Inmates attending GED classes must be transported to the Adult Education campus in Santa Cruz as there are not sufficient numbers of students to qualify for on-site teaching.
F71:
Inmates and staff are not permitted to smoke at this facility.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R5:
TB testing for newly booked inmates should be mandatory. Funding should be provided by the Board of Supervisors and testing implemented by the Health Services Agency. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The recommendation has been implemented. TB testing is required for all inmates. Those that refuse are placed in negative air-flow rooms, to protect the health of other inmates and employees, until they opt to be tested. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Mandatory testing is occurring for newly booked inmates. Those inmates that refuse are housed in negative air- flow rooms until they comply due to the contagious nature of TB.
R10:
Given the close proximity of inmates and the ease of air-borne transmission, tuberculosis testing by the Health Services Agency should be mandatory and incorporated into the booking process by the Sheriff. Jails Review - 15 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The recommendation has been implemented.
F72:
Drugs and other prohibited items can be easily introduced into the facility by throwing them over the fence from the public sidewalk. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. As a result of the minimum security setting, more frequent foot patrols are scheduled at this facility.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R15:
The Board of Supervisors needs to be aware of and reduce potential liability for the county by installing a fence to secure the grounds. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The Department of General Services and the Sheriff’s Office are currently in
R22:
Additional fencing that would not distract from the neighborhood setting should be considered by the Sheriff, with sufficient funding provided by the Board of Supervisors, to reduce the introduction of drugs and other prohibited items into the facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The Sheriff’s Office – Detention Bureau and the General Services Department are currently discussing practical options for security fencing at the Blaine Street detention facility. Due to the facility’s location in a residential neighborhood, careful consideration needs to be given to design features and their associated impact on the immediate neighborhood environment. Any recommendation for a change in fencing will be considered in view of both the Sheriff’s Office’s prioritizations for ensuring operational security at all of their detention sites and the County’s available funding for infrastructure projects in a given fiscal year. During the plant budget cycle for 07/08, modification or replacement of existing fencing at the Blaine Street detention facility will be included for evaluation as a potential project. Therefore the recommendation requires further analysis.
F73:
On-site programs available to inmates include: • Alcoholics Anonymous • Narcotics Anonymous • computer skills class • parenting skills class • literacy skills • yoga instruction 74. Job skills training is minimal. The only training available is in the areas of computer skills and kitchen skills. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. Women inmates do not have a Medium Facility, which limits the transition and number of inmates who can successfully populate the Blaine Street Facility. Additionally, female Minimum Facility inmates have the same program opportunities as men, except for auto body and computer repair classes due to facility/transport issues.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (5)
R8:
The Sheriff should weigh the cost-effectiveness of the SAFE program (lacking outcome statistics) against other needs at the facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to respond to this recommendation. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. The SAFE Program ended June 2006 due to lack of funding.
R12:
The Sheriff should remain open to the addition of vocational classes that build self-esteem and facilitate preparation for employment and re-entry into society. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Sheriff’s Office remains open and committed to inmate rehabilitation despite funding challenges.
R14:
The Sheriff should continue all vocational programs and work-release opportunities and should remain open to the addition of vocational programs that prepare for employment. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County defers to the Sheriff to evaluate this recommendation. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. Jails Review - 19 This recommendation has been implemented.
R19:
Staff should be commended for offering a variety of programs leading to potential future employment, self-esteem, and community benefit. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County appreciates the Grand Jury’s comments. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented.
R23:
The Sheriff should solicit additional job training classes from educational, professional, and community organizations to help inmates be successful upon their return to the community. - 24 Jails Review Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Inmate programs are vital to the County Jail system. Inmate programs are paid for through the Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF). The IWF is principally paid from the profit of inmate commissary and phone contracts. Due to a declining IWF, inmate program contracts are continually scrutinized to derive the greatest benefit for the most inmates as possible.
F75:
The recidivism rate is high for inmates at this facility, as many do not have a residence to return to or do not have useful job skills. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Recidivism is a complex societal issue. A substantial portion of female inmates have ongoing substance abuse issues. Statewide statistics are showing an increasing trend of female inmates on a county level. Santa Cruz County female inmate incarceration statistics are within average ratios for similar county Jails Review - 23 censuses. The Probation Department and community-based organizations are trying to provide resources for successful transitions to the community.
F76:
The facility passed inspection by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R7:
The Board of Supervisors and the Health Services Agency should seek reduction of medical transportation and security costs by contracting with appropriate local medical personnel. Contracting with a Physician Assistant or Nurse Practitioner for one day a week (or even an on-call status) would reduce the costs of transportation for non-urgent medical care. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The recommendation requires further analysis. The medical clinic at the medium security facility is now partially staffed and additional medical staff - 14 Jails Review would be needed to meet medical needs within the facility. The provision of medical staffing at all county detention facilities is evaluated each year as part of the budget discussions between the Sheriff’s Office, the Health Services agency, and the County Administrative Office. This recommendation will be included in the discussions for the 2007-08 budget. In addition, contracting out services currently provided by County employees is a collective bargaining issue and would require negotiation with the General Representation union. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The Medium facility has a fully functional, modern medical unit, which remains partially staffed. To fully enable this unit would require the addition of two R.N.s, fulltime employees (FTE) and accompanying physician (PA) hours. Implementing this recommendation would also assist narcotic medication distribution issues.
R9:
As recommended in the 2004-2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report, to alleviate overcrowding at the main jail, the Health Services Agency should consider employing an on-site registered nurse to facilitate the transfer of lower risk main jail inmates who require medication or monitoring of chronic conditions to the Rountree Medium Facility. Appropriate funding should be included in the budget by the Board of Supervisors. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: Overcrowding issues, including detention health services, are addressed at regular meetings of the Jail Overcrowding Committee. Due to the complexity of the overcrowding issue, it is not anticipated that detention medical staffing will be resolved in the timeframe suggested by the Grand Jury. This recommendation requires further analysis and will be considered as part of budget deliberations.
F77:
Inmates are housed in two-person bedrooms that were observed to be clean and well organized. Blaine Street Conclusions 29. The facility is operated by a professional staff.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (7)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should review nurses’ salaries and consider pay increases to attract and retain competent staff. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The recommendation will be implemented. County salaries and benefits are regularly reviewed as a part of negotiations in the various budget units.
R6:
Jail administrators and staff should be commended for their professionalism in managing day-to-day duties and keeping up with modern advances in running an efficient, secure facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County appreciates the Grand Jury’s comments.
R13:
Staff should be commended by the Board of Supervisors for their knowledge, professionalism, display of genuine concern for inmates, and the conscientious manner in which they fulfill their duties. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County appreciates the Grand Jury’s comments.
R18:
Staff should be commended for their success in screening and inmate placement. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County appreciates the Grand Jury’s comments. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented.
R20:
Staff is to be commended by the Board of Supervisors for their organization of programs, work-release scheduling, and dedication to the goals of operating a safe, structured, but humane facility. Jails Review - 21
R21:
The Board of Supervisors should commend the staff for their professionalism.
R24:
The Board of Supervisors should commend the staff for their professionalism.
F79:
The facility consists of five large concrete rooms for holding inmates.
F80:
Between forty and fifty inmates per day pass through the facility.
F81:
Inmates may change into personal clothing before appearance at a jury trial.
F82:
Holding rooms are monitored by video surveillance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)
R4:
Potential liability could be reduced by upgrading surveillance cameras for the areas around the jail and garage/booking area. These upgrades should be budgeted by the Board of Supervisors and implemented by the Sheriff. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: - 8 Jails Review The recommendation will not be implemented because the existing surveillance cameras provide the necessary security.
R17:
Upgrading camera and monitoring equipment would contribute to officer and inmate safety and security of the facility. Sufficient funding should be provided by the Board of Supervisors and implemented by the Sheriff. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. The County plans to move forward with the upgrade of the exterior of the minimum security facility (interior lighting is adequate) and is currently reviewing the project in terms of implementation options and cost. It is anticipated that the necessary information will be gathered this year with implementation likely in 2007-08. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Sheriff’s Office is working within the fiscal year budget to upgrade camera-monitoring systems.
R25:
Sufficient funding should be provided by the Board of Supervisors for the Sheriff to enhance the video surveillance capabilities to provide better security for the public and staff in and around the facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented by the County because the Superior Court is responsible for security upgrades in the Court holding facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be recommended because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. The Court Security budget is funded by a state contract with the Superior court of California, County of Santa Cruz. Any security upgrades are facilitated through agreement with the Superior Court CEO, in cooperation with the Judicial Officers.
R26:
Sufficient money should be budgeted by the Board of Supervisors to upgrade the security system with emphasis on video monitoring, electronic security doors, and the necessary infrastructure upgrades. This recommendation was made by the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury in 2003, 2004, and 2005. The county agreed with the recommendation, but it has not yet been implemented. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Probation Department: Jails Review - 29 This recommendation is being implemented. The Probation Department, along with General Services, is currently working with security consultants in planning for the recommended infrastructure upgrades. The project has been divided into stages, with the video camera upgrades to be completed first.
F83:
There is no video surveillance covering the outside entrance to the facility or the stairwell leading to the courts. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. Jails Review - 25 The Court Holding Facility at 701 Ocean Street currently has video surveillance that covers the outside entrance, inside the stairwell, hallways and single point entry. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office DISAGREES. The entrance to the Court Security Holding area and the stairwell leading to the courts are monitored by video surveillance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)
R4:
Potential liability could be reduced by upgrading surveillance cameras for the areas around the jail and garage/booking area. These upgrades should be budgeted by the Board of Supervisors and implemented by the Sheriff. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: - 8 Jails Review The recommendation will not be implemented because the existing surveillance cameras provide the necessary security.
R17:
Upgrading camera and monitoring equipment would contribute to officer and inmate safety and security of the facility. Sufficient funding should be provided by the Board of Supervisors and implemented by the Sheriff. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. The County plans to move forward with the upgrade of the exterior of the minimum security facility (interior lighting is adequate) and is currently reviewing the project in terms of implementation options and cost. It is anticipated that the necessary information will be gathered this year with implementation likely in 2007-08. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Sheriff’s Office is working within the fiscal year budget to upgrade camera-monitoring systems.
R25:
Sufficient funding should be provided by the Board of Supervisors for the Sheriff to enhance the video surveillance capabilities to provide better security for the public and staff in and around the facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented by the County because the Superior Court is responsible for security upgrades in the Court holding facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be recommended because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. The Court Security budget is funded by a state contract with the Superior court of California, County of Santa Cruz. Any security upgrades are facilitated through agreement with the Superior Court CEO, in cooperation with the Judicial Officers.
R26:
Sufficient money should be budgeted by the Board of Supervisors to upgrade the security system with emphasis on video monitoring, electronic security doors, and the necessary infrastructure upgrades. This recommendation was made by the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury in 2003, 2004, and 2005. The county agreed with the recommendation, but it has not yet been implemented. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Probation Department: Jails Review - 29 This recommendation is being implemented. The Probation Department, along with General Services, is currently working with security consultants in planning for the recommended infrastructure upgrades. The project has been divided into stages, with the video camera upgrades to be completed first.
F84:
The facility was found to be clean and well maintained. Court Holding Facility Conclusions 34. The facility is well organized and operated in an efficient manner.
F86:
Approximately seventy-nine percent of the population is juvenile boys and twelve percent is juvenile girls.
F87:
Sixty percent of staff are bilingual.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
The Sheriff should increase bilingual staff at the next hiring opportunity. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented.
F88:
The average stay is five days. This figure is down from 10.6 days in 2002.
F89:
Juvenile Hall has passed inspections by the California Department of Corrections, County of Santa Cruz Environmental Health Services, Scotts Valley Fire Protection District, Superior Court of California, and the Santa Cruz County Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission.
F90:
The County of Santa Cruz was found to be delinquent in conducting the mandated medical/mental health inspections. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Probation Department AGREE.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R29:
The Probation Department should ensure that medical/mental health inspections (as with all other mandated inspections) are conducted in a timely fashion. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Probation Department: This recommendation has been implemented. The Juvenile Hall medical and mental health components were inspected on June 27, 2006, and in the future will be inspected each year on a regular schedule.
F91:
Wards are housed in two units, one of which houses more criminally sophisticated wards. The units are connected by a common hallway.
F92:
Wards are housed in private rooms that are small but contain necessary personal features. Wards spend most of their day outside their rooms.
F93:
Upon intake, wards are given an orientation on the rules of the facility and the consequences of a violation. Rules are also posted on bulletin boards.
F94:
Grievances can be filed and placed in a grievance box that is checked daily.
F95:
Parents are charged a daily fee of $24 while their child is housed at Juvenile Hall.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The projected loss of revenue due to the decrease in booking fees collected and the impact that it will have on the jail and jail staff should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The recommendation will be implemented as part of budget preparation. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. Since this issue affects all 58 California Counties, a legislative solution is being pursued.
F96:
Local law enforcement agencies are not charged a booking fee. There is a local protocol for booking criteria. Jails Review - 27 97. A Grand Jury inspection showed the grounds and facility to be clean and well maintained.
F98:
The outside exercise area is considered too small by current state standards, and the facility does not have a gymnasium or covered (shaded) courtyard. The facility is exempted from conforming due to its age.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R28:
Sufficient money should be budgeted by the Board of Supervisors for the construction of a covering over the courtyard area which would provide an exercise area during poor weather conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: A covering over the courtyard is also very costly, and, as indicated above, is included on the list of improvements that are being implemented over time. Therefore this recommendation requires further analysis and will be implemented.
F99:
Staff and wards continue to complain of poor heating and air conditioning within the facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R27:
Sufficient money should be budgeted by the Board of Supervisors to upgrade the heating and ventilation system at Juvenile Hall. This recommendation was also made by the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury in 2003 and 2005. The county agreed with the recommendation, but it also has not yet been implemented. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: A replacement heating/ventilation system is very costly and, as indicated above, is included on the list of improvements that are being implemented over time. Therefore this recommendation requires further analysis and will be implemented.
R30:
The Board of Supervisors should commend the Probation Department and Juvenile Hall staff for their professionalism and their dedication to the community. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: The County appreciates the Grand Jury’s comments. - 30 Jails Review Response required Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within Santa Cruz County 90, 26, 27, 28, 30 60 Days Board of 99-101 (September 1, Supervisors 2006) Santa Cruz County 90 29 90 Days Probation Dept. (October 1, 2006) Camp 45 Camp 45 is located at 13575 Empire Grade Road in Santa Cruz and is operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. It opened in June 2005 as a prison camp to house low-risk adult male prisoners. The facility was previously operated by the California Youth Authority from 1947 to 2005. Camp 45 is a satellite facility of the California State Prison, Susanville, and is a minimum security facility that is operated as a fire conservation camp in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). Camp 45 is operated by the State of California and is, therefore, not obligated to respond to the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury, but it is invited to do so. Camp 45 Findings
F100:
According to staff, the video monitoring system is old and inadequate. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F101:
Most doors are secured by key-locking systems that can cause a delay during an emergency response. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While most doors are secured by key-locking systems, we do not agree that the system causes a significant delay in an emergency.
F102:
The food facilities were clean and appeared adequate. Food Services passed the Nutritional Health Evaluation.
F103:
Nursing services are available seven days a week. There is one mental health therapist to every four wards. Medications are administered in the morning and evening. A physician assistant is present one time per week as is a physician.
F104:
The County Office of Education provides educational services at Juvenile Hall. The school is named Robert A. Hartman School, and was one of only a few detention facility schools that received a six-year accreditation from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC).
F105:
The Probation Department continues to operate the Oasis Program that offers home supervision and encourages pro-social activities. The program reports a ninety percent success rate.
F106:
National studies have shown it is more beneficial to return offending juveniles back to their community than detaining them in secure detention facilities such as Juvenile Hall.
F107:
Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall was selected as the model site in the nation for small counties in the elimination of unnecessary use of secure detention of juveniles. Model sites for larger counties were in Chicago, Oregon, and New Mexico.
F108:
Santa Cruz County is prominently featured in a DVD produced by the Annie E. Casey Foundation documenting the power and effectiveness of juvenile detention alternatives to better protect public safety, help kids in trouble, and save taxpayer dollars. - 28 Jails Review 109. Juvenile Hall provides many programs to enrich the wards such as Barrios Unidos, yoga, substance abuse counseling, writing, and poetry instruction.
F110:
The poetry program is immensely popular among the wards and offers them instruction in the writing arts. It gives participants the opportunity to have their writing published in a weekly newsletter published by Pacific News Service. This program provides a therapeutic opportunity and builds self-esteem.
F111:
There have been no escapes from Juvenile Hall during the last year.
F112:
The Board of Supervisors appoints qualified members of the community to the Santa Cruz County Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission, which is charged with monitoring the practices and performance of staff at Juvenile Hall and recommend changes.
F113:
This commission’s report reflects that Santa Cruz County has one of the most highly regarded juvenile justice systems in the country. Juvenile Hall Conclusions 36. Juvenile Hall is well managed and operated by a professional and caring staff.
F115:
The average daily population was 102 for the first quarter and 107 for the second quarter.
F116:
As of December 13, 2005, there had been only one escape (walk-away).
F117:
Most inmates have less than one year remaining on their sentence. For every day working in a program or on a fire crew, an inmate receives credit for two days served.
F118:
Inmates convicted of a crime of violence and verified prison gang members are not permitted to serve time at a camp.
F119:
No inmates from Santa Cruz County are permitted to serve time at this camp.
F120:
Probable cause and random drug testing is performed one to four times a month.
F121:
After an inmate is assigned to the camp, he must participate in a one-week physical fitness training program and then attend a fire fighting school. Upon successful completion of these two programs, he is assigned to a fire crew led by a CDF captain.
F122:
In preparation for opening the facility, staff met with local residents and agreed to notify local homeowners’ associations and schools of any escapes. Jails Review - 31 123. Only non-prescription products are available unless specific medication is prescribed by a physician. Inmates with more serious medical problems are either taken to a local medical facility or returned to their original institution for treatment.
F124:
During the off season, fire crews are sent out to schools, parks, and other facilities to perform vegetation removal.
F125:
There is a pre-release class to help inmates prepare for their return to society.
F126:
In the first five months of operation, four staff members transferred from the camp due to the high cost of living in the area and lack of family living quarters. To maintain minimum staffing, correctional officers often work overtime or must be brought in temporarily from other institutions.
F127:
Staff reported the recidivism rate is lower from camps than standard institutions.
F128:
There were no reported assaults on correctional officers. Inmate violation of rules can result in loss of privileges or immediate return to their original institution, depending on severity.
F129:
Due to the newness of the facility, there were few books and educational materials in the library for inmates to read.
F130:
A Grand Jury inspection showed that the grounds and facilities were very clean and well maintained. Camp 45 Conclusions 46. The facility is operated by a conscientious and professional staff.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R46:
The facility is operated by a conscientious and professional staff.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.