Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2017-2018
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (13)
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The lack of effective communication between the District and the community regarding the administration of the Assessment District has caused public concern regarding the timing and implementation of Assessment District projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The District should provide formal training to all Board and committee members and senior staff on how to communicate with the public on contentious issues. (F1, F3)
F2:
The District has not provided adequate authority, guidance, training, or support to the Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee (LADOC) to ensure that the committee can fulfill its assessment district oversight responsibilities, thus reducing transparency and accountability to the public.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make mental health liaisons available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F2)
R6:
The District should provide formal training about assessment districts to LADOC members and all others involved in the administration of the Assessment District. (F2)
F3:
Lack of effective District communication practices has reduced public access to the decision-making process, and contributed to acrimony and on-going relationship challenges with the community, causing stress on elected officials and staff, as well as frustration among ratepayers.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make MERT available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F3-F5)
R7:
The District should record all Board and committee meetings, and post the recordings online for public access. (F3)
R8:
The District should provide formal training to all Board and committee members and senior staff on how to communicate with the public on contentious issues. (F1, F3)
Additional Recommendations
33
Not linked to specific findings.
R36:
Grand Jury interviews.
R37:
Grand Jury interviews.
R38:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, pp 10-11. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2016/Minutes%20BoD.10.20.16- approved.pdf#page=10
R39:
SLVWD. 2016. “San Lorenzo Valley Water District: SLVWD Meeting: 10-20-16.” Community TV of Santa Cruz County (CTV) video, 105:45 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=293570
R40:
Grand Jury interviews.
R41:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R42:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R43:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R44:
Grand Jury interviews.
R45:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R46:
Grand Jury interviews.
R47:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R48:
Michael J. Freitas. March 22, 2016. “Assessment District No. 2016-01, Lompico County Water District, Santa Cruz, State of California, Engineering Report for Assessment District No. 2016-01, Merger with San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Lompico County Water District, County of Santa Cruz,” p 9. http://slvwd.com/lompico/EngineersReport3-22-16.pdf#page=11
R49:
SLVWD. March 9, 2017. “Assessment District No. 2016-1: Gantt Chart.”Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, p 4. http://slvwd.com/lompico/3.9.17%20LADOC%20with%20backup.pdf#page=4
R50:
District Manager. Nov 16, 2017. “SLVWD CIP Draft.” SLVWD Revised Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 10b, p 57. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=158
R51:
District Manager. November 16, 2017. “Estimate of Cash Flow for AD16-1, Lompico Assessment District November 2017.” SLVWD Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 10b, p 55. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=156
R52:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, p 4. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2016/Minutes%20BoD.10.20.16- approved.pdf#page=4
R53:
Grand Jury interviews.
R54:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. “Resolution 8: Support of Merger Between San Lorenzo Valley Water District and Lompico County Water District.” Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, p 151. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2016/10-20- 2016/2016.10.20.BoDAgenda%20with%20backup.pdf#page=151 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 53 Published May 31, 2018
R55:
Grand Jury interviews.
R56:
Local Agency Formation Commission. August 6, 2014. “Making Determinations and Ordering Protest Proceedings of Territory Designated as the Lompico Reorganization LAFCO Resolution No. 953-A,” section 7(B), p 2. http://santacruzlafco.org/Library/Res%20953- A%20Final%20for%20web.pdf#page=2
R57:
Task Force on Bond Accountability. 2015. “Task Force Final Report,” p 13. California Office of the State Treasurer. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/tfba/final_report.pdf#page=13
R58:
Mark Campbell. August 3, 2017. “Bond Accountability: How to Make it an Everyday Thing.” California State Association of Counties. http://www.counties.org/csac-bulletin-article/bond-accountability-how-make-it- everyday-thing
R59:
Task Force on Bond Accountability (TFBA). December 14, 2015. “Task Force Final Report.” California Office of the State Treasurer. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/tfba/final_report.pdf
R60:
San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTA). October 21, 2011. “Oversight Committee Best Practices.” SDCTA. http://www.sdcta.org/assets/files/Board%20Approved%202011%20Oversight%2 0Committee%20Best%20Practices%20w.out%20Appendices.pdf
R61:
California League of Bond Oversight Committees (CaLBOC). 2009. “Best Practices, Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee Operation Standards.” San Mateo County Office of Education. http://www.smcoe.org/assets/files/about-smcoe/superintendents-office/citizens- bond-oversight/BestPractices_5.09.pdf
R62:
City of San Diego. 2008. “North Park Maintenance Assessment District (NPMAD) Advisory Committee Bylaws.” NPMAD, as amended March 10, 2008. https://npmaddotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/mad-bylaws-amended-03-10- 08.pdf
R63:
Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM). 2011. “Citizen Oversight Committee Bylaws.” TAM, as amended October 27, 2011. http://2b0kd44aw6tb3js4ja3jprp6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/doc-reports/citizenss-oversight-committee/4444.pdf
R64:
Campbell. 2017. “Bond Accountability...” (See 58.)
R65:
Campbell. 2017. “Bond Accountability...” (See 58.)
R66:
Little Hoover Commission. 2009. “Bond Spending: Expanding and Enhancing Oversight,” pp xiii-xiv. http://www.lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/197/Report197.pdf#page=18
R67:
Grand Jury interviews.
R68:
Grand Jury interviews.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
Most respondents to the 2015-16 Grand Jury investigations fulfilled or partially fulfilled the commitments they made to analyze a recommendation within six months, or to implement a recommendation at a specified time in the future.
F2:
The Board of Supervisors fulfilled its commitment to provide a summary of retirement costs and obligations in the Management Discussion and Analysis section of the CAFR.
F3:
The Board of Supervisors fulfilled its commitment to provide estimated pension costs and obligations in clear and understandable language in the 2018-19 Proposed Budget through an online version.
F4:
The Board of Supervisors and the Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled their commitments to fill all MHAB Board vacancies and to train both incoming and continuing members.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Grand Jury report respondents that commit to analyze a recommendation within a 6-month timeframe should document for the public the actions they took to fulfill the analysis commitment. (F4, F7, F8, F10)
F5:
The Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled its commitment to hold annual strategy meetings and address strategic plans and priorities.
F6:
The Board of Supervisors and Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled their commitments to make more meeting materials and services information available online.
F7:
The Soquel Union Elementary School District did not provide documentation confirming that it had analyzed the Grand Jury’s recommendation within six months; however, in 2018 it took steps to address the complaint form issue identified in the recommendation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Grand Jury report respondents that commit to analyze a recommendation within a 6-month timeframe should document for the public the actions they took to fulfill the analysis commitment. (F4, F7, F8, F10)
F8:
The Board of Supervisors followed through on its commitments to analyze Grand Jury recommendations related to Domestic Violence Commission meeting times and reporting practices.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Grand Jury report respondents that commit to analyze a recommendation within a 6-month timeframe should document for the public the actions they took to fulfill the analysis commitment. (F4, F7, F8, F10)
F9:
A District Attorney designee met with the presiding judge of the Superior Court to explore the re-establishment of a Domestic Violence Court, thus fulfilling the Board of Supervisors’ commitment to do so.
F10:
The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office analyzed the Grand Jury’s Facility Risk Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Grand Jury report respondents that commit to analyze a recommendation within a 6-month timeframe should document for the public the actions they took to fulfill the analysis commitment. (F4, F7, F8, F10)
F11:
The Sheriff-Coroner‘s Office fulfilled its commitment to build a fence to enclose the entire Main Jail.
F12:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office honored their commitments to make changes to the September 2016 provider contract for medical services for County detention facilities.
F13:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office fulfilled their commitment to do a Title 15 inspection of the Main Jail in 2016. Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
F14:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office confirmed that the Main Jail was in compliance with Title 15 Detoxification Treatment requirements in 2016.
F15:
The Felton Fire Protection District’s submission to the current Grand Jury of written policy and procedures regarding the acquisition and sale of real property contradicts the facts established in the 2016 Grand Jury report that the District lacked such documents, and is inconsistent with the District’s 2016 commitment to the public to adopt such policies and procedures in the future.
F16:
The Felton Fire Protection District has not yet fulfilled its commitment to post policies and procedures on its website.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Grand Jury report respondents that commit to implement a recommendation should document for the public the completion of that implementation. (F2–F6,
R3:
The Board should comply with the law and adopt policies and procedures for acquiring, managing, and disposing of surplus property. All policies and procedures should be posted on their website. The District committed to implement this recommendation in the future but did not indicate the timeframe for implementation as California Penal Code section 933.05 required. Moreover, the District did not indicate in its 2016 response that it had any policies or procedures that addressed the 2015-16 Grand Jury’s concerns.[37] In response to the current Grand Jury’s request for documents, however, the District asserted that relevant policies and procedures were already in force at the time of the 2015-16 Grand Jury investigation.[38] The District provided copies of three policy and procedure documents for purchasing and for disposing of property. Of the two policy documents related to purchasing, one is undated,[39] and the other, entitled Purchasing Policies and Procedures,[40] is dated June 7, 2010. A third document, entitled Policy for the Disposal of Fire District Property, appears to be dated December 1, 1992.[41] In its submission to the current Grand Jury, the District did not explain why it failed to mention the existence of these documents in its response to Recommendation 3 of the 2015-16 Grand Jury report, nor why it agreed to implement the recommendation in the future if policies and procedures were already in place. With respect to the 2015-16 Grand Jury’s recommendation that the District post its policies and procedures on its website, the District has informed us that such a step has not been taken. It does, however, intend to add policies and procedures to its website in 2019, at the same time that it conforms to Brown Act changes mandating the online posting of Board agendas and minutes.[42]
R4:
Santa Cruz County Grand Jury. April 19, 2016. “Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board Revisited.” Accessed June 24, 2018. http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2016_final/Mental HealthAdvisoryBoardRevisited.pdf
R5:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. June 29, 2016. Response to the 2015- 16 Grand Jury Report “Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board Revisited.” Accessed June 24, 2018. http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2016_final/MHAB Revisited_SCCBoS_Response.pdf
R6:
Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board. July 7, 2018. Response to the 2015-16 Grand Jury Report “Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board Revisited.” Accessed June 24, 2018. http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2016_final/MHAB Revisited_MHAB_Response.pdf
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The 24-hour Crisis Intervention Training course has given law enforcement responders additional tools for dealing with people in crisis, resulting in less use of force.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The District should provide formal training to all Board and committee members and senior staff on how to communicate with the public on contentious issues. (F1, F3) 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report and Responses 151 Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By San Lorenzo Valley 90 Days Water District Board F1 – F3 R1 – R8 August 29, 2018 of Directors Abbreviations and Definitions ● CIP: Capital Improvement Program (also called Capital Improvement Plan) ● CTV: Community Television of Santa Cruz County ● Gantt Chart: “A Gantt chart is a visual view of tasks scheduled over time.”[105] ● Glyphosate: “Glyphosate is an herbicide. It is applied to the leaves of plants to kill both broadleaf plants and grasses.”[106] ● LADOC: Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee ● LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission for Santa Cruz County ● LCWD: Lompico County Water District ● Resolution 953-A: LAFCO resolution (also called the “merger agreement”) approving SLVWD’s annexation of LCWD (also called the “merger”) ● SCADA: Supervisory control and data acquisition system ● SLVWD: San Lorenzo Valley Water District, also referred to in this report as “the District”
F2:
Adding more mental health liaisons and increasing their hours of availability would increase the benefit of this program to law enforcement and people in crisis.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make mental health liaisons available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F2)
R6:
The District should provide formal training about assessment districts to LADOC members and all others involved in the administration of the Assessment District. (F2)
F3:
Having law enforcement be the primary responder to non-threatening 9-1-1 EDP calls reduces the overall availability of law enforcement to the community.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make MERT available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F3-F5)
R7:
The District should record all Board and committee meetings, and post the recordings online for public access. (F3)
R8:
The District should provide formal training to all Board and committee members and senior staff on how to communicate with the public on contentious issues. (F1, F3) 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report and Responses 151 Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By San Lorenzo Valley 90 Days Water District Board F1 – F3 R1 – R8 August 29, 2018 of Directors Abbreviations and Definitions ● CIP: Capital Improvement Program (also called Capital Improvement Plan) ● CTV: Community Television of Santa Cruz County ● Gantt Chart: “A Gantt chart is a visual view of tasks scheduled over time.”[105] ● Glyphosate: “Glyphosate is an herbicide. It is applied to the leaves of plants to kill both broadleaf plants and grasses.”[106] ● LADOC: Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee ● LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission for Santa Cruz County ● LCWD: Lompico County Water District ● Resolution 953-A: LAFCO resolution (also called the “merger agreement”) approving SLVWD’s annexation of LCWD (also called the “merger”) ● SCADA: Supervisory control and data acquisition system ● SLVWD: San Lorenzo Valley Water District, also referred to in this report as “the District”
F4:
The Mobile Emergency Response Team (MERT) is not accessible through 9-1-1, resulting in overuse of law enforcement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make MERT available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F3-F5)
F5:
Current dispatch procedures do not distinguish between threatening and non-threatening EDP calls. Making this distinction would create an opportunity for MERT to respond to the 70 percent of 9-1-1 EDP calls that do not involve a threat.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make MERT available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F3-F5)
R3:
The County Health Services Agency, the County’s five law enforcement agencies, and Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 should develop a dispatch plan that classifies 9-1-1 EDP calls as threatening (the subject presents a danger to others) or nonthreatening (the subject does not present a danger to others). (F5)
R4:
Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 should dispatch MERT with a law enforcement liaison in response to non-threatening 9-1-1 EDP calls. (F5)
F6:
Having a private, for-profit contractor operate the County BHU reduces transparency between the Behavioral Health Department and the people they serve. Published May 17, 2018 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report and Responses 37
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County should conduct a compliance audit of the Telecare facility to investigate the allegations in the NAMI Santa Cruz task force report, post the results of the investigation on the Health Services Agency website, and recommend appropriate changes to performance specifications in any future contract. (F6) Commendation C1. The Grand Jury commends our County’s law enforcement agencies for incorporating the new methodologies set forth in the CIT course and adapting their procedures to those methodologies.
Additional Recommendations
66
Not linked to specific findings.
R0:
r c g o = 1 > n e E 7 s W - e 1 . K ” s S b a u n u ta U c C y r k u . z e n C . o & u c n b t l y = g C m iv a il i G l_ r fe a _ n 1 d 8 J 0 u 7 ry 1 6 F . i 1 n 4 d _ in p g 7 s & a v n G ie d r w a R = n e p d c t & o J m s u e r m a y r e c n < h d g = M a r i a n t o i n b o n d o n , j s x J u & u r r e l t y h 2 l @ a = , t 1 s 2 e
R36:
Grand Jury interviews.
R37:
Grand Jury interviews. 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report and Responses 155
R38:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, pp 10-11. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2016/Minutes%20BoD.10.20.16- approved.pdf#page=10
R39:
SLVWD. 2016. “San Lorenzo Valley Water District: SLVWD Meeting: 10-20-16.” Community TV of Santa Cruz County (CTV) video, 105:45 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=293570
R40:
Grand Jury interviews.
R41:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R42:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R43:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R44:
Grand Jury interviews.
R45:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R46:
Grand Jury interviews.
R47:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R48:
Michael J. Freitas. March 22, 2016. “Assessment District No. 2016-01, Lompico County Water District, Santa Cruz, State of California, Engineering Report for Assessment District No. 2016-01, Merger with San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Lompico County Water District, County of Santa Cruz,” p 9. http://slvwd.com/lompico/EngineersReport3-22-16.pdf#page=11
R49:
SLVWD. March 9, 2017. “Assessment District No. 2016-1: Gantt Chart.”Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, p 4. http://slvwd.com/lompico/3.9.17%20LADOC%20with%20backup.pdf#page=4
R50:
District Manager. Nov 16, 2017. “SLVWD CIP Draft.” SLVWD Revised Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 10b, p 57. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=158
R51:
District Manager. November 16, 2017. “Estimate of Cash Flow for AD16-1, Lompico Assessment District November 2017.” SLVWD Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 10b, p 55. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=156
R52:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, p 4. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2016/Minutes%20BoD.10.20.16- approved.pdf#page=4
R53:
Grand Jury interviews.
R54:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. “Resolution 8: Support of Merger Between San Lorenzo Valley Water District and Lompico County Water District.” Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, p 151. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2016/10-20- 2016/2016.10.20.BoDAgenda%20with%20backup.pdf#page=151 156 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
R55:
Grand Jury interviews.
R56:
Local Agency Formation Commission. August 6, 2014. “Making Determinations and Ordering Protest Proceedings of Territory Designated as the Lompico Reorganization LAFCO Resolution No. 953-A,” section 7(B), p 2. http://santacruzlafco.org/Library/Res%20953- A%20Final%20for%20web.pdf#page=2
R57:
Task Force on Bond Accountability. 2015. “Task Force Final Report,” p 13. California Office of the State Treasurer. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/tfba/final_report.pdf#page=13
R58:
Mark Campbell. August 3, 2017. “Bond Accountability: How to Make it an Everyday Thing.” California State Association of Counties. http://www.counties.org/csac-bulletin-article/bond-accountability-how-make-it- everyday-thing
R59:
Task Force on Bond Accountability (TFBA). December 14, 2015. “Task Force Final Report.” California Office of the State Treasurer. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/tfba/final_report.pdf
R60:
San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTA). October 21, 2011. “Oversight Committee Best Practices.” SDCTA. http://www.sdcta.org/assets/files/Board%20Approved%202011%20Oversight%2 0Committee%20Best%20Practices%20w.out%20Appendices.pdf
R61:
California League of Bond Oversight Committees (CaLBOC). 2009. “Best Practices, Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee Operation Standards.” San Mateo County Office of Education. http://www.smcoe.org/assets/files/about-smcoe/superintendents-office/citizens- bond-oversight/BestPractices_5.09.pdf
R62:
City of San Diego. 2008. “North Park Maintenance Assessment District (NPMAD) Advisory Committee Bylaws.” NPMAD, as amended March 10, 2008. https://npmaddotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/mad-bylaws-amended-03-10- 08.pdf
R63:
Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM). 2011. “Citizen Oversight Committee Bylaws.” TAM, as amended October 27, 2011. http://2b0kd44aw6tb3js4ja3jprp6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/doc-reports/citizenss-oversight-committee/4444.pdf
R64:
Campbell. 2017. “Bond Accountability...” (See 58.)
R65:
Campbell. 2017. “Bond Accountability...” (See 58.)
R66:
Little Hoover Commission. 2009. “Bond Spending: Expanding and Enhancing Oversight,” pp xiii-xiv. http://www.lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/197/Report197.pdf#page=18
R67:
Grand Jury interviews.
R68:
Grand Jury interviews. 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report and Responses 157
R69:
CaLBOC. 2009. “Best Practices…” (See 61.)
R70:
TFBA. 2015. “Task Force Final Report.” (See 59.)
R71:
SDCTA. 2011. “Oversight Committee Best Practices.” (See 60.)
R72:
CaLBOC. 2009. “Best Practices…” (See 61.)
R73:
City of San Diego. 2008. “...Advisory Committee Bylaws.” (See 62.)
R74:
TAM. 2011. “Citizen Oversight Committee Bylaws.” (See 63.)
R75:
LAFCO. 2014. “...Resolution No. 953-A.” (See 56.)
R76:
SLVWD. 2016. “Resolution No. 39...” (See 3.)
R77:
Lompico County Water District. December 9, 2015. “Resolution No. 2015-1: A Resolution Requesting Approval by the County of Santa Cruz of Proposed Resolution of Intention and Boundary map Under Section 10104 of the Streets and Highways Code of California.” Resolution 300-2015, pp 13-14. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/Minutes/2015/20151215- 676/PDF/035.pdf#page=13
R78:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. December 15, 2015. “Resolution No. 300-2015: Resolution Approving the Proposed Resolution of Intention and Boundary Map under Section 10104 of the Streets and Highways Code of California in and for the Lompico County Water District’s Proposed Assessment District No. 2016-1.” Resolution 300-2015, pp 4-5. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/Minutes/2015/20151215- 676/PDF/035.pdf#page=4
R79:
District Manager. April 20, 2017. “Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee.” SLVWD Special Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 14e, p 1. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/4-20- 2017/2017.4.20.BoDAgenda.pdf#page=354
R80:
District Manager. May 11, 2017. “Re: May 11th Meeting Agenda,” Email. Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, p 126. http://www.slvwd.com/lompico/LADOC%20Agenda%2005_11_2017.pdf#page=1 26
R81:
Grand Jury interviews.
R82:
District Manager. 2017. “Re: May 11th Meeting Agenda.” (See 80.)
R83:
SLVWD. June 13, 2017. Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, pp 1-17. http://slvwd.com/lompico/6.13.17%20LADOC%20with%20backup.pdf
R84:
Grand Jury interviews.
R85:
District Manager. 2017. “Discussion and Possible Action…” (See 31.) 158 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
R86:
SLVWD. October 19, 2017. “Post Assessment of the Merger with Lompico Water District and Conditions of Lafco Agreement.” Board of Directors Meeting. CTV video discussion of Item 10a starts at 53:25 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=323585
R87:
Cal Gov Code, Title 5, Div. 2, Part 1, Chap. 9. “Meetings.” §54953.5(b). 2010. Accessed February 16, 2018. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum= 54953.5.&lawCode=GOV
R88:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R89:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R90:
SLVWD. January 18, 2018. Board of Directors Meeting. CTV video recording, at approx. 218:44 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=329241
R91:
SLVWD. December 15, 2016. “Objective II; Communications.” Board Policy Manual 2017, p 1. http://www.slvwd.com/BOD_Manual/2017%20Board%20Policy%20Manual.pdf#p age=5
R92:
SLVWD. 2017. Draft Board Policy Manual, p 3 of the November 6, 2017, tracked- changes version. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/OTHER/2017/11-8- 2017%20Admin%20Mtg/2017%20Board%20Policy%20Manual.%20Revised.110 617.docx
R93:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Water district directors take gloves off.” Press Banner, April 27, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/water-district-directors- take-gloves-off/article_c99150e2-2bd0-11e7-8b14-e7638b4073c7.html
R94:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Shouting, kicking interrupt water hearing.” Press Banner, September 29, 2017. http://m.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/eedition/page-pb- cover/page_85ae7959-d335-5d41-a11f-fc7fd9c6de75.html
R95:
Direct observation by Grand Jury members attending the SLVWD Board of Directors Meeting on September 21, 2017.
R96:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Sheriff called to SLVWD meeting.” Press Banner, June 22, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/sheriff-called-to-slvwd- meeting/article_bf89d49a-578e-11e7-9273-4b702fc15453.html
R97:
District Manager. November 16, 2017. “FY1718 Budget Revision Request.” SLVWD Board of Directors Revised Agenda, item 9a, pp 1-4. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=5 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report and Responses 159
R98:
SLVWD. November 16, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, p 1. http://slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2017/Minutes%20BoD.11.16.17%20- %20approved.pdf
R99:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “SLVWD won't release letter from Vierra.” Press Banner, April 6, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/slvwd-won-t-release- letter-from-vierra/article_ed0ee7aa-1af5-11e7-8ce0-5fbc1097aad2.html
R100:
Libby Leyden. 2018. “San Lorenzo Valley Water District considers lawsuit against director.” Press Banner, January 31, 2018. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/san-lorenzo-valley-water- district-considers-lawsuit-against-director/article_12879000-06fe-11e8-a68f- 17d3356ceb0a.html
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
Most respondents to the 2015-16 Grand Jury investigations fulfilled or partially fulfilled the commitments they made to analyze a recommendation within six months, or to implement a recommendation at a specified time in the future.
F2:
The Board of Supervisors fulfilled its commitment to provide a summary of retirement costs and obligations in the Management Discussion and Analysis section of the CAFR.
F3:
The Board of Supervisors fulfilled its commitment to provide estimated pension costs and obligations in clear and understandable language in the 2018-19 Proposed Budget through an online version.
F4:
The Board of Supervisors and the Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled their commitments to fill all MHAB Board vacancies and to train both incoming and continuing members.
F5:
The Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled its commitment to hold annual strategy meetings and address strategic plans and priorities.
F6:
The Board of Supervisors and Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled their commitments to make more meeting materials and services information available online.
F7:
The Soquel Union Elementary School District did not provide documentation confirming that it had analyzed the Grand Jury’s recommendation within six months; however, in 2018 it took steps to address the complaint form issue identified in the recommendation.
F8:
The Board of Supervisors followed through on its commitments to analyze Grand Jury recommendations related to Domestic Violence Commission meeting times and reporting practices.
F9:
A District Attorney designee met with the presiding judge of the Superior Court to explore the re-establishment of a Domestic Violence Court, thus fulfilling the Board of Supervisors’ commitment to do so.
F10:
The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office analyzed the Grand Jury’s Facility Risk Report
F11:
The Sheriff-Coroner‘s Office fulfilled its commitment to build a fence to enclose the entire Main Jail.
F12:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office honored their commitments to make changes to the September 2016 provider contract for medical services for County detention facilities.
F13:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office fulfilled their commitment to do a Title 15 inspection of the Main Jail in 2016. Published June 27, 2018 1 22 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
F14:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office confirmed that the Main Jail was in compliance with Title 15 Detoxification Treatment requirements in 2016.
F15:
The Felton Fire Protection District’s submission to the current Grand Jury of written policy and procedures regarding the acquisition and sale of real property contradicts the facts established in the 2016 Grand Jury report that the District lacked such documents, and is inconsistent with the District’s 2016 commitment to the public to adopt such policies and procedures in the future.
F16:
The Felton Fire Protection District has not yet fulfilled its commitment to post policies and procedures on its website.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
R7 Inspection Report[14] [15] Coroner Felton Fire Felton Fire Protection District’s Protection District – R3 Surplus Land Sale[16] [17] Board of Directors Investigation In this section we summarize the findings, recommendations, and responses from each 2015-16 Grand Jury investigative report listed in Table A. We then analyze the documents submitted to the current Grand Jury to determine what actions, if any, recipients ultimately took with respect to the 2016 recommendations. Figure 1 and Figure 2 provide summary views of how respondents fulfilled their commitments to analyze or implement Grand Jury recommendations as of June 2018. Published June 27, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 113 Report: “Reporting Santa Cruz County Retirement Costs and Obligations” This 2015-16 report focused on the presentation of information on Santa Cruz County retirement costs and obligations, and made the following recommendations:
R2:
– Supervisors Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board[4] [5] [6] Mental Health – R2, R5, R8 Advisory Board Soquel Elementary School Board: SUESD Board of
R3:
The District Attorney (or their designee) should be the Domestic Violence Commission’s chair for at least the first year. The BOS committed to implementing these two recommendations in the future, although it did not provide a timeframe for implementation. During the three January - March 2017 meetings, the DVC working group considered these two recommendations. The ordinance drafted to address Recommendations 1 and 4 also addressed Recommendations 2 and 3 – it proposed to streamline the membership and make the District Attorney (or a designee) the first chair. The BOS has not adopted the draft ordinance as of June 2018, as it is still assessing Commission procedural issues.[28]
R4:
– Full Disclosure Not Optional[7] [8] Trustees Santa Cruz County Domestic Board of Violence Commission: Missing In R1, R4 R2, R3, R5 Supervisors Action[9] [10] Board of – R6, R7 Supervisors Another Death in Our Jail[11] [12] [13] Sheriff-Coroner – R5, R6, R7 Jails in Transition: 2015-2016 Jails Sheriff-
R5:
The Mental Health Advisory Board should hold an annual meeting to establish and evaluate strategic goals, prioritize those goals by focusing on problem areas, and establish committees to develop plans for problem resolution. The MHAB responded that it would hold annual meetings to evaluate and prioritize strategic goals. The MHAB held a strategy meeting in February 2017. It provided the Grand Jury with materials demonstrating that it had created strategies and priorities for resolving problem areas. The MHAB held a similar meeting in June 2018. The 2015-16 Grand Jury also found that the MHAB did not have an effective mechanism for sharing information on available programs and services with the community or local mental health professionals.
R6:
The Health Services Agency should complete the annual 2016 Title 15 inspection and identify if the facility is in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements (Title 15, Section 1213), as required by state law. In their responses, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner committed to implementing Recommendation 6 in the future, indicating that the Health Services Agency would inspect the Main Jail by the end of 2016. Published June 27, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 117 The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office provided the 2017-18 Grand Jury with confirmation that a 2016 Title 15 inspection had taken place and that the Main Jail was in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements (Section 1213) in 2016.[32] Report: “Jails in Transition: 2015-2016 Jails Inspection Report” This 2015-16 report found that the Crisis Intervention Team’s Facility Risk Report lacked specific recommendations for inmates. The Facility Risk Report is a daily report for staff that provides alerts for inmates deemed “at-risk for suicide, escape, assault, medical issues, and other destabilizing behaviors.”[33]
R7:
The Sheriff-Coroner and Board of Supervisors should require in the contract that the medical services provider for detention facilities obtain and maintain accreditation from the California Medical Association- Institute for Medical Quality for adult detention facilities. In their responses to Recommendations 5 and 7, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner committed to changes to the medical services provider contract scheduled to go into effect in September 2016. The September 2016 contract eliminated the clause requiring the service provider to pay up to $15,000 per inmate admitted to a hospital[29] and added language that required CMA-IMQ accreditation.[30] CFMG received accreditation for the period June 21, 2017 through June 21, 2019.[31] The 2015-16 Grand Jury report also found that the Health Services Agency’s 2015 inspection did not address whether the Main Jail was in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.
R8:
The Mental Health Advisory Board should increase efforts to raise community awareness of mental health issues through public announcements, publications, speaking engagements, and other forms of community outreach. The MHAB responded that this recommendation would be implemented in the future. The MHAB engaged with the public, beginning in the summer of 2017, through a public town hall meeting in August 2017; a televised presentation of the MHAB’s 2016-17 biennial report to the BOS in April 2018;[22] and online postings of monthly summaries from the Director of Behavioral Health.[23] In sum the BOS and MHAB have fulfilled their commitments to address the 2015-16 Grand Jury’s recommendations. Report: “Soquel Union Elementary School Board – Full Disclosure Not Optional” This 2015-16 report found that the Soquel Union Elementary School District (SUESD) did not provide guidance on how to file a complaint. The report made the following recommendation:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The restrictive eligibility requirements of AB 12 exclude some former foster youth from obtaining services available through that legislation and can result in their becoming homeless.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Human Services Department should develop and distribute written procedures for ensuring that eligible foster youth are aware of the requirements and deadlines to opt in to AB 12. (F1)
F2:
Turnover among Family and Children’s Services social workers disrupts the care of children in foster care, to their detriment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Human Services Department should review the rate of turnover among social workers in the Family and Children Services unit and conduct a study to identify the underlying causes of FCS social worker departures, including exit interviews. (F2)
F3:
The location and limited hours of the lone drop-in center in Santa Cruz County restricts the access of homeless young adults to necessary services and available resources.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County Administrative Officer should expand the Continuum of Care Request for Proposals to include a mid-County drop-in center in addition to the ones proposed for North and South County. (F3)
F4:
Santa Cruz County lacks an effective means of identifying and locating homeless youth and unaccompanied minor children in order to connect them to available resources.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Human Services Department should initiate a pilot outreach program to homeless unaccompanied minor children and young adults, to be implemented no later than the end of 2018. (F4, F5)
F5:
The County has no emergency or long term shelter available to house homeless youth and unaccompanied minor children, placing them at risk in adult shelters and on the streets.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Human Services Department should initiate a pilot outreach program to homeless unaccompanied minor children and young adults, to be implemented no later than the end of 2018. (F4, F5)
R5:
The Human Services Department should identify a location for, and the Board of Supervisors should provide funds for, an emergency shelter for homeless young adults, with a separate section for homeless unaccompanied minor children. (F5)
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The County of Santa Cruz incremental budgeting document does not illustrate changes in the County’s understanding of the needs of its population.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administration Officer to implement performance budgeting over the next two-year budget cycle. (F1-F4)
R2:
The County Administration Officer should pilot a performance data template in the next budgeting process using those departments that already report data to the State of California, federal government, and/or granting agencies. (F1-F4)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should publish a community report of performance results addressing strategic goals by department. (F1-F5) Commendation C1. The Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Officer initiated, for the first time in Santa Cruz County history, a strategic planning process and performance improvement effort.
F2:
The County of Santa Cruz incremental budgeting process fails to integrate data from all departments to enable policy makers to make strategic and responsive decisions for the community.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administration Officer to implement performance budgeting over the next two-year budget cycle. (F1-F4)
R2:
The County Administration Officer should pilot a performance data template in the next budgeting process using those departments that already report data to the State of California, federal government, and/or granting agencies. (F1-F4)
R3:
The County Administration Officer should enhance the comparative interactive budget tool over the next budgeting cycle to include existing performance data to inform policy makers, departments, and most importantly, County residents, of program and service results. (F2-F5)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should publish a community report of performance results addressing strategic goals by department. (F1-F5) Commendation C1. The Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Officer initiated, for the first time in Santa Cruz County history, a strategic planning process and performance improvement effort.
F3:
The County of Santa Cruz incremental budgeting process lacks sufficient data to inform residents about projected efficiency or effectiveness of spending in the County.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administration Officer to implement performance budgeting over the next two-year budget cycle. (F1-F4)
R2:
The County Administration Officer should pilot a performance data template in the next budgeting process using those departments that already report data to the State of California, federal government, and/or granting agencies. (F1-F4)
R3:
The County Administration Officer should enhance the comparative interactive budget tool over the next budgeting cycle to include existing performance data to inform policy makers, departments, and most importantly, County residents, of program and service results. (F2-F5)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should publish a community report of performance results addressing strategic goals by department. (F1-F5) Commendation C1. The Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Officer initiated, for the first time in Santa Cruz County history, a strategic planning process and performance improvement effort.
F4:
Few County departments collect and utilize performance data to develop budgets, resulting in the loss of historical program performance insights and an inability to participate in performance budgeting.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administration Officer to implement performance budgeting over the next two-year budget cycle. (F1-F4)
R2:
The County Administration Officer should pilot a performance data template in the next budgeting process using those departments that already report data to the State of California, federal government, and/or granting agencies. (F1-F4)
R3:
The County Administration Officer should enhance the comparative interactive budget tool over the next budgeting cycle to include existing performance data to inform policy makers, departments, and most importantly, County residents, of program and service results. (F2-F5)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should publish a community report of performance results addressing strategic goals by department. (F1-F5) Commendation C1. The Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Officer initiated, for the first time in Santa Cruz County history, a strategic planning process and performance improvement effort.
F5:
The County has not established standardized analytic online tools for departments to develop data-driven reports, which results in the County’s inability to compare and contrast with internal and external agencies.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The County Administration Officer should enhance the comparative interactive budget tool over the next budgeting cycle to include existing performance data to inform policy makers, departments, and most importantly, County residents, of program and service results. (F2-F5)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should publish a community report of performance results addressing strategic goals by department. (F1-F5) Commendation C1. The Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Officer initiated, for the first time in Santa Cruz County history, a strategic planning process and performance improvement effort.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The lack of effective communication between the District and the community regarding the administration of the Assessment District has caused public concern regarding the timing and implementation of Assessment District projects.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
LADOC should produce an annual report detailing the status of Assessment District revenues and expenditures.(F1, F2)
R2:
The District should schedule annual public study sessions or workshops to review the LADOC annual report and discuss the administration of the Assessment District (AD), in order to provide in depth information to the public about the timing, funding, and execution of AD projects. (F1, F3)
R3:
The Board and LADOC should work in concert to create a charter for LADOC that describes in detail the committee’s responsibilities and its authority to fulfill its oversight role. (F1, F2)
R8:
The District should provide formal training to all Board and committee members and senior staff on how to communicate with the public on contentious issues. (F1, F3) Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By San Lorenzo Valley 90 Days Water District Board F1 – F3 R1 – R8 August 29, 2018 of Directors Abbreviations and Definitions ● CIP: Capital Improvement Program (also called Capital Improvement Plan) ● CTV: Community Television of Santa Cruz County ● Gantt Chart: “A Gantt chart is a visual view of tasks scheduled over time.”[105] ● Glyphosate: “Glyphosate is an herbicide. It is applied to the leaves of plants to kill both broadleaf plants and grasses.”[106] ● LADOC: Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee ● LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission for Santa Cruz County ● LCWD: Lompico County Water District ● Resolution 953-A: LAFCO resolution (also called the “merger agreement”) approving SLVWD’s annexation of LCWD (also called the “merger”) ● SCADA: Supervisory control and data acquisition system ● SLVWD: San Lorenzo Valley Water District, also referred to in this report as “the District”
F2:
The District has not provided adequate authority, guidance, training, or support to the Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee (LADOC) to ensure that the committee can fulfill its assessment district oversight responsibilities, thus reducing transparency and accountability to the public.
Related Recommendations (5)
R1:
LADOC should produce an annual report detailing the status of Assessment District revenues and expenditures.(F1, F2)
R3:
The Board and LADOC should work in concert to create a charter for LADOC that describes in detail the committee’s responsibilities and its authority to fulfill its oversight role. (F1, F2)
R4:
The Board should ensure that LADOC receives adequate professional, technical, and administrative support from the District, as well as the authority to carry out its oversight responsibilities. (F2)
R5:
The District should provide formal training for all LADOC citizen committee members in governance, meeting management, and the Brown Act. (F2)
R6:
The District should provide formal training about assessment districts to LADOC members and all others involved in the administration of the Assessment District. (F2)
F3:
Lack of effective District communication practices has reduced public access to the decision-making process, and contributed to acrimony and on-going relationship challenges with the community, causing stress on elected officials and staff, as well as frustration among ratepayers.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The District should schedule annual public study sessions or workshops to review the LADOC annual report and discuss the administration of the Assessment District (AD), in order to provide in depth information to the public about the timing, funding, and execution of AD projects. (F1, F3)
R7:
The District should record all Board and committee meetings, and post the recordings online for public access. (F3)
R8:
The District should provide formal training to all Board and committee members and senior staff on how to communicate with the public on contentious issues. (F1, F3) Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By San Lorenzo Valley 90 Days Water District Board F1 – F3 R1 – R8 August 29, 2018 of Directors Abbreviations and Definitions ● CIP: Capital Improvement Program (also called Capital Improvement Plan) ● CTV: Community Television of Santa Cruz County ● Gantt Chart: “A Gantt chart is a visual view of tasks scheduled over time.”[105] ● Glyphosate: “Glyphosate is an herbicide. It is applied to the leaves of plants to kill both broadleaf plants and grasses.”[106] ● LADOC: Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee ● LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission for Santa Cruz County ● LCWD: Lompico County Water District ● Resolution 953-A: LAFCO resolution (also called the “merger agreement”) approving SLVWD’s annexation of LCWD (also called the “merger”) ● SCADA: Supervisory control and data acquisition system ● SLVWD: San Lorenzo Valley Water District, also referred to in this report as “the District”
Additional Recommendations
65
Not linked to specific findings.
R36:
Grand Jury interviews.
R37:
Grand Jury interviews.
R38:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, pp 10-11. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2016/Minutes%20BoD.10.20.16- approved.pdf#page=10
R39:
SLVWD. 2016. “San Lorenzo Valley Water District: SLVWD Meeting: 10-20-16.” Community TV of Santa Cruz County (CTV) video, 105:45 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=293570
R40:
Grand Jury interviews.
R41:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R42:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R43:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R44:
Grand Jury interviews.
R45:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R46:
Grand Jury interviews.
R47:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R48:
Michael J. Freitas. March 22, 2016. “Assessment District No. 2016-01, Lompico County Water District, Santa Cruz, State of California, Engineering Report for Assessment District No. 2016-01, Merger with San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Lompico County Water District, County of Santa Cruz,” p 9. http://slvwd.com/lompico/EngineersReport3-22-16.pdf#page=11
R49:
SLVWD. March 9, 2017. “Assessment District No. 2016-1: Gantt Chart.”Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, p 4. http://slvwd.com/lompico/3.9.17%20LADOC%20with%20backup.pdf#page=4
R50:
District Manager. Nov 16, 2017. “SLVWD CIP Draft.” SLVWD Revised Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 10b, p 57. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=158
R51:
District Manager. November 16, 2017. “Estimate of Cash Flow for AD16-1, Lompico Assessment District November 2017.” SLVWD Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 10b, p 55. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=156
R52:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, p 4. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2016/Minutes%20BoD.10.20.16- approved.pdf#page=4
R53:
Grand Jury interviews.
R54:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. “Resolution 8: Support of Merger Between San Lorenzo Valley Water District and Lompico County Water District.” Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, p 151. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2016/10-20- 2016/2016.10.20.BoDAgenda%20with%20backup.pdf#page=151
R55:
Grand Jury interviews.
R56:
Local Agency Formation Commission. August 6, 2014. “Making Determinations and Ordering Protest Proceedings of Territory Designated as the Lompico Reorganization LAFCO Resolution No. 953-A,” section 7(B), p 2. http://santacruzlafco.org/Library/Res%20953- A%20Final%20for%20web.pdf#page=2
R57:
Task Force on Bond Accountability. 2015. “Task Force Final Report,” p 13. California Office of the State Treasurer. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/tfba/final_report.pdf#page=13
R58:
Mark Campbell. August 3, 2017. “Bond Accountability: How to Make it an Everyday Thing.” California State Association of Counties. http://www.counties.org/csac-bulletin-article/bond-accountability-how-make-it- everyday-thing
R59:
Task Force on Bond Accountability (TFBA). December 14, 2015. “Task Force Final Report.” California Office of the State Treasurer. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/tfba/final_report.pdf
R60:
San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTA). October 21, 2011. “Oversight Committee Best Practices.” SDCTA. http://www.sdcta.org/assets/files/Board%20Approved%202011%20Oversight%2 0Committee%20Best%20Practices%20w.out%20Appendices.pdf
R61:
California League of Bond Oversight Committees (CaLBOC). 2009. “Best Practices, Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee Operation Standards.” San Mateo County Office of Education. http://www.smcoe.org/assets/files/about-smcoe/superintendents-office/citizens- bond-oversight/BestPractices_5.09.pdf
R62:
City of San Diego. 2008. “North Park Maintenance Assessment District (NPMAD) Advisory Committee Bylaws.” NPMAD, as amended March 10, 2008. https://npmaddotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/mad-bylaws-amended-03-10- 08.pdf
R63:
Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM). 2011. “Citizen Oversight Committee Bylaws.” TAM, as amended October 27, 2011. http://2b0kd44aw6tb3js4ja3jprp6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/doc-reports/citizenss-oversight-committee/4444.pdf
R64:
Campbell. 2017. “Bond Accountability...” (See 58.)
R65:
Campbell. 2017. “Bond Accountability...” (See 58.)
R66:
Little Hoover Commission. 2009. “Bond Spending: Expanding and Enhancing Oversight,” pp xiii-xiv. http://www.lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/197/Report197.pdf#page=18
R67:
Grand Jury interviews.
R68:
Grand Jury interviews.
R69:
CaLBOC. 2009. “Best Practices…” (See 61.)
R70:
TFBA. 2015. “Task Force Final Report.” (See 59.)
R71:
SDCTA. 2011. “Oversight Committee Best Practices.” (See 60.)
R72:
CaLBOC. 2009. “Best Practices…” (See 61.)
R73:
City of San Diego. 2008. “...Advisory Committee Bylaws.” (See 62.)
R74:
TAM. 2011. “Citizen Oversight Committee Bylaws.” (See 63.)
R75:
LAFCO. 2014. “...Resolution No. 953-A.” (See 56.)
R76:
SLVWD. 2016. “Resolution No. 39...” (See 3.)
R77:
Lompico County Water District. December 9, 2015. “Resolution No. 2015-1: A Resolution Requesting Approval by the County of Santa Cruz of Proposed Resolution of Intention and Boundary map Under Section 10104 of the Streets and Highways Code of California.” Resolution 300-2015, pp 13-14. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/Minutes/2015/20151215- 676/PDF/035.pdf#page=13
R78:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. December 15, 2015. “Resolution No. 300-2015: Resolution Approving the Proposed Resolution of Intention and Boundary Map under Section 10104 of the Streets and Highways Code of California in and for the Lompico County Water District’s Proposed Assessment District No. 2016-1.” Resolution 300-2015, pp 4-5. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/Minutes/2015/20151215- 676/PDF/035.pdf#page=4
R79:
District Manager. April 20, 2017. “Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee.” SLVWD Special Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 14e, p 1. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/4-20- 2017/2017.4.20.BoDAgenda.pdf#page=354
R80:
District Manager. May 11, 2017. “Re: May 11th Meeting Agenda,” Email. Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, p 126. http://www.slvwd.com/lompico/LADOC%20Agenda%2005_11_2017.pdf#page=1 26
R81:
Grand Jury interviews.
R82:
District Manager. 2017. “Re: May 11th Meeting Agenda.” (See 80.)
R83:
SLVWD. June 13, 2017. Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, pp 1-17. http://slvwd.com/lompico/6.13.17%20LADOC%20with%20backup.pdf
R84:
Grand Jury interviews.
R85:
District Manager. 2017. “Discussion and Possible Action…” (See 31.)
R86:
SLVWD. October 19, 2017. “Post Assessment of the Merger with Lompico Water District and Conditions of Lafco Agreement.” Board of Directors Meeting. CTV video discussion of Item 10a starts at 53:25 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=323585
R87:
Cal Gov Code, Title 5, Div. 2, Part 1, Chap. 9. “Meetings.” §54953.5(b). 2010. Accessed February 16, 2018. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum= 54953.5.&lawCode=GOV
R88:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R89:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R90:
SLVWD. January 18, 2018. Board of Directors Meeting. CTV video recording, at approx. 218:44 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=329241
R91:
SLVWD. December 15, 2016. “Objective II; Communications.” Board Policy Manual 2017, p 1. http://www.slvwd.com/BOD_Manual/2017%20Board%20Policy%20Manual.pdf#p age=5
R92:
SLVWD. 2017. Draft Board Policy Manual, p 3 of the November 6, 2017, tracked- changes version. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/OTHER/2017/11-8- 2017%20Admin%20Mtg/2017%20Board%20Policy%20Manual.%20Revised.110 617.docx
R93:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Water district directors take gloves off.” Press Banner, April 27, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/water-district-directors- take-gloves-off/article_c99150e2-2bd0-11e7-8b14-e7638b4073c7.html
R94:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Shouting, kicking interrupt water hearing.” Press Banner, September 29, 2017. http://m.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/eedition/page-pb- cover/page_85ae7959-d335-5d41-a11f-fc7fd9c6de75.html
R95:
Direct observation by Grand Jury members attending the SLVWD Board of Directors Meeting on September 21, 2017.
R96:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Sheriff called to SLVWD meeting.” Press Banner, June 22, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/sheriff-called-to-slvwd- meeting/article_bf89d49a-578e-11e7-9273-4b702fc15453.html
R97:
District Manager. November 16, 2017. “FY1718 Budget Revision Request.” SLVWD Board of Directors Revised Agenda, item 9a, pp 1-4. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=5
R98:
SLVWD. November 16, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, p 1. http://slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2017/Minutes%20BoD.11.16.17%20- %20approved.pdf
R99:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “SLVWD won't release letter from Vierra.” Press Banner, April 6, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/slvwd-won-t-release- letter-from-vierra/article_ed0ee7aa-1af5-11e7-8ce0-5fbc1097aad2.html
R100:
Libby Leyden. 2018. “San Lorenzo Valley Water District considers lawsuit against director.” Press Banner, January 31, 2018. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/san-lorenzo-valley-water- district-considers-lawsuit-against-director/article_12879000-06fe-11e8-a68f- 17d3356ceb0a.html
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The 24-hour Crisis Intervention Training course has given law enforcement responders additional tools for dealing with people in crisis, resulting in less use of force.
F2:
Adding more mental health liaisons and increasing their hours of availability would increase the benefit of this program to law enforcement and people in crisis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make mental health liaisons available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F2)
F3:
Having law enforcement be the primary responder to non-threatening 9-1-1 EDP calls reduces the overall availability of law enforcement to the community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make MERT available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F3-F5)
F4:
The Mobile Emergency Response Team (MERT) is not accessible through 9-1-1, resulting in overuse of law enforcement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make MERT available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F3-F5)
F5:
Current dispatch procedures do not distinguish between threatening and non-threatening EDP calls. Making this distinction would create an opportunity for MERT to respond to the 70 percent of 9-1-1 EDP calls that do not involve a threat.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make MERT available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F3-F5)
R3:
The County Health Services Agency, the County’s five law enforcement agencies, and Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 should develop a dispatch plan that classifies 9-1-1 EDP calls as threatening (the subject presents a danger to others) or nonthreatening (the subject does not present a danger to others). (F5)
R4:
Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 should dispatch MERT with a law enforcement liaison in response to non-threatening 9-1-1 EDP calls. (F5)
F6:
Having a private, for-profit contractor operate the County BHU reduces transparency between the Behavioral Health Department and the people they serve.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County should conduct a compliance audit of the Telecare facility to investigate the allegations in the NAMI Santa Cruz task force report, post the results of the investigation on the Health Services Agency website, and recommend appropriate changes to performance specifications in any future contract. (F6) Commendation C1. The Grand Jury commends our County’s law enforcement agencies for incorporating the new methodologies set forth in the CIT course and adapting their procedures to those methodologies.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
In a threat situation, timely and specific communication from the school to the community can reduce fear, anxiety, anger, and frustration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County Superintendent of Schools should advocate school districts inform parents and guardians on how and when they will be contacted in the event of a threat. (F1)
F2:
Confusion over the disclosure of protected information regarding juveniles has been a barrier to the timely exchange of vital information between school districts and law enforcement, although FERPA permits disclosure of juvenile student information to law enforcement without parental consent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County Office of Education (COE) and the County Sheriff's Office (CSO) should advocate that the threat assessment plan for each school district has a written agreement with law enforcement in which restricted information may be exchanged during the investigation of a threat. (F2)
F3:
Threat assessment is a necessary part of the comprehensive school safety plan, but very little direct guidance has been provided to school districts in how to go about doing it.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The COE and the CSO should collaborate to develop a plan in which all school districts are prepared and capable of assessing a threat of targeted school violence. (F3, F5–F7)
F4:
Investigating a threat may involve actions that can only be done by law enforcement, necessitating coordination and collaboration in formulating and implementing a threat assessment plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County Sheriff and the County Superintendent of Schools should act as boundary spanners to facilitate collaboration between the school districts and law enforcement in assessing threats. (F4)
F5:
Seven of the ten districts have a specific threat assessment plan; those districts without a plan are less able to respond effectively to threats. All of these reported that local law enforcement was aware of their plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The COE and the CSO should collaborate to develop a plan in which all school districts are prepared and capable of assessing a threat of targeted school violence. (F3, F5–F7)
F6:
Only one school district had a threat assessment plan that was created with the help of law enforcement, leaving all other districts at a disadvantage in addressing threats.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The COE and the CSO should collaborate to develop a plan in which all school districts are prepared and capable of assessing a threat of targeted school violence. (F3, F5–F7)
R5:
The CSO and Chiefs of Police should ensure a law enforcement representative, preferably a School Resource Officer, be made available to school districts drafting or revising a threat assessment plan. (F6, F8)
F7:
Three of the four districts with a single school lack the personnel to adequately assemble a threat assessment team.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The COE and the CSO should collaborate to develop a plan in which all school districts are prepared and capable of assessing a threat of targeted school violence. (F3, F5–F7)
R7:
The COE should advocate each school district either has or has access to a multidisciplinary threat assessment team, including a representative from law enforcement. (F7, F9)
F8:
All threat assessment teams had training in the 2015-16 school year, but not all districts attended a professional threat assessment training held in the spring of 2017.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The CSO and Chiefs of Police should ensure a law enforcement representative, preferably a School Resource Officer, be made available to school districts drafting or revising a threat assessment plan. (F6, F8)
R6:
The County Superintendent of Schools should advocate each school district receives periodic training in assessing threats of targeted school violence. (F8)
F9:
Countywide, only two of 11 SROs were included as members of a threat assessment team.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The COE should advocate each school district either has or has access to a multidisciplinary threat assessment team, including a representative from law enforcement. (F7, F9)
F10:
Not all local law enforcement agencies have personnel trained in assessing threats of school violence, leaving them less able to assist schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The County Sheriff and the Chiefs of Police should ensure their respective law enforcement agencies attend periodic training in assessing threats of targeted school violence. (F10)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The June 18, 2014, SUESD Board minutes do not record that there was an opportunity for public comment prior to the superintendent’s evaluation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The SUESD Board should record in the minutes the closed session agenda items that were discussed and any actions taken, including taking no action, on those items. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
F2:
The June 18, 2014 and June 3, 2015 SUESD Board minutes do not record that the superintendent’s evaluation was discussed in closed session.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The SUESD Board should record in the minutes the closed session agenda items that were discussed and any actions taken, including taking no action, on those items. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
F3:
The 2015 and 2016 SUESD Board minutes do not record whether the Board offered the public a chance to speak before closed sessions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The SUESD Board should demonstrate its compliance with CGC §54954.3(a), CEC §35145.5, and its Bylaw 9323 to give the public an opportunity to comment by recording this offering in the minutes. (F3)
F4:
In 2015 and 2016, closed session items were rarely recorded in the minutes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The SUESD Board should record in the minutes the closed session agenda items that were discussed and any actions taken, including taking no action, on those items. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
F5:
In 2015, 2016, and the first two months of 2017, the SUESD Board repeatedly used the statement “Nothing to report out of closed session.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The SUESD Board should record in the minutes the closed session agenda items that were discussed and any actions taken, including taking no action, on those items. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
F6:
The Board has met twice in closed session after adjourning open session.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board should comply with CGC §54957.7.(a), CGC §54957.7.(b), CGC §54957.7.(c) by not meeting in closed session after adjourning open session. (F6)
F7:
The Board, in adopting their Governance Handbook, has shown increased acceptance of public input in the direction of the district by including an avenue for requesting items to be added to the agenda.
F8:
In 2015, 2016, and the first two months of 2017, the SUESD Board minutes did not record that the Board has conducted a self-evaluation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The SUESD Board should comply with its Bylaw 9400 by addressing in public session its self-evaluation, including whether or not the District’s goals for the previous year have been achieved. (F8)
F9:
The SUESD Board has not reviewed or revised the responsibilities and duties of the superintendent at any time between September 2001 and 2016.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The SUESD Board should conduct an official review and update of the criteria for evaluating their only employee, the superintendent. (F9)
F10:
The SUESD Board has been using an incorrect template for its agenda for at least the past six years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The SUESD Board should comply with CGC §54954.3 by correcting its agenda template to reflect accurate times, locations, and content for meetings. (F10)
F11:
The agenda template announces conflicting times for the convening of public meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Board’s agenda should reflect that Board meetings begin with the Call to Order. (F11)
F12:
The agenda template does not advise the public of its opportunity to pull items from the consent agenda for comment prior to the adoption of the agenda.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Board should advise the public of its right to pull a Consent Agenda item for comment prior to adopting the agenda. (F12)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
As promised in their responses to the 2016-17 Grand Jury report, the COE and CSO collaborated with local law enforcement agencies to produce a thorough and well-written Countywide Threat Assessment Plan.
F2:
The Plan’s detailed flow chart, assessment protocol, and related documents will be valuable resources for school districts to use in threat situations.
F3:
The Santa Cruz County Professional Development Plan for School Safety demonstrates the COE and CSO’s commitment to adequately preparing school staff and local law enforcement to respond to future threats in our schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. (F3, F4)
F4:
Neither the Countywide Threat Assessment Plan nor the Professional Development Plan for School Safety explicitly call for rehearsing the threat assessment protocol in a non-threat situation, which may compromise the responders’ readiness in a threat situation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. (F3, F4)
R2:
The COE should mandate rehearsals of the threat assessment process in every school district to improve the schools’ ability to determine the existence of a credible threat before violence actually occurs. (F4)
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
As promised in their responses to the 2016-17 Grand Jury report, the COE and CSO collaborated with local law enforcement agencies to produce a thorough and well-written Countywide Threat Assessment Plan.
F2:
The Plan’s detailed flow chart, assessment protocol, and related documents will be valuable resources for school districts to use in threat situations. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 17 Respond by June 11, 2018
F3:
The Santa Cruz County Professional Development Plan for School Safety demonstrates the COE and CSO’s commitment to adequately preparing school staff and local law enforcement to respond to future threats in our schools. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Respond by June 11, 2018
F4:
Neither the Countywide Threat Assessment Plan nor the Professional Development Plan for School Safety explicitly call for rehearsing the threat assessment protocol in a non-threat situation, which may compromise the responders’ readiness in a threat situation. Response The Threat Assessment protocol has been modified to explicitly call for rehearsing the threat assessment protocol in non-threat situations. Please see pages 4 and 25 of the updated Threat Assessment Protocol (attached).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The COE should mandate rehearsals of the threat assessment process in every school district to improve the schools’ ability to determine the existence of a credible threat before violence actually occurs. (F4)
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County Sheriff’s Office and the County Office of Education have worked collaboratively to update policies and procedures. While the Sheriff’s Office cannot mandate the adoption of policy by the school districts, these policies have been shared with school districts county-wide for them to modify/adopt as they need. The Sheriff’s Office, in cooperation with our law enforcement partners, offer site-specific training to schools throughout the county on threat response. The Office of Education has scheduled School Threat Assessment training for COE staff and School Districts in early May. We continue to meet quarterly as part of an expanded School Safety task force, with law enforcement agencies, school districts and now, fire agencies from throughout the county to facilitate on-going relationships, cross- training and pre-planning activities for response to school safety issues, including the threat of school violence. We have already seen these procedures in practice with several reported incidents of threats of school violence. The checklists were followed and appropriate staff involved from both law enforcement and school districts, resulting in successful resolutions. 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 19 Respond by June 11, 2018 Penal Code §933.05 1. For Purposes of subdivision (b) of §933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: a. the respondent agrees with the finding, b. the respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. 2. For purpose of subdivision (b) of §933, as to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person shall report one of the following actions: a. the recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action, b. the recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation, c. the recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report, or d. the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 3. However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a County department headed by an elected officer, both the department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her department. 4. A Grand Jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the Grand Jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the
R3:
However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a County department headed by an elected officer, both the department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her department.
R4:
A Grand Jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the Grand Jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the
R5:
During an investigation, the Grand Jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding that investigation unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the Grand Jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
R6:
A Grand Jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the Grand Jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. May 4, 2018 Re: County Office of Education Response to 2017-18 Grand Jury Report The County Office of Education has carefully reviewed and considered the Findings and Recommendations set forth in the “2017-18 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report, Threat Assessment in Our Public Schools.” This letter shall serve as the official response of the Santa Cruz County Superintendent of Schools and the Santa Cruz County Office of Education (collectively, the “COE”) to the Findings and Recommendations of the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury (“Grand Jury”). The County Office of Education and our partners in Law Enforcement, hold student and staff safety as our highest priority. We have been meeting actively since August 2017 with all local school Superintendents and Chiefs of Police, forming a committee we refer to as the School Safety Partnership, to coordinate the development and implementation of a Countywide Threat Assessment Plan for Schools as recommended by the Grand Jury Report. This collaboration between school and law enforcement leaders resulted in a countywide plan that addresses the
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
As promised in their responses to the 2016-17 Grand Jury report, the COE and CSO collaborated with local law enforcement agencies to produce a thorough and well-written Countywide Threat Assessment Plan.
F2:
The Plan’s detailed flow chart, assessment protocol, and related documents will be valuable resources for school districts to use in threat situations.
F3:
The Santa Cruz County Professional Development Plan for School Safety demonstrates the COE and CSO’s commitment to adequately preparing school staff and local law enforcement to respond to future threats in our schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. (F3, F4)
F4:
Neither the Countywide Threat Assessment Plan nor the Professional Development Plan for School Safety explicitly call for rehearsing the threat assessment protocol in a non-threat situation, which may compromise the responders’ readiness in a threat situation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. (F3, F4)
R2:
The COE should mandate rehearsals of the threat assessment process in every school district to improve the schools’ ability to determine the existence of a credible threat before violence actually occurs. (F4)
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
Required responses to the Findings and Recommendations for the 2016-17 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Report “Assessing the Threat of Violence in our Public Schools–Is enough being done?” 2017. Accessed January 31, 2018. http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2017_final/SchoolTh reatAssessment_Superintendent_Response.pdf and http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2017_final/SchoolTh reatAssessment_Sheriff_Response.pdf
R4:
Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/
R5:
Valerie Strauss. “Active-shooter drills for preschoolers: ‘This is who we are now’.” The Washington Post. Accessed February 22, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/02/16/active-shooter -drills-for-preschoolers-this-is-who-we-are-now/?utm_term=.fe279861731f
R6:
GuideOne Insurance. “Lockdown Procedures for Schools.” Accessed February 22,