Santa Cruz County 2018-2019 - California Grand Jury Reports

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 (21)

📋Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Pajaro River Mouth in Watsonville the Reports Honoring Commitments to the Public Our

146 pages 12 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: Government agencies made all required responses to the 2018–2019 reports within the requested time frame.

Page 19

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: By December 31, 2022, local water districts should jointly publish an integrated drought-resilience action plan that includes essential infrastructure improvements, estimated costs and schedule to complete improvements that will deliver drought resilience to the Mid-County Groundwater Basin, the City of Santa Cruz, and the Santa Margarita Basin by December 31, 2029. Agencies to respond are the San Lorenzo Water District, the Scotts Valley Water District, the City of Santa Cruz Water Department, the Soquel Creek Water District, the Santa Margarita Groundwater Management Agency, and the Mid-County Groundwater Management Agency. (F1–F6, F8–F10, F12) Our Water Account Is Overdrawn Published May 24, 2022 2021–2022 Consolidated Final Report 41

R3: By December 31, 2022, local water districts should jointly publish an integrated recycled wastewater action plan that specifies the infrastructure improvements, expected costs, and construction schedule that will fully utilize existing wastewater sources by December 31, 2026. Responding agencies are the Scotts Valley Water District, the City of Santa Cruz Water Department, the Soquel Creek Water District, the Central Water District, the Mid-County Groundwater Management Agency, the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, and the City of Watsonville Water Division. (F1, F6–F9, F12)

F2: The Santa Cruz Public Library system has honored the commitments it made to the Grand Jury’s 2018–2019 report, Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries.

Page 19

Related Recommendations (1)

F3: Santa Cruz County honored the commitments it made to the Grand Jury’s 2018–2019 report, Santa Cruz County Probation—Officers Inadequately Equipped and At Risk.

Page 19

Related Recommendations (1)

F4: Santa Cruz County honored the commitments it made to the Grand Jury’s 2018–2019 report, Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts—How Complex Contracts Misled County Leaders, that related to revisions to the County’s contract policies. Honoring Commitments Published May 17, 2022 14 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury

Page 19

Related Recommendations (1)

F5: Santa Cruz County considered the Conflict Attorneys’ use of the County’s Watsonville office space, as committed in its response to the Grand Jury’s 2018–2019 report Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts—How Complex Contracts Misled County Leaders, but has deferred action to the next round of contract renewal.

Page 20

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: The CAO should enter into a written agreement with private attorneys using County office space outlining the basic understanding of the attorneys’ use of this space. (F5, F6) Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By Santa Cruz County 90 Days

R5: If the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors has formally established budget priorities for an upcoming revenue measure, the County Counsel’s impartial analysis should state this fact and note that the Board’s budget priorities are subject to change. (F5)

F6: The County’s failure to address the Conflict Attorneys’ use of free office space means the value of this benefit may not be apparent to the Auditor and reported to appropriate tax officials, and there is no binding obligation on how the Conflict Attorneys may use this space.

Page 20

Related Recommendations (4)

R4: The County Counsel’s impartial analysis of a revenue measure should explain how all aspects of the ballot measure will operate, including provisions for an annual audit or independent citizens oversight. (F6)

F7: Several invited responses to the 2018–2019 reports were not made, most notably from the Santa Cruz County Counsel’s Office with regards to the report on the County’s Public Defense Contracts.

Page 20

Related Recommendations (3)

R6: By January 1, 2023, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should require that the County Administrative Office use its financial and budget tracking tools to provide more detail on the planned and actual use of Measure G funds than is shown in the Measure G Financial Summary of the County’s Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2021–22. (F7)

R7: By January 1, 2023, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should appoint a citizens oversight committee to oversee, review, and advise the Board on a more detailed Measure G report, showing Measure G revenues and expenditures as described in Finding 7 on a periodic basis (semiannually or quarterly). (F7, F8, F9) Commendation C1. The Grand Jury commends the County Administrative Office staff for its work in presenting the challenges of—and possible solutions to—the County’s persistent structural deficit. Words Matter—Did Measure G Mislead Voters? published June 20, 2022 76 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By Santa Cruz County F1, F2, F3, F7, F8, 90 Days

F8: Each agency described in this report communicates well with neighboring agencies, but collaboration is limited and narrow in scope.

Page 46

Related Recommendations (3)

F9: Agency communications to the public emphasize conservation and sustainability while downplaying agency planning to achieve drought resilience.

Page 46

Related Recommendations (3)

F10: The individual water supply districts lack funding, resources, and charters to develop county-centric drought-resilience infrastructure.

Page 46

Related Recommendations (1)

F11: The Groundwater Sustainability Management agencies lack the charters, staff, and resources to plan or execute a county-wide drought-resilience strategy.

Page 46

F12: There is no county-level agency chartered to plan, propose, or build regional district-spanning drought-resilience infrastructure.

Page 46

Related Recommendations (2)

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R9: in the Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Report, p. 22. Accessed February 2, 2022. https://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2019_final/CAO %20Response.pdf#page=23 17. Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer. September 25, 2019. Response to

Page 22

R11: in the Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Report, p. 23. Accessed February 2, 2022. https://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2019_final/CAO %20Response.pdf#page=24 18. Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer. September 25, 2019. Response to

Page 22

R20: in the Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Report, p. 32. Accessed February 2, 2022. https://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2019_final/CAO %20Response.pdf#page=33 19. Jessica York. September 18, 2021. “Santa Cruz County hires local attorney as new Public Defender,” Santa Cruz Sentinel. Accessed February 2, 2022. https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2021/09/18/santa-cruz-county-hires-local-atto rney-as-new-public-defender/ 20. Confidential Grand Jury document. 21. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. January 14, 2020. County Policy and Procedures Manual, Title V. Section 400. https://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us//personnel/vpolandproc/ProceduresManu al/PM5400.pdf 22. Confidential Grand Jury document. 23. Internal Grand Jury documents. Honoring Commitments Published May 17, 2022 2021–2022 Consolidated Final Report 17 Appendix A—Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Response Packet Instructions for 2018–2019[23] Instructions for Individual Respondents: Instructions for Respondents California law PC §933.05 (included below) requires the respondent to a Grand Jury report to comment on each finding and recommendation within a report. Explanations for disagreements and timeframes for further implementation or analysis must be provided. Please follow the format below when preparing the responses. Response Format 1. For the Findings included in this Response Packet, select one of the following responses and provide the required additional information: a. AGREE with the Finding, or b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding and specify the portion of the

Page 22

📋September 25, 2019 — 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 179 10/8/2019 scgrandjury.org Mail - Grand Jury Report Responses Grand

14 pages 5 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Deputy Probation Officers’ (DPOs’) lack of safety equipment impedes their ability to do their assigned field visits without jeopardizing their own safety. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Sworn staff are equipped with duty belts, gloves, search kits, body armor, identifiable clothing, badges, flashlights, radios, radio holders, handcuffs and holder, equipment bags, duty shirts and pepper spray. Additionally, DPO staff are provided annual safety training at a minimum of 16 hours per FY. As of July 2019, Narcan kits are available for checkout. The Probation department is in the process of seeking grant opportunities to supply Narcan to individual staff. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury

Page 183

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Department should provide Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) with standardized safety gear (individually fitted vests, functioning radios, tasers, OC spray, identifiable clothing, and Narcan™) for their field visits. (F1) 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: Sworn staff are equipped with duty belts, gloves, search kits, body armor, identifiable clothing, badges, flashlights, radios, radio holders, handcuffs and holder, equipment bags, duty shirts and pepper spray. Tasers will be implemented in 2019 provided all materials are available from the manufacturer. In FY 19/20, the department will be ordering individually fitted vests over time and as fiscally allowable. Narcan is available for checkout as of July 2019. 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 189

F2: The Department collects and stores, but does not track serious incident reports involving DPOs with offenders. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Probation Department follows a process whereby Incident Reports (IR) are received and reviewed by a Manager; collected and scanned by the Chief’s Administrative Assistant and placed in a shared electronic folder. Prior to each Safety Committee meeting, all participants from the Probation Officers Association (POA) and Management team have access to review said IRs. The POA participants have an opportunity to decide which IRs are worthy of discussion and review during the meeting, as well as any needed follow up. As a result of these meetings, the IR form has been enhanced to include more detailed areas for follow up and debriefing when needed (with a Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threats - SWOT analysis model noted for consistency in response). 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 185

Page 184

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Department should commission a needs assessment by an independent consultant to ascertain the potential harm to unarmed officers doing field work with high-risk offenders, with a focus on developing an armed unit. (F2, F5) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County Administrative Office is not aware of any research that supports the claim that arming probation officers increases safety. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury 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

F3: The Department meets the minimum state requirements for annual DPO training, but does not provide sufficient safety training for DPOs in the field. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Probation Department offers ongoing safety training and since August 2018, has had an active Field Training Pilot program that is facilitated by DPO II/IIIs who have completed the POST certified Field Training Officers (FTO) Program. The FTO training hours are in addition to the STC certified CORE Probation Training at a mandated minimum of 190 hours - with significant portions focused on field safety/field readiness), and PC 832 Laws of Arrest training (40 hours) required by all new DPOs within their first year. Although the Probation Department is required to provide no less than 16 hours of safety related training per the MOU, for the past three fiscal years between 28 – 42 hours of safety related training has been offered (including 4 hours each of CPR/FIRST AID). Multiple trainings are offered repeatedly throughout the year to allow staff the opportunity to attend more than once for additional exposure if desired (for example: defensive tactics / weaponless defensive tactics). 28 hours FY18/19 (in addition to the FTO program) 42 hours FY17/18 32 hours FY16/17 186 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury

Page 185

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Department should provide all DPOs with mandatory initial and ongoing field safety training in collaboration with the Safety Committee. (F3) 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: In August 2018, the Probation Department implemented a Pilot Field Training Program with DPO II/III staff trained as Field Training Officers. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury

F4: Law enforcement is not always available to accompany DPOs in high-risk situations, resulting in fewer contact visits by DPOs. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Law enforcement officers are always available to assist probation officers with high-risk work, but there may be significant wait times based on other public safety priorities. 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 187

Page 186

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Department should coordinate with local law enforcement to develop policies and procedures for law enforcement officers to accompany DPOs during field visits. (F4) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done X 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 Sheriff and Chief Probation Officer have agreed to assign a full-time deputy to the Probation Department to assist probation officers with higher-risk assignments including searches, arrests, transportation and other work prioritized by the Probation Department. The County Board of Supervisors approved funding for one additional deputy for this purpose for the 2019-2020 fiscal year budget. The Sheriff and Chief Probation Officer will work together toward implementation. The assigned deputy is scheduled to start with the Probation Department in September 2019. 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 191

F5: The failure of the Department to include an armed unit supporting DPOs increases safety risks to DPOs in the field. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Probation Officers have the ability to coordinate community contacts in the field with law enforcement partners who are trained first responders and able to address any issue that may arise. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury

Page 187

Related Recommendations (1)

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

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.

Page 184

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.

Page 185

📋September 25, 2019 — 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 335 10/22/2019 scgrandjury.org Mail - Grand Jury Report Responses

42 pages 11 findings 26 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: The County Administrative Office lacks the resources necessary to be the sole administrator of major contracts such as the public defense contracts. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County Administrative Office (CAO) has the resources appropriate for a department its size. This includes the ability to administer the 58 contracts that the CAO oversaw in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19. In administering the public defense contracts, the CAO accounts for quality of service and stakeholder requirements using data and other resources available to the office. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 339 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

Page 338

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should within the next 60 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to transfer responsibility for initiating and administering any major contract for delivery of services to County residents to a department or comparable organizational unit with the human resources to actively manage the contract. (F1) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The CAO will continue to have responsibility for initiating and administering contracts within the office’s responsibilities, including public defense services. Respond by September 25, 2019 350 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

F2: Negotiating multi-year, fixed price contracts for public defender services without anticipating the possibility of falling caseloads has cost the County several millions of dollars and created a windfall for public defense contractors. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Negotiating multi-year, fixed price contracts allows for fiscal predictability while maintaining above adequate services for the County’s indigent clients. While caseloads could be one potential factor in compensation, it is not the only variable that drives cost of service. Other factors have to be considered in assessing a complex service system such as hours per case, the increase in specialty court assignments, the increase in use of digital evidence, and changes to the State and local criminal justice system. Simply because caseloads have decreased slightly, it does not follow that the public defense contracts could have been cheaper. Respond by September 25, 2019 340 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

Page 339

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Board of Supervisors should condition approval of any future proposal to pay a public defense contractor additional compensation, whether because a case involves special circumstances or otherwise, upon the presentation of evidence demonstrating that in the absence of additional compensation, the total compensation paid to the contractor would be inadequate. (F2) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: In order for special circumstances to be awarded there is an established process: “The Public Defender shall petition the Court making the appointment for a determination as to the existence of extraordinary circumstances. Specific authorization for extraordinary compensation or expenses by the Court shall be presented and approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to the expenditure of funds. Extraordinary compensation shall be billed at a rate authorized by the Superior Court for 4th party appointments.” Additional compensation for special circumstances cases are approved at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 351 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

F3: No one person or department within County government knows exactly how much total compensation the County pays to the public defense contractors, because payment records commingle some fee payments with cost reimbursements. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Payment records in the County financial system can be sorted by vendor. The County’s financial system, ONESolution, can provide reports on how much was paid to any one person, company or legal entity. Payment history is maintained electronically going back to 1998. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 341 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

Page 340

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: In the interest of transparency, the County Administrative Officer and the Auditor-Controller should work with Lawrence Biggam, the Watsonville landlord, and the Watsonville janitorial and utility providers to implement within the next six months an arrangement by which the County pays Mr. Biggam the amounts due to the Watsonville vendors and Mr. Biggam pays the Watsonville vendors. (F3) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The leased space across from the Watsonville courthouse provides valuable access for County staff to both the courthouse and the Watsonville City Hall. Currently, the County allocates that space to the Public Defender. In the future, that space could be used by any number of County agencies as the County looks to provide more services in south county. The Auditor-Controller will review these payments to determine the correct IRS year-end reporting. Respond by September 25, 2019 352 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

F4: The County’s portrayal of its public defense services is not transparent. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): This finding stems from the Grand Jury’s claim that, “Allowing Mr. Biggam to appear to be the Public Defender makes his contract and County government less transparent.” Mr. Biggam’s firm has held the County contract for public defense services for over 30 years. Every year the County publishes, and has a hearing for, the budget that supports the entire public defense system of the County, including the contract for main public defense services. Additionally, the contract and all subsequent extensions and amendments were approved by the Board. As the Grand Jury report states, we agree that Mr. Biggam’s status leads to no specific harm or confusion by clients or the public. The Grand Jury claims that a 1978 memo from County counsel proves that Mr. Biggam is not the Public Defender. The scope of the memo speaks only to the firm’s ability to provide services outside Santa Cruz County, and says nothing as to whether Mr. Biggam is, or is not, the Public Defender. Respond by September 25, 2019 342 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

Page 341

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: In the interest of transparency, the Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a document directing County staff (a) to use the term “public defense” instead of “public defender” to refer to the services that private defense contractors and Criminal Defense Conflict Program panel attorneys provide, (b) to refrain from referring to a public defense contractor or any member of their staff as a public defender, deputy public defender, or other “defender,” and (c) to refer to Budget Unit 59 using a word that the County Administrative Officer has determined does not suggest that Budget Unit 59 is a department. (F4) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: A & B) As the Grand Jury report states, we agree that Mr. Biggam’s status leads to no specific harm or confusion by clients or the public, and that implementing this recommendation would only cause more confusion and obstacles to the County’s organizational review effort currently underway. C) The County does not believe that changing the name of budget unit 59 will add clarifying value. The narrative of the budget clearly explains that the services are contracted. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 353 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R5: The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a request to the County’s public defense contractors and the Criminal Defense Conflict Program panel attorneys, with respect and no suggestion of criticism, to refrain from referring to themselves or any peer as a public defender, deputy public defender, or other “defender.” (F4) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: As the Grand Jury report states, we agree that Mr. Biggam’s status leads to no specific harm or confusion by clients or the public, and that implementing this recommendation would only cause more confusion and obstacles to the County’s organizational review effort currently underway. Respond by September 25, 2019 354 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

F5: The County’s accounting for separate overhead subsidies has for years caused the County to understate the compensation of the County’s public defense contractors in line-item budgets and in reports to the Board of Supervisors. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The budget for the Public Defender includes all costs associated with the required services. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 343 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

Page 342

Related Recommendations (3)

R6: The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a policy that the County will not reimburse contractors for the cost of separate overhead items such as liability insurance, employee health insurance, or office space as one of the County’s obligations to the contractor. (F5, F6) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County will retain the right to negotiate the terms of agreement, including all forms of payment, that provide for critical services to County residents. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 355 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R7: The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a policy that the County will not provide goods or services to contractors in lieu of cash. (F5, F6) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County’s Purchasing Policy Manual Section 1.0 provides for the ethical standards for purchasing activities. Respond by September 25, 2019 356 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R8: The County Administrative Office and the Auditor-Controller should find a way to present the actual cost of the compensation paid to each public defense contractor on the County budget, beginning with the 2019–2020 fiscal year. (F5) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The budget for the Public Defender includes all costs associated with the required services. The Auditor-Controller’s Office has finalized the Budget for FY 2019-20 per instructions approved by the Board at the end of their weeklong public budget hearings held in June 2019. The budget document has been placed on the Board’s agenda to be approved in September 2019. The CAO will consider changes to this format when it presents its next two-year budget in FY 2021-23. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 357 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

F6: The County’s duty to fund public defense services does not require the County to provide public defense contractors with free office space. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Respond by September 25, 2019 344 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

Page 343

Related Recommendations (3)

R9: The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to require, within the next 60 days, the public defense contractors to sign a customary use agreement with the County and, in the case of the alternative public defense contractors, pay reasonable compensation to the County for the use of the space. (F6) 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 X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Within six months, the County will determine if it is necessary to require a customary use agreement for the office space in Watsonville, and study the alternative contractors’ use of the space. Respond by September 25, 2019 358 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

F8: The County’s contract policies and standard forms are not integrated with each other, are difficult to use, are not available to the public, are incomplete, and in some cases are poorly written. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County’s policies and procedures are updated twice per year through an open and transparent Board process, and County staff are regularly trained on contracting policies and standard forms. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 345 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

Page 344

Related Recommendations (15)

R11: The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12) 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 X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Board approves changes to the County’s policies and procedures twice per year. The CAO will evaluate the specific recommendations contained in the report, and make any necessary changes by the end of FY 2019-20. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 359 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R12: The Policies and Procedures Manual should include a statement identifying the policies and procedures that have been promulgated by the authority of the Board of Supervisors, citing the source of the authority for the Board of Supervisors to adopt the policies and procedures, and describing in reasonable detail the procedure for amending or revising the policies and procedures. (F8) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done X 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: This statement will be added in the December update to the policies and procedures manual. Respond by September 25, 2019 360 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R13: The County should present the online version of the Policies and Procedures Manual in a manner comparable to the online version of the County Code. (F8) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: County Code is an important public resource, and therefore exists on the internet. The Policies and Procedures Manual is an internal management document for use by County employees. It is available on the County’s intranet to all staff. The County’s policies and procedures are updated twice per year through an open and transparent Board process, and County staff are regularly trained on contracting policies and standard forms. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 361 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R14: The Policies and Procedures Manual should include a “readability policy” (i.e., a statement that County policies and contracts should be understandable by the County employees who can reasonably be expected to have to use or understand them) to appear at the beginning of the Policies and Procedures Manual and apply to each Title of the Policies and Procedures Manual. (F8) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Standard practice for the Policies and Procedures Manual should include consistent numbering, clear indexing and headings to facilitate user access. County departments are expected to train their staff to work effectively with County policies and procedures that pertain to job duties. Semi-Annual modifications of the Manual allow County Management the opportunity to make changes as needed. Respond by September 25, 2019 362 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R15: A County readability policy should include a requirement to the effect that (a) each paragraph of a policy or contract must have a unique reference number, (b) each paragraph of a policy or contract must have a descriptive heading, (c) each paragraph of a policy or contract should address only one idea, (d) any requirement of a policy or contract to do something must identify a party or person as being responsible for doing the thing, and (e) the organization of any policy or contract should be predictable. (F8) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County Board of Supervisors approves changes to the Policies and Procedures Manual twice per year. The CAO will review any related recommended changes and determine if they can be implemented in the sections the CAO has authority over, either as part of the December 2019 or June 2020 update. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 363 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R16: The County Administrative Office and the Auditor-Controller should work with the Purchasing Agent and County Counsel to rewrite the provisions of Policies and Procedures Manual Title I Section 300 in accordance with a County readability policy and move the provisions into an appropriate place or places in the Policies and Procedures Manual Title III Section 100. (F8) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County Board of Supervisors approves changes to the Policies and Procedures Manual twice per year. The CAO will review any related recommended changes and determine if they can be implemented in the sections the CAO has authority over, either as part of the December 2019 or June 2020 update. Respond by September 25, 2019 364 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R17: The County Administrative Office should work with the Purchasing Agent and County Counsel to integrate the Policies and Procedures Manual with the County’s contract templates, including department-specific templates. (F8) 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 has a standard Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA). Department deviations from this standard are reviewed by the Risk Manager and County Counsel, and approved by the Board. The County maintains extensive contracting and purchasing rules that are updated and adapted frequently to changing circumstances. Department staff are trained on County policies and changes to those policies, and retain subject-matter expertise in their field to ensure that County contracts are reasonably negotiated. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 365 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R18: The County Administrative Office should work with the Purchasing Agent and County Counsel to ensure that the County’s contract templates and contract rules are consistent with each other. (F8) 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 has a standard Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA). Department deviations from this standard are reviewed by the Risk Manager and County Counsel, and approved by the Board. The County maintains extensive contracting and purchasing rules that are updated and adapted frequently to changing circumstances. Department staff are trained on County policies and changes to those policies, and retain subject-matter expertise in their field to ensure that County contracts are reasonably negotiated. Respond by September 25, 2019 366 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R19: The County Administrative Office should work with the Purchasing Agent and County Counsel to include in the Policies and Procedures Manual a section that contains most of the County’s rules concerning the form and substance of a contract and that identifies the locations of any additional rules concerning the form and substance of a contract. (F8) 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: Title I, Section 300 of the Policies and Procedures Manual contains this information. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 367 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R20: The County’s contract rules should identify, or have a procedure for identifying, an individual who, with respect to each contract, will be responsible for ensuring that the County’s contract rules are followed. (F8) 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: Department heads are responsible for ensuring compliance with County contracting rules, and vendor compliance to the contract. The contract system has the capability to name a contract manager, and it is up to the department head to utilize that field to delegate responsibility. Respond by September 25, 2019 368 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R21: The County’s contract rules should (a) provide for a checklist of the County’s rules concerning the form and substance of a contract, which should remain in the contract’s electronic file, on which the person responsible for the contract, with respect to each such rule, certifies that the contract complies, states that the rule is inapplicable with an explanation why, or explains how the contract does not comply and why and (b) require the CAO Analyst to confirm that the checklist is complete, that any exceptions are appropriate, and that the reasons for any exceptions are sufficiently documented. (F8) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County has a standard Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA). Department deviations from this standard are reviewed by the Risk Manager and County Counsel, and approved by the Board. County Counsel approves County contracts as to form. The contract substance cannot reasonably be standardized due to the wide variety of contracts that are managed by County departments. The County maintains extensive contracting and purchasing rules that are updated and adapted frequently to changing circumstances. Department staff are trained on County policies and changes to those policies, and retain subject-matter expertise in their field to ensure that County contracts are reasonably negotiated. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 369 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R22: The County’s contract rules should include a policy (a price justification policy) that (a) applies to appropriations above an amount to be specified in the price justification policy (e.g., more than $300,000), (b) defines acceptable ways to evaluate cost, (c) requires that, when a contract is forwarded to the CAO Analyst, the department also submit a memo demonstrating that using one of the acceptable ways to evaluate cost establishes that the cost is justified, and (d) if possible, records the CAO Analyst’s acceptance of the cost justification memo on the SCZCM1000 Report. (F8) 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 maintains extensive and specific guidelines on price and necessary approvals, which are available to all County staff. Any contract over $100,000 requires a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) process approved by the Board. For most services, anything over $5,000 usually requires at least three quotes and a written justification for the selection of the vendor. Respond by September 25, 2019 370 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R23: The County’s contract rules should require that, for each service contract, the appropriate department has a written plan for measuring the performance of the contract that includes, as appropriate (a) one or more reports that the contractor will submit to the County, (b) other ways that the County will measure performance, (c) a description of how the department will analyze the performance data, and (d) a description of how the department will use the analysis. (F8) 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 has been moving towards outcome-based contracting. This is already prevalent in the County’s CORE, Human Services, Health Services, and Probation department contracts. Although this form of contracting is not appropriate for every contract type, the County agrees that outcomes should form the basis of most service agreements. The County is working to bring this form of contracting, where appropriate, to other County departments. The County also recently adopted a two-year operational plan and budget, and is currently engaged in performance measurement and program budgeting, which will bring more performance data to County programs and contracts. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 371 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

R25: The duties of the Clerk of the Board with respect to contracts should include, in addition to verifying that all required signatures are present, confirming that the agreement is properly dated, that each page is numbered, and that there are no blank spaces in the document (other than for initials). (F8) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Clerk of the Board will not have expanded responsibility in regards to contracts. County departments are responsible for ensuring that contracts are properly formatted, and guidance will be provided to departments through trainings and updates to the Policies and Procedures Manual. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 373 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

F9: The County’s public defense contracts violated written County policies without consequences. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The primary Public Defender contract was originally written many years ago. Over the years, the County policies have changed, and although the contract has been revised there may be elements of updated contract requirements that are not included. However, no County policies were violated. The County does have a standard Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) that is the preferred medium for professional service agreements. When contracts deviate from this standard, the contract is reviewed by the County Risk Manager and County Counsel, and approved by the Board. Multi-year contracts such as the ones for public defense services are approved annually on the Continuing Agreements List (CAL). The County retains the right to enter into various types of agreements with vendors that provide the desired services. Respond by September 25, 2019 346 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

Page 345

Related Recommendations (1)

F10: Standard forms are an excellent way to implement some County policies, but they must be used to be effective. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 347 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

Page 346

Related Recommendations (1)

F11: County leaders misinterpret the meaning of County Counsel’s approval of a contract “as to form.” AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): County leaders understand that County Counsel is not providing legal advice on a contract when it is “Approved as to form”. Respond by September 25, 2019 348 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

Page 347

Related Recommendations (2)

R26: The County should change County Counsel’s certification on a contract from “Approved as to Form” to a phrase that is less likely to mislead anyone about the function of County Counsel, such as “County Counsel has advised the initiating department with respect to this Agreement.” (F11) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: “Approved as to Form” is an industry standard, and the County does not believe that the current language misleads staff as to the function of County Counsel. Respond by September 25, 2019 374 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

F12: The County lost potentially valuable information when the County destroyed copies of contracts with, and reports submitted by, the public defense contractors. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Auditor-Controller’s Office complies with Accounting Standards & Procedures for Counties record retention policies as issued by the State Controller. There is a potential benefit to permanently keeping all forms of documentation the County produces, however, the risk-benefit analysis performed at the State level provides the Auditor-Controller with guidance for record retention. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 349 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer

Page 348

Related Recommendations (2)

R27: The County’s contract rules should require the County to retain all records pertaining to the services of a contractor until such time as the County’s record retention policies permit the destruction of all of the records. (F12) 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 retains all records pursuant to State law and State Controller guidelines. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 375 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer 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

📋September 25, 2019 — 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 311 10/22/2019 scgrandjury.org Mail - Acttc response to 2019 grand

24 pages 10 findings 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F3: i e n . s x d p i o n N m b r n D A P e g e s o A I G u i S m c s e c R o R a A h b e n u T E G u x e t s I E o r A p e R s p t l L a e E a e p l L m a n r E c s Y y a e o o – m t n m D n i o e t e I s p o S x n n . e r p t A ( n d l r r a G s e e e i a n c q p R t o u a i E w o r i r r d E t n h e m s y d t – e h c f n e e o o t m x r C p w a m o l i a t u r i h i n e n n i g s n t t y p l h e C o p e o s n a d o u s y i m e n s s t p e o y to u t f h g t e t e o e h e d v r e e p t p h p r a o n a u y r m n b t m i l o e A i e c n n g n d t t r e s k e f n e w e o ) n i : w t s h s e c e c o x o s a n t c tr t a ly c t h o o r w s, The Auditor-Controller’s Office processes payments for all claims against the County. As such, the County’s financial system, ONESolution, can provide reports on how much was paid to any one person, company or legal entity. Payment history is maintained electronically going back to 1998. ddd Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 315 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

Page 314

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: In the interest of transparency, the County Administrative Officer and the Auditor-Controller should work with Lawrence Biggam, the Watsonville landlord, and the Watsonville janitorial and utility providers to implement within the next six months an arrangement by which the County pays Mr. Biggam the amounts due to the Watsonville vendors and Mr. Biggam pays the Watsonville vendors. (F3) 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) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Auditor-Controller does not determine with whom the County enters into contracts, however, the Auditor-Controller’s Office will review these related vendor payments to determine the correct IRS year-end reporting. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 325 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

F4: The County’s portrayal of its public defense services is not transparent. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X x DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The public defense services contracts are very complex, and some have been in place for many years. However, the terms of the contracts are stated, understandable, and accessible. Respond by September 25, 2019 316 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

Page 315

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The. In the interest of transparency, the Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a document directing County staff (a) to use the term “public defense” instead of “public defender” to refer to the services that private defense contractors and Criminal Defense Conflict Program panel attorneys provide, (b) to refrain from referring to a public defense contractor or any member of their staff as a public defender, deputy public defender, or other “defender,” and (c) to refer to Budget Unit 59 using a word that the County Administrative Officer has determined does not suggest that Budget Unit 59 is a department. (F4) 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) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Auditor-Controller does not interact with vendors based upon their commonly used title, instead, payments and tax documents are issued using the legal names of vendors. Respond by September 25, 2019 326 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

F5: +.Bene The County’s accounting for separate overhead subsidies has for years caused the County to understate the compensation of the County’s public defense contractors in line-item budgets and in reports to the Board of Supervisors. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion x DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The published budget documents for the Public Defense contractors includes all costs associated with the required service. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 317 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

Page 316

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The County Administrative Office and the Auditor-Controller should find a way to present the actual cost of the compensation paid to each public defense contractor on the County budget, beginning with the 2019–2020 fiscal year. (F5) 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) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Auditor-Controller’s Office has finalized the Budget for 2019-20 per instructions approved by the Board at the end of their weeklong public budget hearings held in June 2019. The budget document has been placed on the Board’s agenda to be approved in September 2019. This layout change can be considered for the 2020-21 budget if the County Administrative Office requests the Auditor-Controller to do so, and if the Board approves the modification during the next year’s budget hearings. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 327 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

F6: The County’s duty to fund public defense services does not require the County to provide public defense contractors with free office space. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Respond by September 25, 2019 318 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

Page 317

F7: When the County provides free office space to a contractor, the Controller’s Office does not know to ask whether the cost of the office space should be included in the contractor’s compensation for tax purposes. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion x DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County rents various facilities throughout the County for which the Auditor- Controller’s Office makes the lease payments. The Auditor-Controller did not have a process in place to review each of these leases to determine if any IRS fringe benefit rules would apply for the person or party using the leased space. Such a process will be in place prior to the issuance of 2019 year-end 1099 forms to County vendors. The review process will include seeking legal assistance to review the IRS Fringe Benefit Exclusions instructions to determine if these areas are included or not and what retroactive reporting to the IRS will be required. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 319 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

Page 318

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The Auditor-Controller should within the next 60 days take such steps as are appropriate to ensure that the County is reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the provision of office space, utilities, and janitorial services in Watsonville to the public defense contractors, as the law requires. (F7) 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 x 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 rents various facilities throughout the County for which the Auditor- Controller’s Office makes the lease payments. The Auditor-Controller’s Office did not have a process in place to review each of these leases to determine if any IRS Fringe Benefit rules would apply for the person or party using the leased space. A process will be in place prior to the issuance of 2019 year-end 1099 forms to County vendors to include any amounts determined to be IRS reportable Fringe Benefits for rents, utilities, and janitorial services. The review will include seeking legal assistance to review the IRS Fringe Benefit Exclusions to determine if these areas are included or not and what retroactive reporting to the IRS will be required. Respond by September 25, 2019 328 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

F8: The County’s contract policies and standard forms are not integrated with each other, are difficult to use, are not available to the public, are incomplete, and in some cases are poorly written. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County’s standard forms are not integrated in that they are not always reproduced or referenced by form number within the Contract section of the County Policy and Procedures Manual. These Policies and Procedures are updated twice per year through an open and transparent Board of Supervisor’s process. Incomplete or poorly written documentation can be reviewed and re-written semi-annually as requested by users. Respond by September 25, 2019 320 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

Page 319

Related Recommendations (5)

R11: The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12) 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 x 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 Board of Supervisors approves changes to the County’s Policy and Procedures twice per year via a public hearing. The Auditor-Controller will review any related recommended changes and determine if they can be implemented either as part of the December 2019 or June 2020 update. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 329 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

R14: The Policies and Procedures Manual should include a “readability policy” (i.e., a statement that County policies and contracts should be understandable by the County employees who can reasonably be expected to have to use or understand them) to appear at the beginning of the Policies and Procedures Manual and apply to each Title of the Policies and Procedures Manual. (F8) 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) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Standard practice for this Manual should include consistent numbering, clear indexing and headings to facilitate user access. County departments are expected to train their staff to work effectively with County Policies and Procedures that pertain to job duties. Semi-Annual modifications of the Manual allow County Management the opportunity to make changes as needed. Respond by September 25, 2019 330 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

R15: A County readability policy should include a requirement to the effect that (a) each paragraph of a policy or contract must have a unique reference number, (b) each paragraph of a policy or contract must have a descriptive heading, (c) each paragraph of a policy or contract should address only one idea, (d) any requirement of a policy or contract to do something must identify a party or person as being responsible for doing the thing, and (e) the organization of any policy or contract should be predictable. (F8) 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 x 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 Board of Supervisors approves changes to the County’s Policy and Procedures twice per year. The Auditor-Controller will review any related recommended changes and determine if they can be implemented in the sections the Auditor-Controller has authority over, either as part of the December 2019 or June 2020 update. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 331 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

R16: The County Administrative Office and the Auditor-Controller should work with the Purchasing Agent and County Counsel to rewrite the provisions of Policies and Procedures Manual Title I Section 300 in accordance with a County readability policy and move the provisions into an appropriate place or places in the Policies and Procedures Manual Title III Section 100. (F8) 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 x 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 Board of Supervisors approves changes to the County’s Policy and Procedures twice per year. The Auditor-Controller will review any related recommended changes and determine if they will be implemented in the sections the Auditor-Controller has authority over, either as part of the December 2019 or June 2020 update. Respond by September 25, 2019 332 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

R24: The County’s contract rules should require that, with respect to any contract that provides for payments for different purposes, the department work with the Controller’s Office, at the time of contract initiation and each amendment or renewal, to agree upon a set of code phrases to distinguish one payment from the other, require the contractor to identify the appropriate code phrase on the contractor’s invoices, and instruct the Controller’s staff to include the appropriate code phrase in the description of the payment. (F8) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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 Auditor-Controller agrees with the importance of setting up distinguishing identifiers in the form of object codes or project codes prior to issuing a contract’s first payment. However, the responsibility for coding should lie with the department submitting the invoice, not the contractor. Contractors should not be relied upon to interpret our internal account coding. We will work with the departments to establish a more standardized description format and will implement changes as possible throughout the 2019-20 year, and fully in the 2020-21 year. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 333 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller 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

F9: The County’s public defense contracts violated written County policies without consequences. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The primary public defense contract was originally written many years ago. Over the years, the County policies have changed. Although the contract has been revised several times, there may be elements of these updated contract requirements that are not included in this older contract. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 321 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

Page 320

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12) 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 x 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 Board of Supervisors approves changes to the County’s Policy and Procedures twice per year via a public hearing. The Auditor-Controller will review any related recommended changes and determine if they can be implemented either as part of the December 2019 or June 2020 update. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 329 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

F10: Standard forms are an excellent way to implement some County policies, but they must be used to be effective. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Respond by September 25, 2019 322 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

Page 321

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12) 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 x 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 Board of Supervisors approves changes to the County’s Policy and Procedures twice per year via a public hearing. The Auditor-Controller will review any related recommended changes and determine if they can be implemented either as part of the December 2019 or June 2020 update. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 329 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

F11: County leaders misinterpret the meaning of County Counsel’s approval of a contract “as to form.” AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion x DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): It is expected professional practice that County Managers approving the contracts understand “as to form” does not mean anything besides “as to form.” Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 323 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

Page 322

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12) 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 x 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 Board of Supervisors approves changes to the County’s Policy and Procedures twice per year via a public hearing. The Auditor-Controller will review any related recommended changes and determine if they can be implemented either as part of the December 2019 or June 2020 update. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 329 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

F12: The County lost potentially valuable information when the County destroyed copies of contracts with, and reports submitted by, the public defense contractors. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Auditor-Controller’s Office complies with Accounting Standards & Procedures for Counties record retention policies as issued by the State Controller. There is a potential benefit to permanently keeping all forms of documentation the County produces, however, the risk-benefit analysis performed at the State level provides the Auditor-Controller with guidance for record retention. Respond by September 25, 2019 324 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

Page 323

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12) 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 x 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 Board of Supervisors approves changes to the County’s Policy and Procedures twice per year via a public hearing. The Auditor-Controller will review any related recommended changes and determine if they can be implemented either as part of the December 2019 or June 2020 update. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 329 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Email the completed Response Packet as a file attachment to [email protected], and

Page 311

R2: Print and send a hard copy of the completed Response Packet to The Honorable Judge John Gallagher Santa Cruz Courthouse 701 Ocean St. Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Report Published June 27, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 313 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller Instructions for Respondents California law PC §933.05 (included below) requires the respondent to a Grand Jury report to comment on each finding and recommendation within a report. Explanations for disagreements and timeframes for further implementation or analysis must be provided. Please follow the format below when preparing the responses. Response Format

Page 311

Page 333

📋September 25, 2019 — 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 287

24 pages 12 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: The County Administrative Office lacks the resources necessary to be the sole administrator of major contracts such as the public defense contracts. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County Administrative Office (CAO) has the resources appropriate for a department its size. This includes the ability to administer the 58 contracts that the CAO oversaw in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19. In administering the public defense contracts, the CAO accounts for quality of service and stakeholder requirements using data and other resources available to the office. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 291 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Page 290

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should within the next 60 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to transfer responsibility for initiating and administering any major contract for delivery of services to County residents to a department or comparable organizational unit with the human resources to actively manage the contract. (F1) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The CAO will continue to have responsibility for initiating and administering contracts within the office’s responsibilities, including public defense services. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 303 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

F2: Negotiating multi-year, fixed price contracts for public defender services without anticipating the possibility of falling caseloads has cost the County several millions of dollars and created a windfall for public defense contractors. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Negotiating multi-year, fixed price contracts allows for fiscal predictability while maintaining above adequate services for the County’s indigent clients. While caseloads could be one potential factor in compensation, it is not the only variable that drives cost of service. Other factors have to be considered in assessing a complex service system such as hours per case, the increase in specialty court assignments, the increase in use of digital evidence, and changes to the State and local criminal justice system. Simply because caseloads have decreased slightly, it does not follow that the public defense contracts could have been cheaper. Respond by September 25, 2019 292 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Page 291

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Board of Supervisors should condition approval of any future proposal to pay a public defense contractor additional compensation, whether because a case involves special circumstances or otherwise, upon the presentation of evidence demonstrating that in the absence of additional compensation, the total compensation paid to the contractor would be inadequate. (F2) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: In order for special circumstances to be awarded there is an established process: “The Public Defender shall petition the Court making the appointment for a determination as to the existence of extraordinary circumstances. Specific authorization for extraordinary compensation or expenses by the Court shall be presented and approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to the expenditure of funds. Extraordinary compensation shall be billed at a rate authorized by the Superior Court for 4th party appointments.” Additional compensation for special circumstances cases are approved at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors. Respond by September 25, 2019 304 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

F3: No one person or department within County government knows exactly how much total compensation the County pays to the public defense contractors, because payment records commingle some fee payments with cost reimbursements. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree) Payment records in the County financial system can be sorted by vendor. The County’s financial system, ONESolution, can provide reports on how much was paid to any one person, company or legal entity. Payment history is maintained electronically going back to 1998. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 293 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Page 292

F4: The County’s portrayal of its public defense services is not transparent. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): This finding stems from the Grand Jury’s claim that, “Allowing Mr. Biggam to appear to be the Public Defender makes his contract and County government less transparent.” Mr. Biggam’s firm has held the County contract for public defense services for over 30 years. Every year the County publishes, and has a hearing for, the budget that supports the entire public defense system of the County, including the contract for main public defense services. Additionally, the contract and all subsequent extensions and amendments were approved by the Board. As the Grand Jury report states, we agree that Mr. Biggam’s status leads to no specific harm or confusion by clients or the public. The Grand Jury claims that a 1978 memo from County counsel proves that Mr. Biggam is not the Public Defender. The scope of the memo speaks only to the firm’s ability to provide services outside Santa Cruz County, and says nothing as to whether Mr. Biggam is, or is not, the Public Defender. Respond by September 25, 2019 294 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Page 293

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: In the interest of transparency, the Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a document directing County staff (a) to use the term “public defense” instead of “public defender” to refer to the services that private defense contractors and Criminal Defense Conflict Program panel attorneys provide, (b) to refrain from referring to a public defense contractor or any member of their staff as a public defender, deputy public defender, or other “defender,” and (c) to refer to Budget Unit 59 using a word that the County Administrative Officer has determined does not suggest that Budget Unit 59 is a department. (F4) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: A & B) As the Grand Jury report states, we agree that Mr. Biggam’s status leads to no specific harm or confusion by clients or the public, and that implementing this recommendation would only cause more confusion and obstacles to the County’s organizational review effort currently underway. C) The County does not believe that changing the name of budget unit 59 will add clarifying value. The narrative of the budget clearly explains that the services are contracted. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 305 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

R5: The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a request to the County’s public defense contractors and the Criminal Defense Conflict Program panel attorneys, with respect and no suggestion of criticism, to refrain from referring to themselves or any peer as a public defender, deputy public defender, or other “defender.” (F4) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: As the Grand Jury report states, we agree that Mr. Biggam’s status leads to no specific harm or confusion by clients or the public, and that implementing this recommendation would only cause more confusion and obstacles to the County’s organizational review effort currently underway. Respond by September 25, 2019 306 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

F5: The County’s accounting for separate overhead subsidies has for years caused the County to understate the compensation of the County’s public defense contractors in line-item budgets and in reports to the Board of Supervisors. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The budget for the Public Defender includes all costs associated with the required services. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 295 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Page 294

Related Recommendations (2)

R6: The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a policy that the County will not reimburse contractors for the cost of separate overhead items such as liability insurance, employee health insurance, or office space as one of the County’s obligations to the contractor. (F5, F6) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County will retain the right to negotiate the terms of agreement, including all forms of payment, that provide for critical services to County residents. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 307 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

R7: The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a policy that the County will not provide goods or services to contractors in lieu of cash. (F5, F6) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County’s purchasing policy manual section 1.0 provides for the ethical standards for purchasing activities. Respond by September 25, 2019 308 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

F6: The County’s duty to fund public defense services does not require the County to provide public defense contractors with free office space. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Respond by September 25, 2019 296 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Page 295

Related Recommendations (3)

R6: The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a policy that the County will not reimburse contractors for the cost of separate overhead items such as liability insurance, employee health insurance, or office space as one of the County’s obligations to the contractor. (F5, F6) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County will retain the right to negotiate the terms of agreement, including all forms of payment, that provide for critical services to County residents. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 307 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

R7: The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a policy that the County will not provide goods or services to contractors in lieu of cash. (F5, F6) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County’s purchasing policy manual section 1.0 provides for the ethical standards for purchasing activities. Respond by September 25, 2019 308 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

R9: The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to require, within the next 60 days, the public defense contractors to sign a customary use agreement with the County and, in the case of the alternative public defense contractors, pay reasonable compensation to the County for the use of the space. (F6) 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 X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Within six months, the County will determine if it is necessary to require a customary use agreement for the office space in Watsonville, and study the alternative contractors’ use of the space. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 309 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

F7: When the County provides free office space to a contractor, the Controller’s Office does not know to ask whether the cost of the office space should be included in the contractor’s compensation for tax purposes. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County rents various facilities throughout the County for which the Auditor- Controller’s Office makes the lease payments. The Auditor-Controller did not have a process in place to review each of these leases to determine if any IRS fringe benefit rules would apply for the person or party using the leased space. Such a process will be in place prior to the issuance of 2019 year-end 1099 forms to County vendors. The review process will include seeking legal assistance to review the IRS Fringe Benefit Exclusions instructions to determine if these areas are included or not and what retroactive reporting to the IRS will be required. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 297 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Page 296

F8: The County’s contract policies and standard forms are not integrated with each other, are difficult to use, are not available to the public, are incomplete, and in some cases are poorly written. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County’s policies and procedures are updated twice per year through an open and transparent Board process, and County staff are regularly trained on contracting policies and standard forms. Respond by September 25, 2019 298 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Page 297

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12) 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 Board approves changes to the County’s policies and procedures twice per year. The CAO will evaluate the specific recommendations contained in the report, and make any necessary changes by the end of FY 2019-20. Respond by September 25, 2019

F9: The County’s public defense contracts violated written County policies without consequences. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The primary Public Defender contract was originally written many years ago. Over the years, the County policies have changed, and although the contract has been revised there may be elements of updated contract requirements that are not included. However, no County policies were violated. The County does have a standard Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) that is the preferred medium for professional service agreements. When contracts deviate from this standard, the contract is reviewed by the County Risk Manager and County Counsel, and approved by the Board. Multi-year contracts such as the ones for public defense services are approved annually on the Continuing Agreements List (CAL). The County retains the right to enter into various types of agreements with vendors that provide the desired services. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 299 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Page 298

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12) 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 Board approves changes to the County’s policies and procedures twice per year. The CAO will evaluate the specific recommendations contained in the report, and make any necessary changes by the end of FY 2019-20. Respond by September 25, 2019

F10: Standard forms are an excellent way to implement some County policies, but they must be used to be effective. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Respond by September 25, 2019 300 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Page 299

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12) 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 Board approves changes to the County’s policies and procedures twice per year. The CAO will evaluate the specific recommendations contained in the report, and make any necessary changes by the end of FY 2019-20. Respond by September 25, 2019

F11: County leaders misinterpret the meaning of County Counsel’s approval of a contract “as to form.” AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): County leaders understand that County Counsel is not providing legal advice on a contract when it is “Approved as to form”. Respond by September 25, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 301 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Page 300

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12) 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 Board approves changes to the County’s policies and procedures twice per year. The CAO will evaluate the specific recommendations contained in the report, and make any necessary changes by the end of FY 2019-20. Respond by September 25, 2019

F12: The County lost potentially valuable information when the County destroyed copies of contracts with, and reports submitted by, the public defense contractors. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Auditor-Controller’s Office complies with Accounting Standards & Procedures for Counties record retention policies as issued by the State Controller. There is a potential benefit to permanently keeping all forms of documentation the County produces, however, the risk-benefit analysis performed at the State level provides the Auditor-Controller with guidance for record retention. Respond by September 25, 2019 302 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Page 301

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12) 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 Board approves changes to the County’s policies and procedures twice per year. The CAO will evaluate the specific recommendations contained in the report, and make any necessary changes by the end of FY 2019-20. Respond by September 25, 2019

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

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.

Page 298

📋September 23, 2019 — 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 67 The 2018–2019 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires that the

20 pages 9 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries was inconsistent with the library’s long-standing policy on Confidentiality of Library Records (policy 303, adopted February 2006; revised November 2010) and companion document, “Information We Keep About You.” AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion x DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Libraries take patron privacy very seriously, and most adhere to the American Library Association’s “Library Bill of Rights” (http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill) which includes VII. All people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use. Libraries should advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy, safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information. It is with this lens that libraries constantly think about how much data they want to retain in their ILS, and how much they want to share with trusted vendors. SCPL’s former policy stated: The Santa Cruz City County Library System complies with all sections of the State of California Public Records Act (Protection of Library Circulation and Registration Records, Government Code Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 3.5). That is, all registration and circulation records of library users shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, local, state, or federal agency except by order of the appropriate superior or federal court. The Library also treats patron requests for reference information and records of patron Internet use as confidential. Further, the Library Joint Powers Authority Board regards any inquiry about library use as an invasion of patron privacy. It prohibits staff from giving information about any library use absent a valid order from a superior or federal court or at the discretion of the Library Director. The common sense exception to this rule is when a law enforcement officer describes a situation involving immediate danger. It is not clear how the use of AOD is inconsistent with the Library’s longstanding policy on Confidentiality. The Companion document, “Information We Keep About You” is actually a web page. It will be updated. The Grand Jury concluded that AOD’s use is “permitted under the 2011–2012 version of California law, provided that the third-party vendors working in service of the library.” (p. 7) Respond by September 23, 2019 70 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

Page 69

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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 Santa Cruz Public Libraries Joint Powers Authority approved a new patron privacy policy at their June 2019 meeting after a six month consultation process that included staff groups and citizen members of the Library Advisory Commission. The Pacific Library Partnership, a consortium of 42 Bay area libraries, recently received an LSTA grant to develop California specific training workshops and a resource toolkit for libraries on privacy-related topics surrounding library data privacy and digital safety, including privacy policy and procedure best practices, tips for library staff for working with vendors in sharing patron data, and an overview of the data privacy lifecycle in libraries. The goal is to help libraries improve their policies, processes and procedures regarding patron data retention and sharing of data with vendors. PLP hired a data privacy consultant to develop the workshops and related toolkit and anticipates the workshops will take place between January and April of next year. The initial survey of PLP staff identified the top five topics PLP libraries are interested in are Data Privacy Lifecycle Best Practices; Data Retention Policies/Procedures, CCPA and its Implications; Privacy Policies/Procedures and Vendor Contracting, so PLP will be designing training in those areas. The Santa Cruz Public Libraries plan on participating in this training prior to attempting a rewrite of the current policy. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 79 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

F2: The use of Gale Analytics on Demand, or any other data analytics tool, by Santa Cruz Public Libraries is not clearly addressed in the Library’s newly revised policy, Confidentiality of Library Records & Patron Data Privacy Policy (policy 303, adopted June 6, 2019). AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Library is on the record for discontinuing its use of Gale Analytics on Demand in January 2019. All other third party software products are listed on the Library’s data privacy website. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 71 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

Page 70

Related Recommendations (1)

F3: Santa Cruz Public Libraries did not adequately inform its patrons about the Library’s use of Gale Analytics on Demand or obtain their consent for this use. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): “The Grand Jury initiated its investigation amid concern that SCPL may have violated State law by uploading patron data to the AoD cloud. As explained below, recent changes to the California Government Code should put this concern to rest.” (p. 6) The Grand Jury found, “California laws and regulations are silent on the need for libraries to obtain patron consent when engaging third parties.” (p. 5) They also concluded that AOD’s use is “permitted under the 2011–2012 version of the law, provided that the third-party vendors working in service of the library.” (p. 7) Respond by September 23, 2019 72 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

Page 71

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: SCPL should implement a system for obtaining and managing patron consent for data analytics and other tools that use patron information. (F3) 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 x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Within the library community there is a fundamental discussion taking place on how best to make information services easily accessible while at the same time ensuring that library users are given the opportunity to consent to the use of their personal identifying information. Options range from a lengthy user agreements that must be initialed before a patron can access a website or service to requiring individual opt in authorizations to a laundry list of software products . Decisions in this area will have broad implications for most of the digital resources the Library uses. SCPL staff plan on participating in the PLP training prior to making decisions with broad implications on informing patrons and/or requiring their consent. Respond by September 23, 2019 80 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

R8: SCPL should offer workshops for patrons to explain how the Library uses patron information and to explore related privacy issues. (F3, F4) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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 Santa Cruz Public Libraries has offered a public information series each fall on cybersecurity. Expansion of this series to include patron privacy will occur after participation in the PLP training. Respond by September 23, 2019 86 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries 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

F4: Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without adequately considering the patron privacy aspects of current California law. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): “The Grand Jury initiated its investigation amid concern that SCPL may have violated State law by uploading patron data to the AoD cloud. As explained below, recent changes to the California Government Code should put this concern to rest.” (p. 6) The Grand Jury found, “California laws and regulations are silent on the need for libraries to obtain patron consent when engaging third parties.” (p. 5) Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 73 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

Page 72

Related Recommendations (3)

R3: SCPL management and staff, in coordination with LAC and the JPA board, should stay abreast of changes to state law, especially as it concerns patron privacy and evolving technology, and update Library policies and practices in response to such changes. (F4) 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:  Library staff drafted a new policy that was reviewed by several staff groups, the Library Advisory Commission and approved by the Joint Powers Board in June.  Library IT developed a web page at: https://www.santacruzpl.org/data_privacy/. It has the library’s policies and a list of third party vendors and their privacy agreements with the Library.  The Library has developed a cookies usage statement for patrons visiting our website.  SCPL implemented a data breach procedure. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 81 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

F5: Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without examining the contract for this service, thus raising potential liability issues related to data ownership, data breaches, and patron privacy. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Library relied upon the Pacific Library Partnership, a consortium of 42 Bay area libraries, to negotiate the contract. SCPL will not do this in the future. Respond by September 23, 2019 74 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

Page 73

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: SCPL should review the contracts for all third-party digital services used by the Library, including those provided by library consortia. (F5, F6) 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: Library IT does privacy audits with all third party vendors (including those provided by a library consortia) asking each a list of vendor security questions and publishing their privacy statements for the public to review at: https://www.santacruzpl.org/data_privacy/ Respond by September 23, 2019 82 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

F6: The contract is unclear and does not contain language that protects the interests of the Pacific Library Partnership, its member libraries, and their patrons. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The SCPL no longer uses this product and will forward this report to the Pacific Library Partnership for their edification. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 75 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

Page 74

Related Recommendations (1)

F7: The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries is inconsistent with best practices in the library community regarding patron privacy. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): There are major disagreements within the public library community about the use of big data to improve programs and services. Large libraries systems around the country buy and use AoD and other products like CommunityConnect by CIVICTechnologies. In the Bay area, Sacramento Public used and Oakland Public uses AoD to plan and market programming by branch. Like most government entities, SCPL is faced with a tension between providing relevant and convenient access to its services and the need to ensure the data security and privacy of its users. Respond by September 23, 2019 76 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

Page 75

Related Recommendations (3)

R5: SCPL should adopt guidelines and practices suggested by the American Library Association with regard to patron privacy and data analytics services. (F7) 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 ALA “Privacy Tool Kit,” provides detailed guidance on implementing policies to protect patron privacy. The Library has implemented practices including designating a privacy officer with authority to administer privacy policies, reviewing privacy clauses in contracts with third-party vendors, and conducting privacy audits. ALA recommends that contracts with third-party vendors contain language that explicitly protects the interests of the library and the privacy of its patrons. The Library is currently reviewing their contracts with vendors. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 83 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

R6: SCPL should designate a data privacy officer and give this officer full authority and responsibility to implement and enforce the privacy policy, and to periodically report to the SCPL director, JPA board, LAC, and the public. (F7) 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: SCPL has a data privacy officer. The Library conducts privacy audits of vendors. Results are shared and discussed. Respond by September 23, 2019 84 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

F8: Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without adequately evaluating the effectiveness of the tool. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): SCPL staff experimented with the product to evaluate its effectiveness, primarily in 2017. Staff looked at the income distribution and diversity of our users, mapped the usage of the Capitola branch library, and experimented with marketing a program to long term residents. Staff had mixed reactions as to its efficacy. After staff concerns were expressed, SCPL put a moratorium on any additional use of AoD in 2018. Library leadership voted to end use of the product and delete all files in January 2019. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 77 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

Page 76

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: SCPL should perform a meaningful evaluation of any tool that uses patron information to determine if the benefits outweigh the risks to patron privacy. (F8) 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: Privacy audit findings are shared with the Management Team. The group has chosen not to use vendors based upon these findings. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 85 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

F9: The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries has created disagreement among Library staff concerning the traditional responsibility of libraries to protect patron privacy, the validity of data analytics as a planning tool, and potential security vulnerabilities of the system. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Respond by September 23, 2019 78 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Director, Santa Cruz Public Libraries

Page 77

📋September 23, 2019 — 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 107 The 2018–2019 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires that the

20 pages 9 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries was inconsistent with the library’s long-standing policy on Confidentiality of Library Records (policy 303, adopted February 2006; revised November 2010) and companion document, “Information We Keep About You.” AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion x DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Libraries take patron privacy very seriously, and most adhere to the American Library Association’s “Library Bill of Rights” (http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill) which includes VII. All people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use. Libraries should advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy, safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information. It is with this lens that libraries constantly think about how much data they want to retain in their ILS, and how much they want to share with trusted vendors. SCPL’s former policy stated: The Santa Cruz City County Library System complies with all sections of the State of California Public Records Act (Protection of Library Circulation and Registration Records, Government Code Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 3.5). That is, all registration and circulation records of library users shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, local, state, or federal agency except by order of the appropriate superior or federal court. The Library also treats patron requests for reference information and records of patron Internet use as confidential. Further, the Library Joint Powers Authority Board regards any inquiry about library use as an invasion of patron privacy. It prohibits staff from giving information about any library use absent a valid order from a superior or federal court or at the discretion of the Library Director. The common sense exception to this rule is when a law enforcement officer describes a situation involving immediate danger. It is not clear how the use of AOD is inconsistent with the Library’s longstanding policy on Confidentiality. The Companion document, “Information We Keep About You” is actually a web page. It will be updated. The Grand Jury concluded that AOD’s use is “permitted under the 2011–2012 version of California law, provided that the third-party vendors working in service of the library.” (p. 7) Respond by September 23, 2019 110 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

Page 109

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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 Santa Cruz Public Libraries Joint Powers Authority approved a new patron privacy policy at their June 2019 meeting after a six month consultation process that included staff groups and citizen members of the Library Advisory Commission. The Pacific Library Partnership, a consortium of 42 Bay area libraries, recently received an LSTA grant to develop California specific training workshops and a resource toolkit for libraries on privacy-related topics surrounding library data privacy and digital safety, including privacy policy and procedure best practices, tips for library staff for working with vendors in sharing patron data, and an overview of the data privacy lifecycle in libraries. The goal is to help libraries improve their policies, processes and procedures regarding patron data retention and sharing of data with vendors. PLP hired a data privacy consultant to develop the workshops and related toolkit and anticipates the workshops will take place between January and April of next year. The initial survey of PLP staff identified the top five topics PLP libraries are interested in are Data Privacy Lifecycle Best Practices; Data Retention Policies/Procedures, CCPA and its Implications; Privacy Policies/Procedures and Vendor Contracting, so PLP will be designing training in those areas. The Santa Cruz Public Libraries plan on participating in this training prior to attempting a rewrite of the current policy. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 119 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

F2: The use of Gale Analytics on Demand, or any other data analytics tool, by Santa Cruz Public Libraries is not clearly addressed in the Library’s newly revised policy, Confidentiality of Library Records & Patron Data Privacy Policy (policy 303, adopted June 6, 2019). AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Library is on the record for discontinuing its use of Gale Analytics on Demand in January 2019. All other third party software products are listed on the Library’s data privacy website. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 111 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

Page 110

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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 Santa Cruz Public Libraries Joint Powers Authority approved a new patron privacy policy at their June 2019 meeting after a six month consultation process that included staff groups and citizen members of the Library Advisory Commission. The Pacific Library Partnership, a consortium of 42 Bay area libraries, recently received an LSTA grant to develop California specific training workshops and a resource toolkit for libraries on privacy-related topics surrounding library data privacy and digital safety, including privacy policy and procedure best practices, tips for library staff for working with vendors in sharing patron data, and an overview of the data privacy lifecycle in libraries. The goal is to help libraries improve their policies, processes and procedures regarding patron data retention and sharing of data with vendors. PLP hired a data privacy consultant to develop the workshops and related toolkit and anticipates the workshops will take place between January and April of next year. The initial survey of PLP staff identified the top five topics PLP libraries are interested in are Data Privacy Lifecycle Best Practices; Data Retention Policies/Procedures, CCPA and its Implications; Privacy Policies/Procedures and Vendor Contracting, so PLP will be designing training in those areas. The Santa Cruz Public Libraries plan on participating in this training prior to attempting a rewrite of the current policy. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 119 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

F3: Santa Cruz Public Libraries did not adequately inform its patrons about the Library’s use of Gale Analytics on Demand or obtain their consent for this use. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): “The Grand Jury initiated its investigation amid concern that SCPL may have violated State law by uploading patron data to the AoD cloud. As explained below, recent changes to the California Government Code should put this concern to rest.” (p. 6) The Grand Jury found, “California laws and regulations are silent on the need for libraries to obtain patron consent when engaging third parties.” (p. 5) They also concluded that AOD’s use is “permitted under the 2011–2012 version of the law, provided that the third-party vendors working in service of the library.” (p. 7) Respond by September 23, 2019 112 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

Page 111

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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 Santa Cruz Public Libraries Joint Powers Authority approved a new patron privacy policy at their June 2019 meeting after a six month consultation process that included staff groups and citizen members of the Library Advisory Commission. The Pacific Library Partnership, a consortium of 42 Bay area libraries, recently received an LSTA grant to develop California specific training workshops and a resource toolkit for libraries on privacy-related topics surrounding library data privacy and digital safety, including privacy policy and procedure best practices, tips for library staff for working with vendors in sharing patron data, and an overview of the data privacy lifecycle in libraries. The goal is to help libraries improve their policies, processes and procedures regarding patron data retention and sharing of data with vendors. PLP hired a data privacy consultant to develop the workshops and related toolkit and anticipates the workshops will take place between January and April of next year. The initial survey of PLP staff identified the top five topics PLP libraries are interested in are Data Privacy Lifecycle Best Practices; Data Retention Policies/Procedures, CCPA and its Implications; Privacy Policies/Procedures and Vendor Contracting, so PLP will be designing training in those areas. The Santa Cruz Public Libraries plan on participating in this training prior to attempting a rewrite of the current policy. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 119 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

R8: SCPL should offer workshops for patrons to explain how the Library uses patron information and to explore related privacy issues. (F3, F4) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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: N/A to the LAC Respond by September 23, 2019 126 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission 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

F4: Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without adequately considering the patron privacy aspects of current California law. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): “The Grand Jury initiated its investigation amid concern that SCPL may have violated State law by uploading patron data to the AoD cloud. As explained below, recent changes to the California Government Code should put this concern to rest.” (p. 6) The Grand Jury found, “California laws and regulations are silent on the need for libraries to obtain patron consent when engaging third parties.” (p. 5) Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 113 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

Page 112

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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 Santa Cruz Public Libraries Joint Powers Authority approved a new patron privacy policy at their June 2019 meeting after a six month consultation process that included staff groups and citizen members of the Library Advisory Commission. The Pacific Library Partnership, a consortium of 42 Bay area libraries, recently received an LSTA grant to develop California specific training workshops and a resource toolkit for libraries on privacy-related topics surrounding library data privacy and digital safety, including privacy policy and procedure best practices, tips for library staff for working with vendors in sharing patron data, and an overview of the data privacy lifecycle in libraries. The goal is to help libraries improve their policies, processes and procedures regarding patron data retention and sharing of data with vendors. PLP hired a data privacy consultant to develop the workshops and related toolkit and anticipates the workshops will take place between January and April of next year. The initial survey of PLP staff identified the top five topics PLP libraries are interested in are Data Privacy Lifecycle Best Practices; Data Retention Policies/Procedures, CCPA and its Implications; Privacy Policies/Procedures and Vendor Contracting, so PLP will be designing training in those areas. The Santa Cruz Public Libraries plan on participating in this training prior to attempting a rewrite of the current policy. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 119 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

R3: SCPL management and staff, in coordination with LAC and the JPA board, should stay abreast of changes to state law, especially as it concerns patron privacy and evolving technology, and update Library policies and practices in response to such changes. (F4) 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:  Library staff drafted a new policy that was reviewed by several staff groups, the Library Advisory Commission and approved by the Joint Powers Board in June.  Library IT developed a web page at: https://www.santacruzpl.org/data_privacy/. It has the library’s policies and a list of third party vendors and their privacy agreements with the Library.  The Library has developed a cookies usage statement for patrons visiting our website.  SCPL implemented a data breach procedure. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 121 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

R8: SCPL should offer workshops for patrons to explain how the Library uses patron information and to explore related privacy issues. (F3, F4) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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: N/A to the LAC Respond by September 23, 2019 126 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission 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

F5: Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without examining the contract for this service, thus raising potential liability issues related to data ownership, data breaches, and patron privacy. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): N/A to the LAC Respond by September 23, 2019 114 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

Page 113

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: SCPL should review the contracts for all third-party digital services used by the Library, including those provided by library consortia. (F5, F6) 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: N/A to the LAC Respond by September 23, 2019 122 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

F6: The contract is unclear and does not contain language that protects the interests of the Pacific Library Partnership, its member libraries, and their patrons. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): N/A to the LAC Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 115 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

Page 114

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: SCPL should review the contracts for all third-party digital services used by the Library, including those provided by library consortia. (F5, F6) 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: N/A to the LAC Respond by September 23, 2019 122 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

F7: The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries is inconsistent with best practices in the library community regarding patron privacy. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): There are major disagreements within the public library community about the use of big data to improve programs and services. Large libraries systems around the country buy and use AoD and other products like CommunityConnect by CIVICTechnologies. In the Bay area, Sacramento Public used and Oakland Public uses AoD to plan and market programming by branch. Like most government entities, SCPL is faced with a tension between providing relevant and convenient access to its services and the need to ensure the data security and privacy of its users. Respond by September 23, 2019 116 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

Page 115

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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 Santa Cruz Public Libraries Joint Powers Authority approved a new patron privacy policy at their June 2019 meeting after a six month consultation process that included staff groups and citizen members of the Library Advisory Commission. The Pacific Library Partnership, a consortium of 42 Bay area libraries, recently received an LSTA grant to develop California specific training workshops and a resource toolkit for libraries on privacy-related topics surrounding library data privacy and digital safety, including privacy policy and procedure best practices, tips for library staff for working with vendors in sharing patron data, and an overview of the data privacy lifecycle in libraries. The goal is to help libraries improve their policies, processes and procedures regarding patron data retention and sharing of data with vendors. PLP hired a data privacy consultant to develop the workshops and related toolkit and anticipates the workshops will take place between January and April of next year. The initial survey of PLP staff identified the top five topics PLP libraries are interested in are Data Privacy Lifecycle Best Practices; Data Retention Policies/Procedures, CCPA and its Implications; Privacy Policies/Procedures and Vendor Contracting, so PLP will be designing training in those areas. The Santa Cruz Public Libraries plan on participating in this training prior to attempting a rewrite of the current policy. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 119 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

R5: SCPL should adopt guidelines and practices suggested by the American Library Association with regard to patron privacy and data analytics services. (F7) 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 ALA “Privacy Tool Kit,” provides detailed guidance on implementing policies to protect patron privacy. The Library has implemented practices including designating a privacy officer with authority to administer privacy policies, reviewing privacy clauses in contracts with third-party vendors, and conducting privacy audits. ALA recommends that contracts with third-party vendors contain language that explicitly protects the interests of the library and the privacy of its patrons. The Library is currently reviewing their contracts with vendors. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 123 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

R6: SCPL should designate a data privacy officer and give this officer full authority and responsibility to implement and enforce the privacy policy, and to periodically report to the SCPL director, JPA board, LAC, and the public. (F7) 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: N/A to the LAC Respond by September 23, 2019 124 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

Page 116

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: SCPL should perform a meaningful evaluation of any tool that uses patron information to determine if the benefits outweigh the risks to patron privacy. (F8) 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: N/A to the LAC Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 125 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

F9: The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries has created disagreement among Library staff concerning the traditional responsibility of libraries to protect patron privacy, the validity of data analytics as a planning tool, and potential security vulnerabilities of the system. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): N/A to the LAC Respond by September 23, 2019 118 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Advisory Commission

Page 117

📋September 23, 2019 — 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 87 The 2018–2019 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires that the

20 pages 9 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries was inconsistent with the library’s long-standing policy on Confidentiality of Library Records (policy 303, adopted February 2006; revised November 2010) and companion document, “Information We Keep About You.” AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion x DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Libraries take patron privacy very seriously, and most adhere to the American Library Association’s “Library Bill of Rights” (http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill) which includes VII. All people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use. Libraries should advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy, safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information. It is with this lens that libraries constantly think about how much data they want to retain in their ILS, and how much they want to share with trusted vendors. SCPL’s former policy stated: The Santa Cruz City County Library System complies with all sections of the State of California Public Records Act (Protection of Library Circulation and Registration Records, Government Code Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 3.5). That is, all registration and circulation records of library users shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, local, state, or federal agency except by order of the appropriate superior or federal court. The Library also treats patron requests for reference information and records of patron Internet use as confidential. Further, the Library Joint Powers Authority Board regards any inquiry about library use as an invasion of patron privacy. It prohibits staff from giving information about any library use absent a valid order from a superior or federal court or at the discretion of the Library Director. The common sense exception to this rule is when a law enforcement officer describes a situation involving immediate danger. It is not clear how the use of AOD is inconsistent with the Library’s longstanding policy on Confidentiality. The Companion document, “Information We Keep About You” is actually a web page. It will be updated. The Grand Jury concluded that AOD’s use is “permitted under the 2011–2012 version of California law, provided that the third-party vendors working in service of the library.” (p. 7) Respond by September 23, 2019 90 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

Page 89

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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 Santa Cruz Public Libraries Joint Powers Authority approved a new patron privacy policy at their June 2019 meeting after a six month consultation process that included staff groups and citizen members of the Library Advisory Commission. The Pacific Library Partnership, a consortium of 42 Bay area libraries, recently received an LSTA grant to develop California specific training workshops and a resource toolkit for libraries on privacy-related topics surrounding library data privacy and digital safety, including privacy policy and procedure best practices, tips for library staff for working with vendors in sharing patron data, and an overview of the data privacy lifecycle in libraries. The goal is to help libraries improve their policies, processes and procedures regarding patron data retention and sharing of data with vendors. PLP hired a data privacy consultant to develop the workshops and related toolkit and anticipates the workshops will take place between January and April of next year. The initial survey of PLP staff identified the top five topics PLP libraries are interested in are Data Privacy Lifecycle Best Practices; Data Retention Policies/Procedures, CCPA and its Implications; Privacy Policies/Procedures and Vendor Contracting, so PLP will be designing training in those areas. The Santa Cruz Public Libraries plan on participating in this training prior to attempting a rewrite of the current policy. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 99 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

F2: The use of Gale Analytics on Demand, or any other data analytics tool, by Santa Cruz Public Libraries is not clearly addressed in the Library’s newly revised policy, Confidentiality of Library Records & Patron Data Privacy Policy (policy 303, adopted June 6, 2019). AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Library is on the record for discontinuing its use of Gale Analytics on Demand in January 2019. All other third party software products are listed on the Library’s data privacy website. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 91 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

Page 90

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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 Santa Cruz Public Libraries Joint Powers Authority approved a new patron privacy policy at their June 2019 meeting after a six month consultation process that included staff groups and citizen members of the Library Advisory Commission. The Pacific Library Partnership, a consortium of 42 Bay area libraries, recently received an LSTA grant to develop California specific training workshops and a resource toolkit for libraries on privacy-related topics surrounding library data privacy and digital safety, including privacy policy and procedure best practices, tips for library staff for working with vendors in sharing patron data, and an overview of the data privacy lifecycle in libraries. The goal is to help libraries improve their policies, processes and procedures regarding patron data retention and sharing of data with vendors. PLP hired a data privacy consultant to develop the workshops and related toolkit and anticipates the workshops will take place between January and April of next year. The initial survey of PLP staff identified the top five topics PLP libraries are interested in are Data Privacy Lifecycle Best Practices; Data Retention Policies/Procedures, CCPA and its Implications; Privacy Policies/Procedures and Vendor Contracting, so PLP will be designing training in those areas. The Santa Cruz Public Libraries plan on participating in this training prior to attempting a rewrite of the current policy. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 99 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

F3: Santa Cruz Public Libraries did not adequately inform its patrons about the Library’s use of Gale Analytics on Demand or obtain their consent for this use. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): “The Grand Jury initiated its investigation amid concern that SCPL may have violated State law by uploading patron data to the AoD cloud. As explained below, recent changes to the California Government Code should put this concern to rest.” (p. 6) The Grand Jury found, “California laws and regulations are silent on the need for libraries to obtain patron consent when engaging third parties.” (p. 5) They also concluded that AOD’s use is “permitted under the 2011–2012 version of the law, provided that the third-party vendors working in service of the library.” (p. 7) Respond by September 23, 2019 92 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

Page 91

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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 Santa Cruz Public Libraries Joint Powers Authority approved a new patron privacy policy at their June 2019 meeting after a six month consultation process that included staff groups and citizen members of the Library Advisory Commission. The Pacific Library Partnership, a consortium of 42 Bay area libraries, recently received an LSTA grant to develop California specific training workshops and a resource toolkit for libraries on privacy-related topics surrounding library data privacy and digital safety, including privacy policy and procedure best practices, tips for library staff for working with vendors in sharing patron data, and an overview of the data privacy lifecycle in libraries. The goal is to help libraries improve their policies, processes and procedures regarding patron data retention and sharing of data with vendors. PLP hired a data privacy consultant to develop the workshops and related toolkit and anticipates the workshops will take place between January and April of next year. The initial survey of PLP staff identified the top five topics PLP libraries are interested in are Data Privacy Lifecycle Best Practices; Data Retention Policies/Procedures, CCPA and its Implications; Privacy Policies/Procedures and Vendor Contracting, so PLP will be designing training in those areas. The Santa Cruz Public Libraries plan on participating in this training prior to attempting a rewrite of the current policy. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 99 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

R8: SCPL should offer workshops for patrons to explain how the Library uses patron information and to explore related privacy issues. (F3, F4) 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: N/A for LJPA Respond by September 23, 2019 106 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board 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

F4: Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without adequately considering the patron privacy aspects of current California law. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): “The Grand Jury initiated its investigation amid concern that SCPL may have violated State law by uploading patron data to the AoD cloud. As explained below, recent changes to the California Government Code should put this concern to rest.” (p. 6) The Grand Jury found, “California laws and regulations are silent on the need for libraries to obtain patron consent when engaging third parties.” (p. 5) Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 93 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

Page 92

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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 Santa Cruz Public Libraries Joint Powers Authority approved a new patron privacy policy at their June 2019 meeting after a six month consultation process that included staff groups and citizen members of the Library Advisory Commission. The Pacific Library Partnership, a consortium of 42 Bay area libraries, recently received an LSTA grant to develop California specific training workshops and a resource toolkit for libraries on privacy-related topics surrounding library data privacy and digital safety, including privacy policy and procedure best practices, tips for library staff for working with vendors in sharing patron data, and an overview of the data privacy lifecycle in libraries. The goal is to help libraries improve their policies, processes and procedures regarding patron data retention and sharing of data with vendors. PLP hired a data privacy consultant to develop the workshops and related toolkit and anticipates the workshops will take place between January and April of next year. The initial survey of PLP staff identified the top five topics PLP libraries are interested in are Data Privacy Lifecycle Best Practices; Data Retention Policies/Procedures, CCPA and its Implications; Privacy Policies/Procedures and Vendor Contracting, so PLP will be designing training in those areas. The Santa Cruz Public Libraries plan on participating in this training prior to attempting a rewrite of the current policy. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 99 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

R3: SCPL management and staff, in coordination with LAC and the JPA board, should stay abreast of changes to state law, especially as it concerns patron privacy and evolving technology, and update Library policies and practices in response to such changes. (F4) 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:  Library staff drafted a new policy that was reviewed by several staff groups, the Library Advisory Commission and approved by the Joint Powers Board in June.  Library IT developed a web page at: https://www.santacruzpl.org/data_privacy/. It has the library’s policies and a list of third party vendors and their privacy agreements with the Library.  The Library has developed a cookies usage statement for patrons visiting our website.  SCPL implemented a data breach procedure. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 101 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

R8: SCPL should offer workshops for patrons to explain how the Library uses patron information and to explore related privacy issues. (F3, F4) 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: N/A for LJPA Respond by September 23, 2019 106 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board 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

F5: Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without examining the contract for this service, thus raising potential liability issues related to data ownership, data breaches, and patron privacy. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Library relied upon the Pacific Library Partnership, a consortium of 42 Bay area libraries, to negotiate the contract. SCPL will not do this in the future. Respond by September 23, 2019 94 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

Page 93

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: SCPL should review the contracts for all third-party digital services used by the Library, including those provided by library consortia. (F5, F6) 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: N/A for LJPA Respond by September 23, 2019 102 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

F6: The contract is unclear and does not contain language that protects the interests of the Pacific Library Partnership, its member libraries, and their patrons. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): N/A for LJPA Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 95 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

Page 94

Related Recommendations (1)

F7: The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries is inconsistent with best practices in the library community regarding patron privacy. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): There are major disagreements within the public library community about the use of big data to improve programs and services. Large libraries systems around the country buy and use AoD and other products like CommunityConnect by CIVICTechnologies. In the Bay area, Sacramento Public used and Oakland Public uses AoD to plan and market programming by branch. Like most government entities, SCPL is faced with a tension between providing relevant and convenient access to its services and the need to ensure the data security and privacy of its users. Respond by September 23, 2019 96 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

Page 95

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done x 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 Santa Cruz Public Libraries Joint Powers Authority approved a new patron privacy policy at their June 2019 meeting after a six month consultation process that included staff groups and citizen members of the Library Advisory Commission. The Pacific Library Partnership, a consortium of 42 Bay area libraries, recently received an LSTA grant to develop California specific training workshops and a resource toolkit for libraries on privacy-related topics surrounding library data privacy and digital safety, including privacy policy and procedure best practices, tips for library staff for working with vendors in sharing patron data, and an overview of the data privacy lifecycle in libraries. The goal is to help libraries improve their policies, processes and procedures regarding patron data retention and sharing of data with vendors. PLP hired a data privacy consultant to develop the workshops and related toolkit and anticipates the workshops will take place between January and April of next year. The initial survey of PLP staff identified the top five topics PLP libraries are interested in are Data Privacy Lifecycle Best Practices; Data Retention Policies/Procedures, CCPA and its Implications; Privacy Policies/Procedures and Vendor Contracting, so PLP will be designing training in those areas. The Santa Cruz Public Libraries plan on participating in this training prior to attempting a rewrite of the current policy. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 99 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

R5: SCPL should adopt guidelines and practices suggested by the American Library Association with regard to patron privacy and data analytics services. (F7) 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: N/A for LJPA Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 103 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

R6: SCPL should designate a data privacy officer and give this officer full authority and responsibility to implement and enforce the privacy policy, and to periodically report to the SCPL director, JPA board, LAC, and the public. (F7) 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: SCPL has a data privacy officer. The Library conducts privacy audits of vendors. Results are shared and discussed. Respond by September 23, 2019 104 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

F8: Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without adequately evaluating the effectiveness of the tool. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): N/A for LJPA Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 97 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

Page 96

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: SCPL should perform a meaningful evaluation of any tool that uses patron information to determine if the benefits outweigh the risks to patron privacy. (F8) 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: N/A for LJPA Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 105 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

F9: The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries has created disagreement among Library staff concerning the traditional responsibility of libraries to protect patron privacy, the validity of data analytics as a planning tool, and potential security vulnerabilities of the system. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): N/A for LJPA Respond by September 23, 2019 98 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library Joint Powers Authority Board

Page 97

📋September 23, 2019 — o Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

14 pages 5 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

Page 149

Related Recommendations (1)

Page 150

Related Recommendations (1)

Page 151

Related Recommendations (1)

Page 152

Related Recommendations (1)

Page 153

Related Recommendations (1)

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 151

📋September 23, 2019 — 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 159 Grand Jury Santa Cruz County Probation Response to Grand Jury

14 pages 5 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Deputy Probation Officers’ (DPOs’) lack of safety equipment impedes their ability to do their assigned field visits without jeopardizing their own safety. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Sworn staff are equipped with duty belts, gloves, search kits, body armor, identifiable clothing, badges, flashlights, radios, radio holders, handcuffs and holder, equipment bags, duty shirts and pepper spray. Additionally, our staff are provided annual safety training at a minimum of 16 hours per FY. Lastly, as of July 2019, Narcan kits are available for checkout. The department is in the process of seeking grant opportunities to supply Narcan to individual staff. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 163 Santa Cruz County Probation Santa Cruz County Chief Probation Officer

Page 162

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Department should provide Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) with standardized safety gear (individually fitted vests, functioning radios, tasers, OC spray, identifiable clothing, and Narcan™) for their field visits. (F1) 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: Sworn staff are equipped with duty belts, gloves, search kits, body armor, identifiable clothing, badges, flashlights, radios, radio holders, handcuffs and holder, equipment bags, duty shirts and pepper spray. Tasers will be implemented in 2019 provided all materials are available from the manufacturer. In FY 19/20, the department will be ordering individually fitted vests over time and as fiscally allowable. Narcan is available for checkout as of July 2019. Respond by September 23, 2019 168 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County Probation Santa Cruz County Chief Probation Officer

F2: The Department collects and stores but does not track serious incident reports involving DPOs with offenders. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The department follows a process whereby Incident Reports (IR) are received and reviewed by a Manager; collected and scanned by the Chief’s Administrative Assistant and placed in a shared electronic folder. Prior to each Safety Committee meeting, all participants from the POA and Management team have access to review said IRs. The POA participants have an opportunity to decide which IRs are worthy of discussion and review during the meeting, as well as any needed follow up. As a result of these meetings, the IR form has been enhanced to include more detailed areas for follow up and debriefing when needed (with a Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threats - SWOT analysis model noted for consistency in response). Respond by September 23, 2019 164 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County Probation Santa Cruz County Chief Probation Officer

Page 163

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Department should commission a needs assessment by an independent consultant to ascertain the potential harm to unarmed officers doing field work with high-risk offenders, with a focus on developing an armed unit. (F2, F5) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Department is not aware of any research that supports arming probation officers increases safety. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 171 Santa Cruz County Probation Santa Cruz County Chief Probation Officer 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

F3: The Department meets the minimum state requirements for annual DPO training, but does not provide sufficient safety training for DPOs in the field. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The department offers ongoing safety training and since August 2018, has had an active Field Training Pilot program that is facilitated by DPO II/IIIs who have completed the POST certified Field Training Officers (FTO) Program. The FTO training hours are in addition to the STC certified CORE Probation Training at a mandated minimum of 190 hours - with significant portions focused on field safety/field readiness), and PC 832 Laws of Arrest training (40 hours) required by all new DPOs within their first year. Although the department is required to provide no less than 16 hours of safety related training per the MOU, for the past three fiscal years between 28 – 42 hours of safety related training has been offered (including 4 hours each of CPR/FIRST AID). Multiple trainings are offered repeatedly throughout the year to allow staff the opportunity to attend more than once for additional exposure if desired (for example: defensive tactics / weaponless defensive tactics). 28 hours FY18/19 (in addition to the FTO program) 42 hours FY17/18 32 hours FY16/17 Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 165 Santa Cruz County Probation Santa Cruz County Chief Probation Officer

Page 164

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Department should provide all DPOs with mandatory initial and ongoing field safety training in collaboration with the Safety Committee. (F3) 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: In August 2018, the Department implemented a Pilot Field Training Program with DPO II/III staff trained as Field Training Officers. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 169 Santa Cruz County Probation Santa Cruz County Chief Probation Officer

F4: Law enforcement is not always available to accompany DPOs in high-risk situations, resulting in fewer contact visits by DPOs. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Law enforcement officers are always available to assist probation officers with high-risk work, but there may be significant wait times based on other public safety priorities. Respond by September 23, 2019 166 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County Probation Santa Cruz County Chief Probation Officer

Page 165

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Department should coordinate with local law enforcement to develop policies and procedures for law enforcement officers to accompany DPOs during field visits. (F4) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done X 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 Sheriff and Chief Probation Officer have agreed to assign a full-time deputy to the Probation Department to assist probation officers with higher-risk assignments including searches, arrests, transportation and other work prioritized by the Probation Department. The County Board of Supervisors approved funding for one additional deputy for this purpose for the 2019-2020 fiscal year budget. The Sheriff and Chief Probation Officer will work together toward implementation. The assigned deputy is scheduled to start with the Probation Department in September 2019. Respond by September 23, 2019 170 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Santa Cruz County Probation Santa Cruz County Chief Probation Officer

Page 166

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Department should commission a needs assessment by an independent consultant to ascertain the potential harm to unarmed officers doing field work with high-risk offenders, with a focus on developing an armed unit. (F2, F5) 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) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Department is not aware of any research that supports arming probation officers increases safety. Respond by September 23, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 171 Santa Cruz County Probation Santa Cruz County Chief Probation Officer 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

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 164

📋June 27, 2019 — 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 193 Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts How Complex Contracts

94 pages 12 findings 28 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: The County Administrative Office lacks the resources necessary to be the sole administrator of major contracts such as the public defense contracts.

Page 247

Related Recommendations (1)

F2: Negotiating multi-year, fixed price contracts for public defender services has cost the County several millions of dollars and created a windfall for public defense contractors.

Page 247

Related Recommendations (1)

Page 247

Related Recommendations (1)

F4: The County’s portrayal of its public defense services is not transparent.

Page 247

Related Recommendations (2)

Page 247

Related Recommendations (3)

F6: The County’s duty to fund public defense services does not require the County to provide public defense contractors with free office space.

Page 247

Related Recommendations (3)

Page 247

Related Recommendations (1)

Page 247

Related Recommendations (15)

R13: The County should present the online version of the Policies and Procedures Manual in a manner comparable to the online version of the County Code. (F8)

F9: The County’s public defense contracts violated written County policies without consequences.

Page 247

Related Recommendations (1)

F10: Standard forms are an excellent way to implement some County policies, but they must be used to be effective.

Page 247

Related Recommendations (1)

F11: County leaders misinterpret the meaning of County Counsel’s approval of a contract “as to form.”

Page 247

Related Recommendations (2)

F12: The County lost potentially valuable information when the County destroyed copies of contracts with, and reports submitted by, the public defense contractors.

Page 247

Related Recommendations (2)

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R59: They were not. After examining the work papers for Schedule 9, the Grand Jury prepared Figure 18, the Grand Jury’s understanding of the County’s public defense services. F igure 18: The Grand Jury’s Understanding of the County’s Unit 59 Budget Source: Schedule 9 work papers;

Page 195

📋June 25, 2019 — 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 127 Santa Cruz County Probation Officers Inadequately Equipped and At

18 pages 5 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Deputy Probation Officers’ (DPOs’) lack of safety equipment impedes their ability to do their assigned field visits without jeopardizing their own safety.

Page 138

Related Recommendations (1)

F2: The Department collects and stores, but does not track serious incident reports involving DPOs with offenders.

Page 138

Related Recommendations (1)

F3: The Department meets the minimum state requirements for annual DPO training, but does not provide sufficient safety training for DPOs in the field.

Page 138

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Department should provide all DPOs with mandatory initial and ongoing field safety training in collaboration with the Safety Committee. (F3)

F4: Law enforcement is not always available to accompany DPOs in high-risk situations, resulting in fewer contact visits by DPOs.

Page 138

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Department should coordinate with local law enforcement to develop policies and procedures for law enforcement officers to accompany DPOs during field visits. (F4)

F5: The failure of the Department to include an armed unit supporting DPOs increases safety risks to DPOs in the field.

Page 138

Related Recommendations (1)

📋June 24, 2019 — 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 43 Patron Privacy at Santa Cruz Public Libraries Trust and

24 pages 9 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries was inconsistent with the Library’s long-standing policy on Confidentiality of Library Records (policy 303, adopted February 2006; revised November 2010) and companion document, “Information We Keep About You.”

Page 55

Related Recommendations (1)

Page 55

Related Recommendations (1)

F3: Santa Cruz Public Libraries did not adequately inform its patrons about the Library’s use of Gale Analytics on Demand or obtain their consent for this use.

Page 55

Related Recommendations (1)

F4: Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without adequately considering the patron privacy aspects of current California law.

Page 55

Related Recommendations (2)

Page 55

F6: The contract is unclear and does not contain language that protects the interests of the Pacific Library Partnership, its member libraries, and their patrons.

Page 55

F7: The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries is inconsistent with best practices in the library community regarding patron privacy.

Page 55

Related Recommendations (1)

F8: Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without adequately evaluating the effectiveness of the tool.

Page 55

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: SCPL should implement a system for obtaining and managing patron consent for data analytics and other tools that use patron information. (F3) Published June 24, 2019 56 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury

Page 55

R4: SCPL should review the contracts for all third-party digital services used by the Library, including those provided by library consortia. (F5, F6)

Page 56

R5: SCPL should adopt guidelines and practices suggested by the American Library Association with regard to patron privacy and data analytics services. (F7)

Page 56

R7: SCPL should perform a meaningful evaluation of any tool that uses patron information to determine if the benefits outweigh the risks to patron privacy. (F8)

Page 56

R8: SCPL should offer workshops for patrons to explain how the Library uses patron information and to explore related privacy issues. (F3, F4)

Page 56

📋June 19, 2019 — 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 7 2018–2019 Detention Facilities Inspection Report

8 pages 4 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: Drugs continue to come into all facilities undetected.

Page 13

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Sheriff’s Department should research and evaluate body scanning equipment to detect drugs coming into facilities. (F1)

F2: Overcrowding continues to be an issue at the Main Jail with no-long term solution in place. (See Grand Jury reports from 2013–2014, 2014–2015, and 2016–2017.)

Page 13

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Sheriff’s Department and Board of Supervisors should evaluate long-term solutions to the overcrowded Main Jail, including bond measures to replace or renovate the facility. (F2)

F3: Ongoing staff shortages and unfilled positions result in mandatory overtime.

Page 13

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Sheriff’s Department and Board of Supervisors should address the effects of mandatory staff overtime. (F3)

F4: Many detention facility staff commute long distances because local housing is unaffordable, increasing staff stress.

Page 13

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Sheriff’s Department and Board of Supervisors should explore options for subsidized housing to reduce the number of staff commuting long distances due to unaffordable local housing. (F4)

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: The Sheriff’s Department should, within the next six months, set a target date for implementing the recommendations in this report.

Page 13

June 27, 2018 — Honoring Commitments to the Public Review of 2015-16 Grand Jury Report Responses

19 pages 16 findings 8 recommendations

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.

F5: The Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled its commitment to hold annual strategy meetings and address strategic plans and priorities.

Related Recommendations (1)

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.

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.

Related Recommendations (1)

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]

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.

Related Recommendations (1)

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.

Related Recommendations (1)

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.

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.

Related Recommendations (1)

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. 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]

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.

Related Recommendations (1)

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 4

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. 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

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-

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:

June 19, 2018 — These Are Our Children Responding to Youth Homelessness in Santa Cruz County

18 pages 5 findings 5 recommendations

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)

June 12, 2018 — Our Public Defender System Anticipating Structural Change

18 pages 2 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F1: Santa Cruz County has not chosen to quantitatively measure contract public defender performance to ensure adequate representation for defendants who cannot afford an attorney, and therefore has no experience in doing so.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should establish a commission that includes qualified stakeholders to identify performance measures the County should collect with respect to public defender performance. (F1, F2)

F2: Without measuring the performance of the current contract public defender system, Santa Cruz County will not be able to meaningfully compare the result of transitioning to a different public defender system.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: The County should begin to collect performance data on contract public defender performance, ideally within one year, so that the County has a baseline on which to measure future public defender performance. (F2) Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By Santa Cruz County 90 Days

June 07, 2018 — Data-Driven Budgeting New Ways To Get Better Results

14 pages 5 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

May 31, 2018 — San Lorenzo Valley Water District Encouraging the Flow of Information to the Public

23 pages 3 findings 73 recommendations

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)

R7: The District should record all Board and committee meetings, and post the recordings online for public access. (F3)

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

May 17, 2018 — Mental Health Crisis Seeking An Integrated Response

10 pages 6 findings 5 recommendations

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.

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)

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)

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.

April 12, 2018 — “Assessing the Threat of Violence in our Public Schools: Is enough being done?”[1] The

9 pages 4 findings 2 recommendations

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)

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)