Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2019-2020
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 (5)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
County and City website information is sometimes missing, out-of-date, and inaccurate; links may be broken. Thus, many city and county departments aren't updating their websites often enough to keep citizens informed.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. (F1, F2, F5)
R2:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish a protocol to be exercised quarterly, beginning January 2021, which requires department heads to confirm via documentation (initial a spreadsheet, for example) that they have verified the accuracy of their department's web information (F1, F2, F3)
F2:
County and City administrations lack a process to review content accuracy and currency and thereby assure timely correction and revision of content.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. (F1, F2, F5)
R2:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish a protocol to be exercised quarterly, beginning January 2021, which requires department heads to confirm via documentation (initial a spreadsheet, for example) that they have verified the accuracy of their department's web information (F1, F2, F3)
F3:
County and City goals for website redesign or quality improvement are not sufficiently “SMART”: Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time-Bound.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish a protocol to be exercised quarterly, beginning January 2021, which requires department heads to confirm via documentation (initial a spreadsheet, for example) that they have verified the accuracy of their department's web information (F1, F2, F3)
R3:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish ‘SMART’ goals for website quality assurance and manage these goals beginning in 2021. (F3, F4, F5)
F4:
The County does not have a notification system by which users can be alerted to updated web content. The County's website would be enhanced by the addition of a site-wide notification system.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish ‘SMART’ goals for website quality assurance and manage these goals beginning in 2021. (F3, F4, F5)
R4:
County ISD should provide a notification system similar to the city of Santa Cruz by June 2021 whereby users receive email or text messages when updated web information is available. (F4) Published June 16, 2020 12 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R5:
The City of Santa Cruz City Manager should perform a lessons learned activity and then update the City’s relevant policies and operating procedures to avoid a future repeat of the DeLaveaga Golf Course’s restaurant/lodge shutdown and renovation no later than second quarter 2021. (F4)
F5:
County and City website content providers do not provide an explanation in content for incorrect or out-of-date information, even though they appear to know the reasons.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. (F1, F2, F5)
R3:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish ‘SMART’ goals for website quality assurance and manage these goals beginning in 2021. (F3, F4, F5)
R6:
The City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation Department and the City of Santa Cruz City Manager should add a formal process to the Operation Plan by addressing needed capital improvements, maintenance schedules, facility inspections, water use, variable pricing, charitable policies, operations review, and basic stakeholder roles and responsibilities. Stakeholders include the Santa Cruz City Council, the City’s Parks and Recreation Department, the City’s Parks & Recreation Commission, the Operator, the DeLaveaga Golf Course Superintendent, the City’s Building Department and the City’s Public Works Department. (F5)
F6:
The DeLaveaga Golf Course website is not up to date and should include all current information regarding costs to various players and groups such as discounted youth green fees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The City of Santa Cruz’s Parks and Recreation Department should validate that delaveagagolf.com includes youth pricing and current information regarding DeLaveaga’s restaurant and golf course by the end of 2020. (F6)
F7:
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not adequately evaluate the possible interactions between risks that may inhibit or enhance the objectives of each city.
F8:
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk. Published June 19, 2020 2019–2020 Consolidated Final Report 77
F9:
RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9)
F10:
RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government.
F11:
GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11)
F12:
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA.
F13:
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R11:
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8,
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
F4:
The County’s portrayal of its public defense services is not transparent.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
F6:
The County’s duty to fund public defense services does not require the County to provide public defense contractors with free office space.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
F9:
The County’s public defense contracts violated written County policies without consequences.
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)
F10:
Standard forms are an excellent way to implement some County policies, but they must be used to be effective.
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)
F11:
County leaders misinterpret the meaning of County Counsel’s approval of a contract “as to form.”
Related Recommendations (2)
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)
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)
F12:
The County lost potentially valuable information when the County destroyed copies of contracts with, and reports submitted by, the public defense contractors.
Related Recommendations (2)
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)
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 the records. (F12)
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;
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.
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)
F2:
The Department collects and stores, but does not track serious incident reports involving DPOs with offenders.
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)
F3:
The Department meets the minimum state requirements for annual DPO training, but does not provide sufficient safety training for DPOs in the field.
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.
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.
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)
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.”
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)
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).
Related Recommendations (2)
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)
R2:
SCPL should implement a system for obtaining and managing patron consent for data analytics and other tools that use patron information. (F 3)
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.
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)
F4:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without adequately considering the patron privacy aspects of current California law.
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)
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)
R4:
SCPL should review the contracts for all third-party digital services used by the Library, including those provided by library consortia. (F 5, F6)
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
SCPL should adopt guidelines and practices suggested by the American Library Association with regard to patron privacy and data analytics services. (F 7)
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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. (F 7)
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.
Related Recommendations (2)
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)
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. (F 8)
F8:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without adequately evaluating the effectiveness of the tool.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
SCPL should offer workshops for patrons to explain how the Library uses patron information and to explore related privacy issues. (F 3, F4)
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.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Drugs continue to come into all facilities undetected.
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.)
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.
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.
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.